posted
The interesting thing is how Democrats are responding. They look like they are caught between gleefully expecting a liberal Tea Party and hopelessly wary of being smeared with something Republicans might portray as anarchist. Charlie Rangel is all over it. Jumped right in. Obama cautions that we need a strong financial sector while sympathizing with the sentiment. They're recognizing, but not engaging. It's a good first step.
Watching them hem and haw over it though is painfully awkward.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Seems to be a lot of resentment against democrats though, worried that they'll co opt the movement.
IP: Logged |
posted
I don't blame them. I give Democrats a tiny bit of credit for trying to pass reform, but what they actually passed was horribly watered down to the point of uselessness. And Democrats are nearly as bad as Republicans in being beholden to corporations. Obama has overseen an administration that has given Wall Street nearly everything they wanted. There's not a ton of good will there.
Still, like it or not, Democrats are going to be the natural allies of the movement. If they get coopted in a similar fashion to the Tea Party, where the GOP swallowed them only to choke on it, Occupy Wall Street might find themselves with their hands on a couple levers of power.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is an Occupy movement in your area, I'd recommend checking it out. I went to the recent New Orleans march and had a blast.
With the exception of a few crazies, everyone was remarkably normal. Aside from one conspiracy theorist, there was also the band of Ron Paul supporters who were thankfully boo-ed each time they came to the mic. Still, it was really interesting talking to people and I loved the diversity of our crowd. I saw three women (a grandmother, her daughter, and her granddaughter) who were all out in support of SSM. I got a ride to the rally from a biochemist who had just gone back to school after not being able to find a job. I met atleast ten engineers who were working as waiters because they couldn't find work in their field. There were also a bunch of organizers from local groups who were out to support justice reform in New Orleans.
One of the most powerful individuals was a gentleman who came to speak to us about the importance of Duncan Plaza, the park they are usually for the encampment. He lived there for a year after Katrina along with hundreds of other homeless. I believe his organization is going to be working with the OccupyNOLA campers to do homeless outreach and food drives. Its a great way to help people pass the time and do some extra good.
The cops were on-hand to escort two stages of the march. Nobody was arrested after the crowd stormed city hall. The mayor went out yesterday to cheer on the campers. And right now, they're being allowed to stay in the park. However the first night, whether by fluke or on purpose, the lights in the park were turned off even though they were lit everywhere else. We had to get up and move so that the general assembly could see. Not sure if they've gotten this corrected, but I hope they do for the safety of the campers.
All in all, I had a great day. I'm still insanely sore from holding my sign up for hours. Everytime I'd try to lower it, someone would tap me on the shoulder and ask if they could take a picture. If you see a sunburned, blue haired girl in any pictures, that's me. I was also interviewed by the local news and one of my coworkers saw me, but unfortunately there's no video online. I got asked how I felt about the movement not having a "clear message." Personally, I think it would be awesome if the media would just start asking people about themselves and what brought them to the movement. Soundbites about corporate greed aren't as interesting as the stories of people who had to leave the state for cancer treatment or others who were laid off after corporations fled the city.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The rally here in Lincoln falls when I'm going to be home in Detroit visiting family, and the rally in Detroit isn't until I leave to come back!
Hopefully there will still be something local happening when I get back.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Cantor says the protests are full of mobs, and "pit Americans against Americans." That seems like a sort of bizarre statement considering what Cantor does for a living. Does he not work in politics? I don't know what he was thinking when he said that, but I can't help but laugh when I read it.
In what possible way can this be said of the OWS that it couldn't also be said of...well, the various Tea Parties?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, meanwhile, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that he believes the protests are aimed at drawing attention away from President Obama.
"The proof is quite simply the bankers and the people on Wall Street didn't write these failed policies of the Obama administration. They didn't spend a trillion dollars that didn't work. The administration and the Democrats spent a trillion dollars," Cain said. Citing the president's new jobs bill, Cain added that the "administration is proposing another $450 billion wrapped in different rhetoric. So it's a distraction, so many people won't focus on the failed policies of this administration."
Cain insisted that the protesters "were encouraged to get together." When asked by whom, he said, "We know that the unions and certain union-related organizations have been behind these protests that have gone on."
