Occupy Wall Street Opinion Thread. What is your perspective?

#81

Just because I say I want maximum individual freedom doesn’t mean you can go to the nearest person and shoot him. I thought you said you understood libertarianism. It’s all about not using force. Let people decide for themselves. I don’t want a big government telling me what to do. You want government to ‘protect’ me from things like drugs or dangerous foods? That’s MY responsibility, if I wanted to do drugs then LET me. If a company makes bad food then nobody will buy it and it will go bankrupt. Just like it’s supposed to.

YOU are the one who is authoritarian, not me. You want control, you want to tell people what they can and can’t do. All in the name of ‘security’ of course. You want to take money from people by force “to protect them” even if they don’t want to.

Maybe government doesn’t limit liberty so much in your country, but I can’t say the same about mine. I’m not looking forward to my future economic ‘freedom’, I’m looking at 50% income tax, countless other taxes for other bullshit that I could easily take care of myself. Then of course you have 18% (soon 20%) taxation on everything you buy. I’ll probably end up working 2/3rds of my life for money that goes directly towards the state. If I don’t pay this money towards the state, men with guns will knock down my door to take it from me by force. If I don’t comply, they put me in jail.

I have no choice whatsoever whether or not I want government benefits (I DON’T) or not. That is NOT freedom. The only way I could agree with taxation is taxation for very basic things like using roads (though I believe a free market could easily provide roads). If people want government benefits, then they should be free to choose whether or not they want them, if they don’t want them (like me) then they should not have to pay the taxes.

I don’t want a wellfare state, public education, corporate bail-outs, income taxes and subsidies. I want FREEDOM, both individually and economically. So that I can better my life in the way I see fit. Without using force and/or interfering with the freedom of another.

Ah, good old Keynes. Being able to print all that money with virtually no limit. Devaluating the currency so government can spend money on pretty much anything they want. They don’t have to pay, of course not, it’s the people that pay through the devaluation of their currency through inflation. The good old hidden tax. It’s a nice way of taking ones purchasing power without them even realizing it. Keynesianism is the engine behind big government. Politicians and socialists LOVE IT!

#82

I do.

No. Really? And how do I protect myself from force?

And if they decide government?

I’m sorry, but the world is a lot larger than you. There will be people out there that will harm you without you even knowing it.

After many people die. Good idea. I would like to save those people BEFORE they’re killed.

Now you’re just lying.

Then don’t speak of our country as if it was yours.

You claim that the free market could easily provide roads. But they wouldn’t. Because there’s no money in it. Imagine this. You’re out in the boonies. You don’t have electricity. No power company would be willing to run lines out to your house because, well, it’s too expensive to build and maintain for just a single customer.

If the free market could do it, it would. But it doesn’t. Not because of regulation or some horseshit like that. Because it would be stupid to do so, economically.

Yet you are quite fine with using force and interfering with the freedom of another.

And we’re back to the lies.

EDIT: And stop calling me a socialist. I am not. I believe in private ownership and control of the means of production. I’m a capitalist.

#83

great point-by-point rebuttal, smartypants

#84

Why do I have to repeat myself all the time? Read:

You claim I’m fine with using force and interfering with freedom when I have DIRECTLY stated I want the opposite. I explained how it is the government that interferes with my freedom (and the freedom of others) through taxing the people for benefits they might not even want to receive but have to pay for nonetheless.

TL;DR

So, one last time, this is what I defend:
I want FREEDOM, both individually and economically. So that the people can decide for themselves how to better their lives in the way they see fit, without using force and/or interfering with the freedom of another.

And you call yourself a capitalist? What do you think government does when they want new roads? They pay private corporations to build the roads! The questions then becomes, how could you get corporations to build roads without government intervention? Easy, if there’s high demand for roads then a corporation could make it profitable by building the road so long as the people driving on them pay a small fee. It’s just like government taxation, except that the people are free to chose whether or not they want to pay for the construction of a road they may or may not use. That ability to choose is what Milton Friedman was all about, why do you think his show is called ‘Free to Choose’?

#85

My communications skills have failed me once again. I’m still learning. But to be honest, I don’t know what they say about people who are serious on the internet. I don’t spend as much time on the internet as you would think.

To be honest I disagree with taxing those who earn more money. Don’t forget that there are people who have earned their money and have kept their business afloat legitimately.

The issue is those corporations that were bailed out because of the “Too big to fail” mentality. Those corporations should have gone under but government stepped in and dumped the debt onto everyone here in America. So the tax payers are paying for the failure of those corporations that should have gone under.

