"Occupy" Protests

TheDoctor, I make about 12 bucks an hour. My mom is 60 and still works. Her husband is 73 and still works. We are not rich. The one making false assumptions is you. The one painting whole lots of people with the same brush is you. That's why I fear the likes of you: you don't see people as individuals but as belonging to a group, and they only have value because they belong to a group. You are dangerous. In order to save the world, or your idea of the world, you would 't stop at anything. You are scary.

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Sending jobs overseas is selling out America? I didn't realize people were obligated to provide jobs for certain countries.  It is when they do it to line their already overstuffed pockets.  It should be considered treason, by my reckoning.

thellama73 wrote: The Doctor wrote: thellama73 wrote: I can never understand this idea so many seem to have that if someone else has more money than you, that means you are "oppressed" and somehow not free. Freedom is not about having stuff. It's about being able to make your own choices without someone else using force against you. If someone takes my house away from me with guns, that is not the same thing as if I simply don't earn enough money to buy a house. Going to exaggerate here a bit, but take it as an extreme hypothetical situation.  I work for a company for 20 years and then my company sells out America by shipping most of its jobs overseas.  I lose my job.  Now, I haven't been able to save up a lot of money because, in spite of my longevity with the company, I was paid low wages so that the CEO and stockholders would get most of the profits from MY labor (I consider this theft personally).  This puts me in a very bad situation.  I will run out of money in a few weeks, and my only other option is that someone has offered me a job at $2.00 an hour and if I don't live up to daily quotas for my work, I will be subject to daily beatings.  My choices are therefore starvation or slavery.  That IS oppression.  Again, I have exaggerated, but the basic principle is sound.  Those with money have ALL the bargaining power and I have none.  That is not freedom, but oppression. MoM.  I believe the above applies to your response as well.  No one has a duty to offer you work. It's your responsibility to develop skills that other people will pay for. A company voluntarily offers you work, but you feel it is too low paying. That company is not oppressing you. You are free to seek opportunity elsewhere. They didn't have to offer you anything. If you quit your job, you leave the company with a hole it needs to fill. Depending on circumstances, this good be a big problem for them, but no one whines that employees have an obligation to stay with one company. The problem is that you think you should be payed money, not because of any skills which you bring to the marketplace, but simply because you exist. Existence confers a right upon you to other people's money. To that I cry "shenanigans!"

First sentence, I disagree completely.  I think everyone has a right to a job with a living wage paid.  Social Darwinism should have been left behind when we left the caves.  Civilization exists to provide rights and freedom to all, not just to a select few.  Yes, we all have a responsibility to provide what we can to civilization as a whole and in return we have the right to demand certain rights.  The simple fact is right now, laborers have no control over their wages, job security or benefits.  It is all in the hands of the wealthy elite in this country, who have shown time and again that they will abuse that power.  Those in charge want America to become a race to the bottom, bottom in wages, bottom in worker safety, bottom in benefits, or else they will ship all the jobs overseas.  I, and many like me are sick of it.  And I'm glad that finally the people are starting to fight back.  How far this fight will go is up to the monied aristocracy.  Either they can begin to play fair or......

I think that is all I will say on the matter as this thread seems littered with only libertarians (whether that's from a true philosophical standpoint, or a desire to protect what they or their families have - I don't know). 

akamaisondufromage wrote: It seems to me that the 'Occupy' protesters are about promoting a new system where the top whatever miniscule % of people do not have as much money as the rest of us put together.  You could say this is just jealousy and freedom is about being able to do what you want.  But if you don't have enough money to feed your family properly I'm not sure that is a freedom .    In addition to this inequality we are being asked to bail out the banks (we being the 99%) while those that caused the problem carry on as if nothing has happened.  We also get to be paid less or lose our job altogether.    Not sure the Occupiers promote any particular system but just one that works for everybody unlike capitalism in its current form.

This. 

