Author Topic: Occupy Wall Street!  (Read 4683 times)

Offline rookiewaygook

  • Fanatical Supporter!
  • Veteran
  • ***
  • Posts: 233
  • Gender: Female
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #80 on: November 18, 2011, 11:44:05 am »
Quote
Which claim? If it was a macro theory, sure. Micro, though?
Just take a look in an Industrial Organization journal and you can find discussions on (ir)rational behaviour, firm efficiency, market competitions etc.

Quote
The particular view they walked out on was the minimum wage.
What? Their official open latter has no mention of minimum wage.

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #81 on: November 21, 2011, 11:55:59 am »
Values aren't subjective. Values can quite easily be right or wrong.
I'm going to assume you're trolling here unless you care to back up that completely ludicrous statement.

Quote
Economics isn't a value system. no more than physics or geometry are a value system.
Economics is a science that's taught by people holding certain values. It is coloured by these values, especially when it's taught within a capitalist context. Depending on what value system the prof has, certain economic possibilities will be discussed, others won't.

For example, the science of Economics may objectively show that an economy does much 'better' when an ethnic group of human animals are enslaved or that humans should cannibalize each other to use resources more wisely, but since the majority of people in the US feel that this is wrong (according to their subjective value system) it isn't brought up in an Economics class. What is brought up is abolishing the minimum wage, something that would make the economy do much 'better'. There are people, however, who see this as equally evil according to the values they hold. It is a clash of value systems.


Quote
Two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody should get handouts from other people's work.
So...this is wrong according to you. But that statement has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your subjective values. "Equality" is not one of your subjective values -- neither is, apparently,  seeking to understand why people end up in the situation where they need handouts.

According to your very subjective value system, those things are both "wrong". According to some other people's subjective value systems, one or both of those may be "right". According to the OWS folks, one of those things (the govt. paying off student loans) is right.

____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #82 on: November 21, 2011, 12:47:58 pm »
Quote
Two wrongs don't make a right. Nobody should get handouts from other people's work.
So...this is wrong according to you. But that statement has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with your subjective values. "Equality" is not one of your subjective values -- neither is, apparently,  seeking to understand why people end up in the situation where they need handouts.

According to your very subjective value system, those things are both "wrong". According to some other people's subjective value systems, one or both of those may be "right". According to the OWS folks, one of those things (the govt. paying off student loans) is right.

I understand fully how people get into bad situations. Their first port of call should be to their family, friends and immediate community. I'm not against handouts. I'm against being forced (which all govt action is) to give handouts to people I don't know, have never met, and will likely never meet. Using force to take resources off one person, to give to another person of your choosing, is objectively wrong imo. It doesn't matter who those people are. Wall street or students.

I can understand a case for how it's wrong in your opinion based upon a certain set of values, but since you made this statement, would you care to explain how it's objectively wrong in your opinion?
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #83 on: November 21, 2011, 01:10:18 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?
How can you say that anything is "objectively wrong"? Morality is a very subjective thing.
If you believe in The Source (God, Allah, etc.) and believe that he/she/it has communicated what's right and wrong to you then I can see how you could believe that you would know objective morality, otherwise...it's impossible to know objective morality.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #84 on: November 21, 2011, 01:23:03 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?
How can you say that anything is "objectively wrong"? Morality is a very subjective thing.
If you believe in The Source (God, Allah, etc.) and believe that he/she/it has communicated what's right and wrong to you then I can see how you could believe that you would know objective morality, otherwise...it's impossible to know objective morality.

So, it's OK to use force against innocent people, subjectively...?

According to my personal ideals, I feel completely comfortable using non-violent force against someone to reallocate resources, especially if that someone has gained their money by oppressing others.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #85 on: November 21, 2011, 01:34:32 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?
How can you say that anything is "objectively wrong"? Morality is a very subjective thing.
If you believe in The Source (God, Allah, etc.) and believe that he/she/it has communicated what's right and wrong to you then I can see how you could believe that you would know objective morality, otherwise...it's impossible to know objective morality.