In New York, several unions endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement last week.
Cain insisted the protests are "anti-American."
"The free market system and capitalism are two of the things that have allowed this nation and this economy to become the biggest in the world," he said. "Even though we have our challenges, I believe that the protests are more anti-capitalism and anti-free market than anything else."
Fellow GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich told CBS that he agrees with Cain that the protests are "a natural product of Obama's class warfare. ... We have had a strain of hostility to free enterprise. And frankly a strain of hostility to classic America starting in our academic institutions and spreading across this country. And I regard the Wall Street protest as a natural outcome of a bad education system, teaching them really dumb ideas."
Both Cain and Gingrich described the protests as "class warfare."
Pelosi rejected that. "When we said everyone should pay their fair share, the other side said that's class warfare," she said on ABC. "No, it's not. It's the most enduring American value: fairness. And it's about everyone paying their fair share. We all have a responsibility to grow our economy, reduce the deficit, keep us No. 1."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, told NBC's "Meet the Press," "I don't disparage anybody who protests their government for better government. No matter what perspective they come from."
Republicans "want to lower the barriers against Americans who want to rise," he said. Ryan added that divisive rhetoric is "troubling. Sowing class envy and social unrest is not what we do in America."
So Herman Cain, who has apparently not watched any of the actual protest, thinks Occupy Wall Street is a liberal front to help Obama politically. I guess all the people at the protests who have said they don't much care for Democrats either somehow got by him. That's a problem with poor coverage, too, I think. I'm willing to be that almost everyone at these events leans liberal, heavily, but that doesn't mean they're Democrats. They're protesting against the WHOLE system, not just the GOP half.
But this is unsurprising from Cain, who said in an earlier interview that the banking collapse was three years ago and this is now, so clearly the banks aren't responsible, now it's Obama's fault. Apparently being a frontrunner for the GOP means you drop ridiculous pearls of wisdom like that more often.
His contention that the protests are anti-capitalist or anti-free market, and thus anti-AMERICAN is really interesting. While you might infer an economic system from the Constitution, nowhere in the document does it enshrine capitalism. It actually gives Congress some interesting powers to regulate the economy, which have been broadly interpreted ever since. Cain's right that for a long time, corporations have been best friend with the government, and thus protesting one sort of intrinsically links you to the other, but that's not how most of us WANT it to be. Nor is there any real reason it SHOULD be.
At the very least, Occupy Wall Street is forcing some interesting responses from people.
Gingrich apparently blames schools, for some reason. There has always been hostility to unbridled free enterprise. It leads to a boom and bust economy with few protections, if any, for workers. Talk about a bad education.
Paul Ryan is perhaps the most measured, but even he uses the same language. Leads to "class envy and social unrest." Dude, people don't have jobs to feed their families and work for an honest living. No one in the protest movement is suggesting stripping all the wealth from the wealthy and passing it around, it's about wanting to be able to live a relatively stable, comfortable middle class life style. I think Ryan, and the rest, demonstrate a pretty clear disconnect from what people want, and from what is really going on out here.
If the situation was reversed, Republicans would be all over language like that. Pelosi has had some things to say in support of OWS, but nothing particularly firebrand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Doesn't it make you want to tear your hair out in frustration, and at the same time, laugh hysterically because it's so ridiculous?
I bet he's totally serious too, and doesn't even recognize how silly it sounds.
Yes. The Tea-Party is avowedly *anti-government*. But somehow, that is exceptionally patriotic. The Wall Street protests, which are for government *reform*, are "anti-American."
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that Pelosi feels fairness is "the most enduring American value," as opposed to freedom or opportunity. I think that highlights one of the fundamental differences of ideology that contributes to the polarization of America.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: It's interesting that Pelosi feels fairness is "the most enduring American value," as opposed to freedom or opportunity. I think that highlights one of the fundamental differences of ideology that contributes to the polarization of America.
It's supposed to be. Freedom, when actually realized, ought to amount to fairness. We never, after all, wanted freedom because we thought it'd make things unfair-we wanted it because we thought things were unfair, and needed changing.
