We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Occupy Wall Street
| 114 | 13948 |
It is surprising to me that there us no thread for this yet (at least not one that I have found) so I decided to make one here. The main purpose of this thread should be to discuss opinions, motives, effects, ethicality, etc. on the Occupy Wall Street movement, along with other Occupy movements.
----------------------------
Now for my personal opinion. I am all for the motive, but the means (such as the shutdown of bridges, causing reduction of transportation) are questionable.
I think that shutting down bridges is not an ethical way to go about a protest. However, being the first major global protest with this kind of purpose, this might have been the only option for OWS to gain notoriety.
Since I have been researching heavily into this, I am willing to answer any questions about the means and motive of the protests, along with explaining political terminology.
Here are a variety of links to discuss:
http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/
http://www.progressive.org/occupy_wall_st_broadan_approach.html
http://occupywallst.org/
------------------------------
Also, remember to keep the material on this forum non-flammatory. Any political ideas are allowed, even including Marxism, neoliberalism, etc..
- 114 Replies
This may sound a little extreme but they may happen in parts of the world as things are going:-
a bloody coup may happen something like valkyrie with the exception that when oppressed people will come to power they will kill every one who have a remote relation to elites
This may sound a little extreme but they may happen in parts of the world as things are going:
it's extreme yes. and very unlikely to happen tomorrow.
the possibility of something like that happening is ALWAYS there. also if things are going different ways.
but since no1 can predict the future, it's only worth so much.
I'm totally for the protests. I don't care if the demands are not clear or non existing, that's not the point. Just protesting because of government/corporation corruption is good enough. They protests against the corruption as a whole and are not demanding anything specific, and that's the point. It's so more people (and the government) can see that people care if corporations poison water supplies, steal taxes and dangerously drug food.
Things like the SOPA bill are a pretty good example of what these protests are about. It's clear the government is not for the people but for big business. This issue really can't be narrowed down to specific demands because the issue at hand is so broad and reaching.
revolution needs blood, with out blood its a movement a movement can b stoped but a revolution can not b.
This may sound a little extreme but they may happen in parts of the world as things are going:-
a bloody coup may happen something like valkyrie with the exception that when oppressed people will come to power they will kill every one who have a remote relation to elites
this may not happen in usa but it is highly possible to happen in asian countries
revolution needs blood, with out blood its a movement a movement can b stoped but a revolution can not b.
I have a feeling Gandhi would disagree.
"Violent means will give violent freedom. That would be a menace to the world and to (America) herself." -Mohandas Gandhi (paraphrased)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." -James Madison
"First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they attack us- then we win." -Mohandas Gandhi
I'm going to keep this short and just tackle the most absurd statements right now. I'll come back for the rest of the arguments and posts later.
1) Corporations manipulate people and make little contribution to society
Corporations don't contribute anything to society? Do I REALLY need to explain this one? Look at all the stuff around you. I'm confident that 99% of the stuff around you came from corporations.
[quote]1) is that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing larger and larger.
I'm only going to say this once, THE GAP BETWEEN RICH AND POOR MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If a bag of chips costs 5 dollars and you have 10, then you can afford 2 bags of chips. It doesn't matter if I have 100 dollars, 1,000 dollars, or 1,000,000,000 dollars, No matter how much money I have, you're only able to afford 2 bags of chips.
From the preceding paragraph, we find that the Democrats, who are viewed as center-left in America, are viewed as mainstream conservatives in Europe. But if 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism, which is much farther left than the Democratic Party, then where is America�s socialist representation in Congress? The answer to that is, we have only one socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
Socialism relies on coercion, making it an immoral system.
The main problem with corporate bailout is that the government treats these big corporations like people, and many Republican senators are bribed to give such bailout.
Bail outs are wrong because businesses should be allowed to fail. It has NOTHING to do with businesses being treated like people. The reason bailouts are bad is because profit measures efficiency. When a business does not profit, then they are not providing goods that people want. Because people don't want those goods, the business goes under. This prevents businesses that don't sell products from wasting too many resources. Bailouts are bad because inefficient businesses are getting an unfair advantage over those that are efficient. This will sometimes result in the more efficient business going under, while the inefficient business thrives.
So why is it wrong to bail out students? Bailing out students will NOT help the economy. The government will not make any money by bailing students out. Not only that, but it's immoral to take money from one person, to pay for another. The only time this is okay is if both parties agree that it's okay. For example, I shouldn't have to pay more taxes because some dumb**** wastes 8k on an art degree.
College is a gamble, and it's a gamble that people should have a say in. However, those who want nothing to do with college shouldn't be forced to pay for those who do gamble with college.
Also, Democrats are much less susceptible to corporate bribery than Republicans.
That's just not true.
2) FDR's Bill of Rights to be legitimately acted upon
Those aren't rights. Medical care is a right, as in, I'm allowed to have medical care. A right isn't, however, something that is provided. I have a right to bear arms, that doesn't mean the government has to give me guns. I have a right to free speech, that doesn't mean I have to speak out. I have a right to smoke cigarettes, this doesn't mean the government has to give me cigarettes.