In a true capitalistic system wouldn’t we have recovered by other businesses meeting the need that those corporations failed at? Those corporations had enough influence (Or power however you choose to say it) to convince the government to bail them out. BAD IDEA and we (The 99% right?) are paying for it, literally.

What the solution would be now, I honestly don’t know. But taxing the “rich” is really an unfair solution.

My grandpa used to say before he passed away “It takes two to tango”. So really both sides are at fault.
The debt slaves who fell for it, and the dept masters who took advantage. (you can’t have one without the other.)

I don’t have a job, and I haven’t had one for nearly a year. But there are those who are willing to help me out by offering me small jobs that get me by financially. I’m fortunate and smart enough to keep myself out of debt where I don’t need to worry about huge monthly payments on a car, credit card, or house I didn’t need and couldn’t afford.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpD8yb5JR7Y

Although name calling wasn’t as big as you put it in your example. I would expect a more professional demeanor from people who are campaigning to run our country, this is as close as it’s going to get to your example.

Also, there should be no doubt from anyone here that there are idiots among the real movement (Whatever message comes out of it). I constantly feel embarrassed when the media interviews these bums.

Just keep in mind that there is something real about the protests and the proof is that the fire (if you will) is spreading across the world. Don’t let mainstream media alter your perspective of what’s going on. Which is something they try to do by interviewing those who are just hanging out to party and echo what they hear like lemmings.

  I stand by the protesters and support the movement, but I can't sit out there 24/7 because I need to pay rent and I still attend school for my own education. So please don't label everyone who supports or is apart of the movement as hippies or drugies or whatever trendy saying is going around about it.
#86

You SAY you are in opposition to limits on freedom but when push comes to shove, you are quite willing to advocate against freedom if it’s something you don’t want…such as the freedom for people to have their government protect them from harm or help the less fortunate.

You would tell others that they’re not allowed to have the government do things that help the country.

Not always in the United States.

Do you live in a country with a government that is made up of representatives of the people? Because the United States is.

You are telling “We the People” that we’re not allowed to have government. You are INITIATING FORCE against us. You are telling us that we are NOT ‘free to choose’.

You are telling the person in the boonies that he’s not allowed to have electricity because the government is not allowed to spend your money to build lines to him. Even though in doing so, you are helped by his increased productivity. You say that there’s not enough demand to lay lines (or roads) out to the person. This “free market” has now initiated force against the person.

Also, tell me what I can do, without government protection, against a company that spews pollutants into the air and I’m forced, even though I’m not a customer, to breathe that shit in, causing me health problems?

Where’s the free market solution here?

The taxpayers would pay for the failure of those corporations anyway. And have to pay more.

No. Because, without government to be there to break up monopolies, businesses would naturally form monopolies by swallowing up the competition. There would only be one oil company. There would only be one fast food joint. There would only be one car manufacturer. And so on. We see it happening all the time with one business buying another. Microsoft recently bought Skype, for instance.

The reason we’re saying ‘tax the rich’ is because they’re getting a virtual free ride on our backs. Yes, they pay, in dollars, more than us, but they also control, in dollars, more than us. Also, “the rich” are the recipients of our hard work. Why shouldn’t they have to pay for this?

Companies are sitting on piles of cash but they’re not hiring (evidently the “tax rates” they’re paying aren’t hurting them in that department). Why? There’s no reason to. Why would a business hire people if there’s nothing for them to do?

#87

Delete

I agree with Brandi, these are swaying from the point and turning into a on-on-one basis. Sorry for the arguments guys.

#88

[COLOR=‘Red’]Huge wall of text ahead, proceed when bored.

For the third time you claim I want the opposite of what I stated. I am all about not using force (actually I believe I said this four times now). If you want government benefits like protection then YOU ARE FREE TO DO SO. The problem is, I HAVE NO CHOICE IN IT. I have to pay for all those benefits EVEN if I don’t want them! That means I am forced to do something against my will.

So you admit you’re wrong? And what do you mean by not always. Does that mean every single person involved in building the road is working on government payroll? What about the capital they used to build the roads? Are those all under government control too? Impossible and ridiculous.

And here you make the same mistake, again, fifth time now. I have to tell you (again) that I am against initiating force. When will you understand the following god damn line I keep posting:
It’s all about not using force. I want FREEDOM, both individually and economically. So that I can better my life in the way I see fit. Without using force and/or interfering with the freedom of another.

That means, if you want to pay government to ‘protect’ you or give you benefits THEN FEEL FREE TO DO SO! I AM NOT AGAINST THAT. As long as the individual can decide for himself/herself whether or not he/she wants to receive any benefits/protection or not. If someone doesn’t want these benefits, then they shouldn’t have to pay for them! You are the one who is using force if you want people to pay for benefits they don’t even want.