One of my personal oldest beefs with the GOP is the way it imagines, to my eyes, that freedom to a say enormously wealthy business is the same as freedom for a family in grinding poverty, or that 'opportunity' is somehow actually equal and freely available across the board.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The new response from conservatives to these protests indicates genuine worry on their part. They actually really do not want these protests to gain critical mass. So much so that the consistency of responses like Cantor belie the purposeful and strategic intent of his statements, to decry the 'mobbishness' of the protests, and to simultaneously mock them for having no true message while also trying to define the message for them. What a surprise, right?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: It's interesting that Pelosi feels fairness is "the most enduring American value," as opposed to freedom or opportunity.
Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
Freedom and opportunity are *about* fairness. If you don't get a fair shake, you aren't free. You don't get any opportunities.
When did conservatives start thinking about "freedom" as a concept divorced from a sense of fairness? How do you get "opportunity" without fair treatment? Do you have any idea how to reconcile those two things? Poor, and uneducated, and downtrodden is not free. It might be "free," under some definition of the term. Some who are poor and uneducated and downtrodden might succeed. But when the government is set up to advantage others, and to disadvantage you- how exactly are you free? And what does your freedom mean if in relative terms, others are favored from the beginning? And if this is more than an accident, but of a deliberate purpose?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The new response from conservatives to these protests indicates genuine worry on their part. They actually really do not want these protests to gain critical mass. So much so that the consistency of responses like Cantor belie the purposeful and strategic intent of his statements, to decry the 'mobbishness' of the protests, and to simultaneously mock them for having no true message while also trying to define the message for them. What a surprise, right?
Right. They're "neo-communists." Why? Because they are for some reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.
quote:When did conservatives start thinking about "freedom" as a concept divorced from a sense of fairness?
We haven't. Justice - which is really the basis of what is being discussed - is a much more nuanced issue than you're making it out to be. We're concerned with both positive and negative freedoms as well as the free will of all parties involved.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:“As I scrambled away from the scene of my crime, a police officer outside the museum gates pointed at my eyes, puffed out of his chest, and shouted: “Yeah, that’s right. That’s right.” He was proud that I had been pepper-sprayed, and, oddly, so was I. I deserved to get a face full of high-grade pepper, and the guards who sprayed me acted with more courage than I saw from any of the protesters. If you’re looking for something to commend these days in America, start with those guards.”
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Tell me, what was the impetus for the original Boston Tea Party? Was it a yearning for freedom? Was it to create some opportunity? No? No. It was because of "unfair" taxes.
I'd say it was for freedom from taxation without representation as well as for the opportunity to exercise the right of self-governance.
Semantics. I could as easily say: to defeat the unfair tax laws, and to gain fair representation in government. It's the same thing. Pelosi talking about fairness *is* Pelosi talking about freedom and opportunity. It's an aspect of both- and a concept that is very important to a democratic society. You're seriously arguing against fairness? Why? Nobody is arguing against freedom and opportunity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I dunno Orincoro, your last post sounded pretty Communist to me.
Yes, we all know that taking a dim-view of the government actively preferencing members of certain classes is the basis of communism.
Also, the opposite, wanting the government to do this is also the basis of communism.
And of course, if you don't agree with a fiscal policy that is designed to create and sequester wealth in a small wealthy class, which is then able to control the government by eroding the government's ability to effectively regulate the economy, then clearly, you are a communist, and must believe in an authoritarian central government simultaneously run by an evil intellectual oligarchy, *and* functioning according to the will of a tyrannical majority of the working class.... for some reason.
Basically, if you're not a republican, you are a fascist and a communist at the same time- which is technically impossible, but still!
Actually, whatever the conservatives don't like this week, except actually they like it just fine, except they don't like it at all, is the basis of communism.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, whatever the conservatives don't like this week, except actually they like it just fine, except they don't like it at all, is the basis of communism.
I've been on dates like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: You're seriously arguing against fairness? Why? Nobody is arguing against freedom and opportunity.