1. Entitlement programs cost the government money.
2. The government does not make money through trade, it makes money through taxation.
* This means the government spends YOUR money, not their own.
3. People who do not support certain programs are forced to pay for those programs anyway. They do not have a choice.
4. People who do not pay taxes are arrested.
I don't support national health care. Maybe I don't support it because I think the private sector does a better job providing health care. Maybe I don't like the idea of health care. Maybe I believe health care is a scam. Regardless, no matter how I feel about health care, I'm forced to pay for it. If I don't, I go to jail.
I believe I should have total control over the money I make. If someone is worse off than me, then it should be MY decision as to whether I help that person or not, or how I help that person.
Woah, which parts are yours Nemo?
Just get rid of the left most line on the 2nd quote.
Bail outs are wrong because businesses should be allowed to fail. It has NOTHING to do with businesses being treated like people. The reason bailouts are bad is because profit measures efficiency. When a business does not profit, then they are not providing goods that people want. Because people don't want those goods, the business goes under. This prevents businesses that don't sell products from wasting too many resources. Bailouts are bad because inefficient businesses are getting an unfair advantage over those that are efficient. This will sometimes result in the more efficient business going under, while the inefficient business thrives.
Yes, but sometimes the company goes under because of bad policies. GM and the various car industries didn't fail because the people want less vehicles.
I believe I should have total control over the money I make. If someone is worse off than me, then it should be MY decision as to whether I help that person or not, or how I help that person.
After taxes that is.
They protests against the corruption as a whole and are not demanding anything specific, and that's the point.
aslong you don't point the finger at any1 that is corrupt. you wont ever change anything whit this protesting.
The main problem with corporate bailout is that the government treats these big corporations like people, and many Republican senators are bribed to give such bailout.
stop protesting and 1st go findout who are corrupt. then go protest against these people.
then.. you actualy have something to protest against.
From the preceding paragraph, we find that the Democrats, who are viewed as center-left in America, are viewed as mainstream conservatives in Europe. But if 33% of American citizens prefer Socialism, which is much farther left than the Democratic Party, then where is America�s socialist representation in Congress? The answer to that is, we have only one socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
the system where people eventually have to choose between only 2 party's. has always been a failure in my eye's.
but ive never seen a american complaine about it. it's been like that for a long time.
I'm forced to pay for it. If I don't, I go to jail.
is that "it" health care?
i don't know any country whit health care that does that. health care is not a tax. usualy if you don't pay for health care. (even if it is just 1 month) your not financialy secured if something happens to you. untill you start paying for health care again you have to pay evrything yourself when you break a arm or w/e.
GM and the various car industries didn't fail because the people want less vehicles.
GM will fail again. american cars aint that populair outside usa.
Yes, but sometimes the company goes under because of bad policies. GM and the various car industries didn't fail because the people want less vehicles.
Well said! I forgot to include that some companies become irresponsible, which is another way for a company to go into debt.
[quote] I believe I should have total control over the money I make. If someone is worse off than me, then it should be MY decision as to whether I help that person or not, or how I help that person.
After taxes that is.[/quote]
No, before taxes. There's no reason the government should act like a corporation but with more corruption. When a business has a bad policy, generally they go under and they are no longer a problem (unless they are bailed out). When the government makes a bad policy, it just keeps going. Since the government isn't using their own money to keep the business going, it's like a constant bail out.
is that "it" health care?
i don't know any country whit health care that does that. health care is not a tax. usualy if you don't pay for health care. (even if it is just 1 month) your not financialy secured if something happens to you. untill you start paying for health care again you have to pay evrything yourself when you break a arm or w/e.
All countries that have "free health care" force you to pay for it through taxes. You don't have a choice. That's what I'm against. I feel that everyone should have a choice as to whether they want to pay into health care or not and that everyone has to deal with whatever the consequences are.
But you still are going to pay taxes for the retired and disabled right? I can agree with you that wealth fare etc. shouldn't be there but it is starting to sound like you don't want to pay taxes at all which is an extreme form of capitalism. You should at least pay taxes for something like soldiers etc.
But you still are going to pay taxes for the retired and disabled right? I can agree with you that wealth fare etc. shouldn't be there but it is starting to sound like you don't want to pay taxes at all which is an extreme form of capitalism. You should at least pay taxes for something like soldiers etc.
We can't simply end taxation. It will require time to be weeded out one program at a time. We can find alternative ways to pay for the things we need that don't rely on force. We can use charities, fund raisers, and other means to help pay for people who need money.
But like I said, we would have to weed out taxation slowly, and we would have to allow society time to evolve culturally.
I honestly don't know about the military. As of right now, it's one of the few reasons we should keep taxes around, but that's only because I can't even imagine an alternative. Until an alternative is found, cutting military spending by 100% is not on my agenda. However, the military is a very good example of how easy it is for the government to waste money that they didn't earn.
You must be logged in to post a reply!