I never said any of that, I clearly stated on multiple occasions that if you want to pay government to give you protection/benefits then feel free to do so as long as you have a choice in the matter.

So like if I want a new car but there’s no demand for the car company to make it for me then they’re the ones using force against me? The fuck?

It’s there, in fact Friedman made a whole episode (Free to Choose Ep.1) about these things including the exact topic you just mentioned. This was a topic I was actually interested in too seeing how it’s something you have no control over the quality of the air. But I have a feeling you will never watch any it seeing how I have to repeat myself over and over again.

Uh in a free market if a corporation does bad then it will go bankrupt, only big government backed up by keynesian theory can bail out corporations with tax payers money. Government is the only one to blame here. Without government stepping in, those corporations/banks or w/e would go down just like unsuccessful species in nature go extinct.

So you’re back on monopolies again. I thought we covered this already. Microsoft receives a lot of government support through tax benefits (so do companies like Intel). Friedman explained beautifully how in almost all cases the monopolies that survive the longest are the ones backed up government. Take railroads, steel industry, big agriculture. List goes on and on. Did I mention that excessive regulation protects Microsoft from competition? Their huge capital allows them to build a legal wall around them that you can’t do shit against unless you yourself represent a large corporation (see Apple vs. Samsung). Someone actually asked Friedman how to prevent those monopolies in a free market, after explaining what I said above he said “just look at Hong Kong (freest economy in the world), where are those big evil monopolies you were talking about?”

They’re not hiring because it’s too expensive/risky to hire people. Companies are drowning in regulation and taxes, it’s small business that suffers most from this. This is why you have such big corporations, the small guy can’t get started and become big himself! Schiff explains his own situation with his company and hiring people for it in one of his vids but I’m have trouble finding it. Will post when I have it. Government actually fined him for trying to expand his business and hire more people. He was forced to outsource the jobs. Due to excessive taxing and regulation he would not have been able to start his company at this date. According to him he employs 150 people.

#89

…

#90

No, they wouldn’t be taxed over it, but they will lose their jobs and be a lot harder to find a new one. I think that would hurt more than the taxes used to bail out the business which the business pays back.

Name a country and a time in which what you propose worked?

Which regulations and how?

Bullshit.

They’re not hiring because there’s nothing for the hired people to do. It’s not smart to hire people and then have them sit around all day doing nothing.

#91

Ok, I’m out. I don’t have enough free time to read this. Piece of advice: stick to the most important fact and move on ONLY when you have come to an agreement. These phrase-by-phrase rebuttals achieve nothing. It just makes you look like someone who’s trying to look smart.

#92

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ

I don’t care about your argument. Does anyone know if the officer got punished?

#93

OWS is in Philadelphia, PA too; They’re Occupying City Hall, and the SWAT Team has set restrictions on how close they can protest to City Hall.

I support OWS & OCH partially because I agree that companies make too much money at times. However, a majority of OWSers are just idiotic No-Lifers/4Channers chanting “We are the 99%” or overrated Memes at the top of their lungs.

#94

Yeah, you have no evidence of that, do you?

#95

Not that I know of, but protesters I heard were protesting to try and get the Mayor of Oakland to resign.

The officer and everyone above him in his chain of command need to be punished on some level.

Edit: Scratch that it wasn’t the protesters it was… Olbermann

https://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2011/10/27/olbermann-calls-on-quan-to-resign-after-occupy-protest/

#96

Completely and utterly wrong.

#97

Bankers are afraid of stock and shares falling.
Bankers are not afraid of hippies and drum circles.

While I think it is better to try and fail at something than not try at all, I really cannot see these protesters achieving anything through this protest.
What annoys me are that many of these protesters are ‘professional protesters’. They don’t know or care what they’re protesting, they just have to “fight the man” and simply get a hard-on over protesting.
It trivializes the whole thing when you have people camping out because they think it will be cool and like a festival.

#98

I think they are already achieving things. It has created a national dialogue.

#99

In February 2003 around 10 million people took part in a global protest against going to war in Iraq.
That’s TEN MILLION!

How many governments paid attention to the people they were supposed to represent?
I’m pretty sure you could say that there was a national dialogue then too.
In Rome there were 3 million protester; the largest protest ever.

I’m just saying, the governments didn’t give a shit about 10 million people so why would they give a shit about several thousand people protesting a problem which is much harder to solve.

#100

So, the protesters should just shut up and go home?

Founded in 2004, Leakfree.org became one of the first online communities dedicated to Valve’s Source engine development. It is more famously known for the formation of Black Mesa: Source under the 'Leakfree Modification Team' handle in September 2004.