No. You're the one claiming that's my position. We call misrepresentation like that a straw man. I'm not arguing against fairness. The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently). The way you couch the issue according to terms and definitions defines the outcome of your reasoning. But no productive conversation will ever come from comments such as "You're against fairness because.." Dismiss what I said by claiming semantics but I prefer to keep the discussion within the relevant context(s) and not ignore the uniqueness of different events.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah... no. You were equivocating. And you can go back and rationalize and try to make me look like an ogre now, but your statement was no more than a semantic quibble. You just didn't want to settle on "fairness," as an appropriate word for some reason...
oh right, because Pelosi likes "fairness," so you need to find some way of being disdainful of the word because it's obviously reserved for left-wing radicals now. So you can't give an inch on the idea that the revolution was about "fairness," because "freedom" and "opportunity" are *really* patriotic words for *real* patriots- not pussy communist words for pussy communists.
You jump and bark and snuffle on the conservative line like a housepet, and you don't even notice you're doing it.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently).
Why should we even be trying to "maximize freedom"? Shouldn't we be trying to maximize human well being. Freedom is certainly an important component of well being but its not the only component, probably not even the most important component. Individual freedoms would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings whose desires were in conflict with our own, but very few of us would choose to be hermits. We recognize that the benefits to our well being from participating in a community out weigh the loss of liberty.
The preamble to the constitution, states as its first objective unity, then justice, tranquility, defense, general welfare and finally liberty. Why should individual liberty be elevated above above all the others as the most American value and the one that should be optimized? Would it not be more American to be seeking an optimal balance of all those objectives?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I vigorously disagree with you that freedom would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings who we are in conflict with. I think that is a very narrow view of freedom, free-will, and liberty. Choosing to live in a community certainly curtails certain options, but in the same breath it opens more doors than it closes. Many thinkers over time have noted that living in a community gives us freedom to use our creativity and rational mind as we spend less time on mundane tasks.
Just to throw in my two cents, there is considerable scholarship on the matter of the American Revolution as a revolution of elites and not the people. The Constitution is also often seen as a kind of counter revolution to the formation of highly democratic state constitutions following the revolutionary era. The point I am trying to make here is that the Constitution was probably not as much about liberty as it was creating a stable state that could pay its national debt. I might go into this later, but I have to run to class.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I vigorously disagree with you that freedom would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings who we are in conflict with. I think that is a very narrow view of freedom, free-will, and liberty.
I think we are saying much the same thing but using different words. I think its useful to separate the concept of "liberty" from the concept of "opportunity."
A common definition of liberty is "The state of being free from restrictions imposed by societal authority."
A common definition of opportunity is "A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."
And to complete the set, We can define freedom to be "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Personal liberty is pretty clearly maximized by eliminating all societal authority. But that option is one that comes at the cost of opportunity.
Much of the political debate is about striking the right balance between liberty and opportunity.
Freedom, however, is far more complicated because the to power act or speak can be limited by many kinds of things. It can be limited by society, by circumstances, and by natural law. Furthermore, one can have the legal or moral right to act but lack the power to do it or one can have the power to act but not the right.
When society imposes restrictions on ones actions, it by definition reduces liberty, but if those restrictions create circumstances that make other choices possible it is not clear whether they increase or decrease freedom. Restrictions can actually increase some peoples freedom while decreasing the freedom of others, even when the restrictions are applied uniformly. That's why I think its important to separate the two concepts.
[ October 10, 2011, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am fine with the people protesting for something they believe in. We have had groups here in Las Vegas protesting and they have been peaceful, with no arrests (as far as I know). I understand there have been peaceful gatherings in many other places in the country.
But comparing them to the Tea Party? I think it is a little too soon.
I'm not really paying attention to it much since I think it will eventually go away. Holding signs that say they are in the 99% then giving speeches about overthrowing the government and instituting a totaliaran regime doesn't really lend them much credibility in my opinion.
The fact that these groups are being backed by these massive unions and ACORN don't really help them either. They want to get rid of special interests, but they are playing right into their hands.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Ah... no. You were equivocating. And you can go back and rationalize and try to make me look like an ogre now, but your statement was no more than a semantic quibble. You just didn't want to settle on "fairness," as an appropriate word for some reason...
oh right, because Pelosi likes "fairness," so you need to find some way of being disdainful of the word because it's obviously reserved for left-wing radicals now. So you can't give an inch on the idea that the revolution was about "fairness," because "freedom" and "opportunity" are *really* patriotic words for *real* patriots- not pussy communist words for pussy communists.
