"Occupy" Protests

Syzygy wrote: The London protests have brought forth a veritable plague of right wing trolls on various newspaper forums, the BBC etc. In fact, given that less than 500 people are currently camped outside St Paul's Cathedral, they're generating apoplectic fits at an impressive rate. The gist of the comments posted seems to be: despite their political ideals, many of them wear shoes. Hypocrites! they need a wash. haven't these people protesting about unemployment got jobs to go to? if we stop throwing taxpayer's money at the financial geniuses in The City, they'll all go to another country, and then where will we be? despite the lack of any violence or disorder, some of them look like they might get mildly aggrieved after a few days kettling, so we'd better get the watwer cannon out now! and so on and and depressingly so forth. I haven't had time to catch up on the fine detail, but if so few protesters can rattle so many cages they're probably onto something.

Establishment media will always seek to undermine the credibiility of any movement that challenges the elite power structure. Nothing has changed in that respect. I remember, in the miners strike in the 80's the BBC would always make sure there was someone visible in the background selling 'Militant' or 'Socialist Worker' papers, when they reported. I remember my dad pointing this out, and saying it was disgraceful, and he was a conservative voter, god rest his soul!

The occupy movement is made up of many different factions, from communists to Tea Partyers, to just every day people who have ticked every box our society expects them to have ticked, and have come away with nothing. If it suits the BBC to portray the protestors as soap dodging anarchists, then they will simply not interview anyone who actually has an informed view on the problem. They will speak to the type of person who fits the medias stereotypical comic book image of a radical; the dreadlocks, the bolts thorugh the nose, the rotten teeth, the inability to string together a coherant sentence.

In any case this movement will grow when the Eurozone collapses in the months ahead, and when the BOE activates the next round of QE, driving up inflation further.

"I still stand by my statement and here's why," Cain said. "They might be frustrated with Wall Street and the bankers, but they're directing their anger at the wrong place. Wall Street didn't put in failed economic policies... They ought to be over in front of the White House taking out their frustration."

Texas Rep. Ron Paul had a different view of the protests.

" I think Mr. Cain has blamed the victims," Paul said. "There's a lot of people that are victims of this business cycle. We can't blame the victims. I'd go to Washington as well as Wall Street."

if(typeof CNN.expElements==='object'){CNN.expElements.init();}

CNN's Deanna Proeller contributed to this report.

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...

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. 

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.

 

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.

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

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 . 

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. 

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).