"Occupy" Protests

Isn't this the wrong thread for this issue?

Back on track:

Occupy protest attracts tourists

Alitare wrote: Here's a bit of relevant information - definitely more important than this nonsense: I'm cutting my wisdom teeth seven years late. There's not enough room for them in my mouth and they're scraping and gashing holes in the back of my cheeks and gums. On top of that it's gotten infected and, apparently, this can travel to my brain and kill me without antibiotics. The worst part? I had to pay a whole twelve dollars for my prescription. See where the system is broken?!

Yep.  Somebody who doesn't have 12 dollars would die a painful death. 

Alitare wrote: Good Sir Doktor, I like a lot of the things you say from an emotional point of view. I do not, however, enjoy it when folks say they have the answers - which you've plainly stated you do not. I don't like it when people talk in terms of 'should and should not'. It's not wrong to do so, I just don't like it. I think I've finally come to agree with Big Brother. Except for slimeball rebels, scribbling inconsequently in their petty diaries, everyone would get what they want in Big Brother's Oceania.

You're in the wrong thread then.  These political threads are all about should/should not. 

In actuality, I want what makes me happier. I don't care if homeless people are starving, if jobs are moving overseas, or if my next-door neighbor gets evicted because he was laid off through no fault of his own. I'm indifferent to that malarkey. 

In a effort to shield everyone from the greed of the few, let us give a bunch of money and power to the few. I like that recipe.

Saying greed causes problems for society is like saying gravity causes a plane crash.

That's the kind of stuff I want. I don't expect it, and I don't complain about not getting it. Who doesn't want infinite happiness, money, time, and leisure? I'm just being bluntly honest.

thellama73 wrote: Alitare wrote: In actuality, I want what makes me happier. I don't care if homeless people are starving, if jobs are moving overseas, or if my next-door neighbor gets evicted because he was laid off through no fault of his own. I'm indifferent to that malarkey.  What I want is for my life to be made easier. I want to be able to buy more stuff without working as hard (or at all). I'd love to never have to work again, but still get paid a lot of money so I can buy anything I want and do whatever I want, whenever I want to. Screw altruism with a manacled hand pump, I want all sorts of nice things like a new saxophone, nearly infinite free time, a new sound system, a new, top-of-the-line laptop computer... I don't want this available to anyone else. That way the system won't change, I'll just be able to abuse it enough to get my way and make my life better.  So are you saying that if you knew with certainty that  you could get away with it and it wasn't much work, you would happily steal everything you wanted?

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: In a effort to shield everyone from the greed of the few, let us give a bunch of money and power to the few. I like that recipe. Saying greed causes problems for society is like saying gravity causes a plane crash. I think you are working under a false assumption, and that is that without government, power and liberty will go each and every individual.  Whereas, in fact, power and liberty will then fall into the hands of those with the most economic wealth.  You, unless you are wealthy, are not going to be free with or without government.  So the question then becomes who would you prefer to give your freedom up to, a controlled institution (by constitution and separation of powers) which is not for profit and at least nominally supposed to secure the interests of all, or to private individuals who have no constraints, are motivated solely by their own profit and have only their own self-interests?  I know which I would choose.

It's interesting how we reach such different conclusions from the same premise. Socialists say that men are greedy and selfish, so we need to consolidate power under a few who will keep everyone in line. Libertarians say men are greedy and selfish, so we must decentralize power so that no one group will be able to oppress others.

Also, I must add that I am rather shocked by Alitare's complete amorality.

The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: In a effort to shield everyone from the greed of the few, let us give a bunch of money and power to the few. I like that recipe. Saying greed causes problems for society is like saying gravity causes a plane crash. I think you are working under a false assumption, and that is that without government, power and liberty will go each and every individual.  Whereas, in fact, power and liberty will then fall into the hands of those with the most economic wealth.  You, unless you are wealthy, are not going to be free with or without government.  So the question then becomes who would you prefer to give your freedom up to, a controlled institution (by constitution and separation of powers) which is not for profit and at least nominally supposed to secure the interests of all, or to private individuals who have no constraints, are motivated solely by their own profit and have only their own self-interests?  I know which I would choose.

Never made that assumption.

You can be free without wealth. I'm not sure what definition of free you're using. Would you like to give it?

You're making a critical assumption. You seem to think that government does not operate for profit. You also seem to think that since government has justified itself by claiming to operate for the people, that it must in some way actually be working to protect the people. Government is made of individuals. I don't get how you seem to be ignoring that.

Left to their own devices, I think a person's desire to profit benefits everyone. I desire to make money, so I work at my job. My employer desires to make money so they pay me. Seems like it's working out for the both of us.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The Doctor wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: In a effort to shield everyone from the greed of the few, let us give a bunch of money and power to the few. I like that recipe. Saying greed causes problems for society is like saying gravity causes a plane crash. I think you are working under a false assumption, and that is that without government, power and liberty will go each and every individual.  Whereas, in fact, power and liberty will then fall into the hands of those with the most economic wealth.  You, unless you are wealthy, are not going to be free with or without government.  So the question then becomes who would you prefer to give your freedom up to, a controlled institution (by constitution and separation of powers) which is not for profit and at least nominally supposed to secure the interests of all, or to private individuals who have no constraints, are motivated solely by their own profit and have only their own self-interests?  I know which I would choose.  Never made that assumption. You can be free without wealth. I'm not sure what definition of free you're using. Would you like to give it? You're making a critical assumption. You seem to think that government does not operate for profit. You also seem to think that since government has justified itself by claiming to operate for the people, that it must in some way actually be working to protect the people. Government is made of individuals. I don't get how you seem to be ignoring that. Left to their own devices, I think a person's desire to profit benefits everyone. I desire to make money, so I work at my job. My employer desires to make money so they pay me. Seems like it's working out for the both of us.

You can be free without wealth.  But when a few people control most of the resources of a nation, they have the power to control your life.  They get to determine how much of the resources they will give you and how hard you will have to work to get those resources.  Let's put it this way, prior to government regulation of employment law, an employer could work you as many hours as he felt like working you and pay you whatever he felt like paying you and the employee had only two choices, give his life over to his employer for barely enough to survive or starve to death.  I can tell you that my definition of freedom does not include that kind of freedom.   The freedom to choose between two horrendously bad choices is not freedom at all.  That government, run by men, but controlled by checks and balances and a constitution, changed that situation.  I'd hate to see that situation arise again.  Although it is already starting down that path.