You jump and bark and snuffle on the conservative line like a housepet, and you don't even notice you're doing it.
You really flew off the handle on that one. No need to use such acrimonious language. Your tantrums only make discussions with you more disagreeable.
I have no disdain for 'fairness' despite Pelosi's use of the word. The fact is some terms having multiple nuanced meanings, some specific to certain situations. Using the term accurately and appropriately isn't equivocation. And I don't know how you got patriotism and communism out of all that. Justice is a complex concept but right now you're succeeding at making it overly complex, and doing so with incredibly bad form.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the phrase "We are the 99%" was originally in reference to the GOP opposition to raising taxes on the top 1%. To me, its a lot less presumptuous when viewed in that context.
In a way, that claim is consistent with the fact that the movement doesn't have one consistent message. They are a mixture of people from the lower 99% of the income bracket and that's a pretty diverse group of people.
Movements from both the left and the right have a long history of claiming to represent the silent majority of Americans. Any one remember Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority"? More recently, Tea Party Leaders like Sarah Palin have claimed to represent the average american and the silent majority. While this always has a tendency to offend the opposition, I think its common because people really believe it. They believe that their viewpoint is held by the vast majority because they are guilty of selection bias. They associate selectively with people who share their values and perspective so nearly everyone they talk to about political issues agrees with them. They then presume that, despite what they read in the media, nearly everyone thinks like they do.
[ October 10, 2011, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is how do we go about maximizing freedom - not whether we're for or against it - and I'm claiming that people frame the issue in different ways and that indoviduals can percieve justice similarly yet with varying nuances (or, even, view it completely differently).
Why should we even be trying to "maximize freedom"? Shouldn't we be trying to maximize human well being. Freedom is certainly an important component of well being but its not the only component, probably not even the most important component.
The preamble to the constitution, states as its first objective unity, then justice, tranquility, defense, general welfare and finally liberty. Why should individual liberty be elevated above above all the others as the most American value and the one that should be optimized? Would it not be more American to be seeking an optimal balance of all those objectives?
QFT. The idea of liberty has no meaning outside the contexts of law, order, and equality. Our liberties are only meaningful if we recognize them as a part of a framework of government- not as being rights divorced from and somehow independent of, and only negatively influenced by, the government.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree. My liberties enable me to make my own decisions in regards to my own well being.
Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me? Not only that, but I fail to understand why people have enough faith in the government to provide for everyone. What makes them think that government would not be more corrupt with even more power?
I do agree with some things the protesters stand for. I do not like special interest groups. I don't think the government should be giving money to businesses at all.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I disagree. My liberties enable me to make my own decisions in regards to my own well being.
Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me?
So if I decide it would improve my well being to steal cars, you think the government should not interfere?
No? I didn't think so.
No one that I've heard is arguing that the government should make all the decisions or provide for everyone. What I've heard people saying is that the government needs pass sensible laws and regulations that maximize the opportunities available to the common man.
[ October 10, 2011, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me? Not only that, but I fail to understand why people have enough faith in the government to provide for everyone. What makes them think that government would not be more corrupt with even more power?
Which is a strange statement in light of constant conservative/GOP opposition to industry regulation...
Anyway, few liberals want the government to provide for everyone-it not being necessary. They would generally, though, like the government to take an interest in its citizens in grinding poverty, aside from how to incarcerate them most effectively.
Another thing: the government already determines, to an extent, what is good and bad for you and I suspect you're perfectly happy with it. The government says, "Hey! Power plant! Less pollution!" or, "Hey! Farmers! Cleaner livestock conditions!" or, "Hey! Drivers! No booze and less speeding!" Those are just a few obvious example. All of them can accurately be said to be the government 'deciding what's best for us', but that's really just another way of saying 'the people electing a government which decides what's best for us'.
Which was always the point, y'know?