It seems to me that the 'Occupy' protesters are about promoting a new system where the top whatever miniscule % of people do not have as much money as the rest of us put together.  You could say this is just jealousy and freedom is about being able to do what you want.  But if you don't have enough money to feed your family properly I'm not sure that is a freedom . 

thellama73 wrote: I can never understand this idea so many seem to have that if someone else has more money than you, that means you are "oppressed" and somehow not free. Freedom is not about having stuff. It's about being able to make your own choices without someone else using force against you. If someone takes my house away from me with guns, that is not the same thing as if I simply don't earn enough money to buy a house.

Going to exaggerate here a bit, but take it as an extreme hypothetical situation.  I work for a company for 20 years and then my company sells out America by shipping most of its jobs overseas.  I lose my job.  Now, I haven't been able to save up a lot of money because, in spite of my longevity with the company, I was paid low wages so that the CEO and stockholders would get most of the profits from MY labor (I consider this theft personally).  This puts me in a very bad situation.  I will run out of money in a few weeks, and my only other option is that someone has offered me a job at $2.00 an hour and if I don't live up to daily quotas for my work, I will be subject to daily beatings.  My choices are therefore starvation or slavery.  That IS oppression.  Again, I have exaggerated, but the basic principle is sound.  Those with money have ALL the bargaining power and I have none.  That is not freedom, but oppression.

MoM.  I believe the above applies to your response as well. 


Edited by The Doctor - October 19 2011 at 13:28

I can never understand this idea so many seem to have that if someone else has more money than you, that means you are "oppressed" and somehow not free. Freedom is not about having stuff. It's about being able to make your own choices without someone else using force against you. If someone takes my house away from me with guns, that is not the same thing as if I simply don't earn enough money to buy a house.

The Doctor wrote: manofmystery wrote: The Doctor wrote: manofmystery wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: ^These cops are an instrument of law enforcement for the government. Yet the protesters want to give government more power. That guy better enjoys being carried like that... They want government to assume more power in stopping corporate america from abusing its power.  They do not want the government to assume more power over individual liberties (that's a conservative wish).     Real corporate power comes from the government.  Without government involvement, in the market, corporations only have the power given to them by consumers.  On your second sentence:  Seems that many in streets are demanding government limitations on economic liberties.  Economic liberty and social liberty cannot be seperated.   I actually agree with your last sentence, but I am sure that our definition of economic liberty differs radically.  Economic liberty is not allowing a very few select individuals to control most of the country's wealth while the rest of the country must struggle economically.  Economic liberty is having everyone free from the constraints of economic tyrrany.  Meaning that everyone has the basic minimums of life met, food, shelter and health care and a job with a living wage.  Basically FDR's second bill of rights.  That is true economic freedom.  The economic plutocracy we currently "enjoy" also translates into unbridled political power for those few, select individuals.  For after Citizens United, our country is no longer "one person, one vote" but rather "one dollar, one vote".      You basically describe the opposite of economic liberty while describing what you support.  There is no grey area on this, there is no differing of definition.  When you ensure "minimums" on high you have to forcibly take from someone to provide for another.  There is no liberty there.  FDR's second bill of rights is one of the most horrendously facist power grabs ever proposed. What you describe is economic freedom for a very few and economic oppression for the rest.  Because those with all the wealth also have all the economic power.  It's fascism of another kind, except that instead of the government having the power, the wealthy aristocracy (and make no mistake about it, that is what we have in this country) have all the power.

 

The T wrote: Tell me good Slarti, what is the plan? Do Occupy-ers want the president to send the army to control the banks, seize assests and give it to the people? Do they have any actual proposal? One might agree with some of their complaints, but they have been at it more than, what, 2 weeks now? Has anything been accomplished? What was supposed to be accomplished? I'm confused...

I don't think so, but that sounds like a great idea Teo. 

Tell me good Slarti, what is the plan? Do Occupy-ers want the president to send the army to control the banks, seize assests and give it to the people? Do they have any actual proposal? One might agree with some of their complaints, but they have been at it more than, what, 2 weeks now? Has anything been accomplished? What was supposed to be accomplished? I'm confused...