Speaking just for myself, Geraine, for a long time I've regarded the conservative claim, "Government shouldn't decide what's good for us!" (and its many varities) with extreme skepticism. On the broader political spectrum, speaking for conservatives as a whole in how they vote and who they elect, it's complete bunk. (Sex ed, drugs, homosexuality)
Speaking strictly to you, though, I regard it with skepticism because I'd be surprised (correct me if I'm wrong) if there weren't some things which you felt the government shouldn't decide what is good and bad and make laws accordingly. Underage drinking, drugs, prostitution, pornography, just for the easy picks. --------
Gotta agree with capax, as peculiar as that is. In the past on more than one occasion I've thought his rhetoric was objectionable, but this doesn't seem to be one of those times at all, Orincoro-you went quite rude and nutty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I disagree. My liberties enable me to make my own decisions in regards to my own well being.
On a limited basis, yes.
Other people's liberties would, were they not contextualized by a system of laws, allow them to make decisions that had adverse effects on you and your rights to attend to your well-being. That is why fairness is an integral component of liberty, as a concept. You are not free unless others are constrained in their freedoms, and conversely, the ways in which you are not free serve to ensure the freedoms of others. "Liberty and Justice," are not separate concepts. They are interdependent.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Orincoro-you went quite rude and nutty.
Fair enough. I have little regard for him as a poster, and I don't care about his feelings at all. But If you think I should back off, I will.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why should it be the governments job to determine what is good and bad for me? Not only that, but I fail to understand why people have enough faith in the government to provide for everyone. What makes them think that government would not be more corrupt with even more power?
Which is a strange statement in light of constant conservative/GOP opposition to industry regulation...
Anyway, few liberals want the government to provide for everyone-it not being necessary. They would generally, though, like the government to take an interest in its citizens in grinding poverty, aside from how to incarcerate them most effectively.
Another thing: the government already determines, to an extent, what is good and bad for you and I suspect you're perfectly happy with it. The government says, "Hey! Power plant! Less pollution!" or, "Hey! Farmers! Cleaner livestock conditions!" or, "Hey! Drivers! No booze and less speeding!" Those are just a few obvious example. All of them can accurately be said to be the government 'deciding what's best for us', but that's really just another way of saying 'the people electing a government which decides what's best for us'.
Which was always the point, y'know?
I agree with you on this point. I am fine with regulation on things such as food and drug safety. However, I choose what kinds of food and drugs I take however. I do not want the government involved to the extent in which they tell me which foods I have to buy and which drugs I HAVE to take. If I want to eat my recreation of an Epic Meal Time episode, I should be able to.
quote:
Speaking strictly to you, though, I regard it with skepticism because I'd be surprised (correct me if I'm wrong) if there weren't some things which you felt the government shouldn't decide what is good and bad and make laws accordingly. Underage drinking, drugs, prostitution, pornography, just for the easy picks. --------
Actually this might surprise you, but I do not think the government should laws regarding any of those things. I truly believe that if drugs such as marijuana were legal it could be taxed for a source of government revenue. Laws on prostitution are mainly handled by the state, and is legal in many areas of my state (Nevada). Underage drinking I agree, however I do believe that it should be lowered to 18. If the person is old enough to vote and server in the military, they are old enough to drink. Pornography (as long as it does not have minors) is fine.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Geraine: Holding signs that say they are in the 99% then giving speeches about overthrowing the government and instituting a totaliaran regime doesn't really lend them much credibility in my opinion.
Who is doing that? Other than the occasional loon, I don't know anyone who wants to overthrow the government and replace it with a totalitarian regime. Are you thinking of the Tea Party? They might not say it often, but that sounds more like their language.
quote:From Geraine: The fact that these groups are being backed by these massive unions and ACORN don't really help them either. They want to get rid of special interests, but they are playing right into their hands.
Not really. They want fundamental reform in campaign finance, and I totally agree. I think special interests should have a role, but it's a roll that a single lobbyist could do, rather than hundreds for each company. Unions should have a voice in government, so should Wall Street, really, but they shouldn't CONTROL government. You remove their money from the equation and just let them argue on the merits and you fundamentally change government. I'm all for that.
quote:From Geraine: However, I choose what kinds of food and drugs I take however. I do not want the government involved to the extent in which they tell me which foods I have to buy and which drugs I HAVE to take.
What is this a reference to? I can't think of a single food the government MAKES you eat, and the only drug I can think of they MAKE you take are immunizations. You want to bring back the era of polio and smallpox?
quote:Orincoro: Fair enough. I have little regard for him as a poster, and I don't care about his feelings at all. But If you think I should back off, I will.
(not to dogpile, but) I don't think you have to like other posters, though it'd be nice if we could all at least respect each other, even if we don't really want to.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Lyrhawn, it is right on their website. They are linking speeches given at the protest on the website calling for a totalitarian regime. If it was just a nutcase doing it, why link the speech?
What sort of campaign finance reform are they looking for? The Supreme Court has already ruled on this. I think if they want some change, their time would be better served electing officials into office that would take up their cause and pass bills to that effect. Shutting down parks and being an annoyance to the general public probably isn't the best way to get what you want.
Zuccotti Park smelled like an open sewer -- with people urinating and defecating in public.
And some couples have taken advantage of the free condoms distributed by organizers to do the nasty in full view of other protesters.
“It kinda makes me think of what Woodstock must have been like,” said one protester, Sarah, 19 from the Upper West Side.
“I haven’t hooked up with any guys ... but one of my friends did have sex in a tarp with a guy last night.”
The free chow offered to protesters was boosting the crowd.
“People say they are here for the cause, but the real reason is the free food,” quipped Cameron, 26, of Jersey City.
“On my third day, they had smoked salmon with cream cheese. You know how much smoked salmon is a pound? Sixteen dollars. I eat better here than I do with my parents!”
Many of the protesters said they are here for the long haul -- and predicted trouble if cops try to clear the park.
“When the weather starts getting cold, we’re already talking about bringing tents in here,” said Robert, 47, of Pennsylvania. “I’m not going anywhere.
“I lost my job of 22 years, and someone has gotta pay,’’ he said. “Civil disobedience is something we may need to keep this site occupied. If everyone does it at once, the cops won’t be able to do anything.”
Three protesters took their sleeping bags and tried to camp out on Wall Street near Nassau Street last night. When police told them to move, one demonstrator, Zachary Miller, 20, from California, was arrested for disorderly conduct, cops said.
At one point yesterday, a speaker from Washington, DC, told protesters how to break out of zip ties and handcuffs in case they get collared.
The protest vet, Ryan Clayton, 30, demonstrated how use a bobby pin to spring the cuffs open -- while claiming he was “not encouraging people to break out of restraints.”
So there is people doing their business in the streets, organizers are providing free condoms (why not portable bathrooms?) and free food to people who attend. They are now training protesters how to break out of handcuffs and zip ties.
Now to be fair, I agree with SOME of the things they are saying. I do think we need to do away with the federal reserve, and I was always against the bailouts from the very beginning. I am against special interest groups dictating government decisions. Going however from one extreme (corporations with too much power over the government) to the other (government having too much powerf of corporations) doesn't really solve anything.
Just read another article that said Libertarians and Tea Partiers are starting to join, much to the dismay of a lot of the other protesters. I don't know why that made me chuckle, but it did. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, and the conservative movement has trained you to think that any movement in favor f stronger government is in favor of a polar opposite to economic liberalism.
It's never what *is* but what *would* be. You don't want the government putting you on some sort of personal meal plan with a little hamster ball full of sedatives and vitamins in your government flat with no windows. Ok. Who does want that? These protests, and we can reasonably ignore nut cases talking about totalitarian regimes, are about the government being run by a small minority of the rich. That is a basic underlying motive.
It's impossible to address these concerns because they are unreasonable- just as I don't worry about the Tea Paety actually succeeding in completely obliterating the government and all social programs, you should not fix your gaze on wacky left wing nuts. Because unlike in the conservative camp- our nut cases don't dictate our policy objectives. Today, the conservative movement's leadership is so whipped by it's fringe components that it must espouse goals that, were they to have any chance of being accomplished, Those leaders would likely not advocate them. Not least because it would put them out of a job, and then probably endanger their lives.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Link me to the website that says what you're citing.
quote:Shutting down parks and being an annoyance to the general public probably isn't the best way to get what you want.
Someone really should have told that to civil rights protesters. Do you have any idea how tough it was to get to work in Birmingham and Selma during those marches? Traffic was a nightmare!
As for your article, while I'm sure that captures some of the truth, it reads with a clear thesis, not so much an open exploration of what's happening as a whole.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The article is from the Post. Whenever you read an article from the Post, you should treat it like something being said by Glenn Beck.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That extreme? Because I saw that today Glenn Beck declared o. His radio program that the protestors want to haul the media out of their offices and kill them. And then he said, literally, kill them with their hands. It was... Odd.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds weird without the chalkboard charts-it needs sole context, then it's perfectly rational!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I vigorously disagree with you that freedom would be maximized if we each lived isolated from all human beings who we are in conflict with. I think that is a very narrow view of freedom, free-will, and liberty.
I think we are saying much the same thing but using different words. I think its useful to separate the concept of "liberty" from the concept of "opportunity."
A common definition of liberty is "The state of being free from restrictions imposed by societal authority."
A common definition of opportunity is "A set of circumstances that makes it possible to do something."
And to complete the set, We can define freedom to be "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint."
Personal liberty is pretty clearly maximized by eliminating all societal authority. But that option is one that comes at the cost of opportunity.
Much of the political debate is about striking the right balance between liberty and opportunity.
Freedom, however, is far more complicated because the to power act or speak can be limited by many kinds of things. It can be limited by society, by circumstances, and by natural law. Furthermore, one can have the legal or moral right to act but lack the power to do it or one can have the power to act but not the right.
When society imposes restrictions on ones actions, it by definition reduces liberty, but if those restrictions create circumstances that make other choices possible it is not clear whether they increase or decrease freedom. Restrictions can actually increase some peoples freedom while decreasing the freedom of others, even when the restrictions are applied uniformly. That's why I think its important to separate the two concepts.
Under those definitions I would have to say that government's role is to maximize opportunity within reasonable restrictions to personal liberty(no murder, etc.).
In response to many people's view of regulation: do you have any problem with the rule of law? I have always seen regulation as simply being the application of law. People seem to have no problem with the regulation of murder and rape (not allowed), but for some people any application of law to commerce and daily dealings is somehow wrong? Many modern Americans have this odd misconception that early Americans were against taxation and regulation of any kind. They were not, their main dispute was that they wanted that taxation and "regulation" to come from their own elected assemblies. I see nothing wrong with a majority of Americans deciding that they don't want their futures put in jeopardy by financial institutions that do not seem to have the country's well being at heart.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I believe the phrase "We are the 99%" was originally in reference to the GOP opposition to raising taxes on the top 1%. To me, its a lot less presumptuous when viewed in that context.
In a way, that claim is consistent with the fact that the movement doesn't have one consistent message. They are a mixture of people from the lower 99% of the income bracket and that's a pretty diverse group of people.
Movements from both the left and the right have a long history of claiming to represent the silent majority of Americans. Any one remember Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority"? More recently, Tea Party Leaders like Sarah Palin have claimed to represent the average american and the silent majority. While this always has a tendency to offend the opposition, I think its common because people really believe it. They believe that their viewpoint is held by the vast majority because they are guilty of selection bias. They associate selectively with people who share their values and perspective so nearly everyone they talk to about political issues agrees with them. They then presume that, despite what they read in the media, nearly everyone thinks like they do.
My favorite example of this is from liberals who were astounded that John Kerry lost against George Bush. Obviously conservatives are just of guilty of this as I know so many who see the election of liberals to office as being the product of some elaborate conspiracy since everyone in their community is a red blooded American.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As opposed to what, green-blooded Americans?
Is the Romulan vote really that big a constituency? Lord knows all the Vulcans are liberals up there in their ivory tower.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, what do you guys think of this? It was uploaded by a conservative but I'm halfway through so far and it seems unedited, just a glimpse at Occupy Atlanta and their, hm... unique method of decision making.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Yes, we all know that taking a dim-view of the government actively preferencing members of certain classes is the basis of communism.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