So, it's OK to use force against innocent people, subjectively...?

According to my personal ideals, I feel completely comfortable using non-violent force against someone to reallocate resources, especially if that someone has gained their money by oppressing others.

Let's leave the bolded part aside for now.

Let's focus on the italicized part because it is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as non-violent force. If you don't pay your taxes people with guns will come and take away your freedom. Violence. Pure and simple.

According to your value system, then, it's OK for some people to profit off of the misery of others?
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #86 on: November 21, 2011, 01:53:41 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?
How can you say that anything is "objectively wrong"? Morality is a very subjective thing.
If you believe in The Source (God, Allah, etc.) and believe that he/she/it has communicated what's right and wrong to you then I can see how you could believe that you would know objective morality, otherwise...it's impossible to know objective morality.

So, it's OK to use force against innocent people, subjectively...?

According to my personal ideals, I feel completely comfortable using non-violent force against someone to reallocate resources, especially if that someone has gained their money by oppressing others.

Let's leave the bolded part aside for now.

Let's focus on the italicized part because it is an oxymoron. There is no such thing as non-violent force. If you don't pay your taxes people with guns will come and take away your freedom. Violence. Pure and simple.

According to your value system, then, it's OK for some people to profit off of the misery of others?

What does that even mean? How does it relate to what I said? And can you give me an example?

I guess we'd need to clarify a few things
1.) Most rich people only "win" (get rich) because they pay their workers low wages. Someone has to lose in order for them to win, it's the way the system is set up. Even "anarchists" like Lupe Fiasco are only rich because there are thousands of people getting paid low wages to harvest aluminium, gold, and silver that goes into making his CD's. There are also the bouncers at his concerts, the cleaning crew (probably "ilegales" who get paid under the table), the workers who harvested the materials to make the amps he uses, etc. If you paid all of those workers a decent wage he wouldn't be rich. If there was guaranteed upward social mobility it wouldn't be so bad, but there isn't, there's just a lifetime of oppression doing menial work. Do you have a problem with that system or are you OK with it?

2.) If you're not OK with the fact that people are rich because they oppressed others (directly or indirectly) then how would you go about "righting" it?
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Davox

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #87 on: November 21, 2011, 02:09:42 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?

For a guy who claims not to be an objectivist, you sure use 'objectively' in the exact same way and for the exact same arguments that they do.

The thing is, if intelligent and rational people can intelligently and rationally disagree with your position/morals, your positions are probably not actually 'objectively' correct.  Doesn't make them stupid or invalid or wrong, per se, just not 'objectively' correct.  Because that's not what objective means.  In that case, your positions are just axioms/premises, and people are always permitted to disagree with you on those without being 'objectively' wrong.

In terms of this argument, there are value systems, popular ones even, that allow for violence, force, coercion or threats thereof being used against people in specific circumstances.  Even most proposed libertarian societies allow such things, under certain circumstances (like breach of contract or other property-related crime).

It is hardly the case that everyone MUST believe that using any kind of force to remove any kind of resources from someone is always 100% wrong.  Which is what you stated, intentionally or not, your opinion to be.  I guess what I'm saying is, be careful with words like 'objective,' they carry a heavy weight in a debate that you may not intend.

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #88 on: November 21, 2011, 02:34:31 pm »
1) I don't buy your analysis. If the transactions are voluntary (regardless of who gets paid what) obviously both parties are benefiting more than they would if they didn't make the transaction (at least in their perception). Considering it is voluntary, nobody is being oppressed.

OK, picture yourself in this situation. Your name is Prakash, you and your family of five live in a small village in central India where you were born. Your village sits on the edge of a large mineral deposit which is controlled by a large mining company. After the mining company moved in they cleared lots of forest where you used to hunt small game and gather wood by the bundle to sell in the city. Because of this, the only way you could survive was by taking a job with the mining company. The job offered very little money, not enough money to feed your whole family, so one of your children (Sunitha) died due to malnutrition. Your wife, Jyoti, sells her body to the foreman as much as possible to provide the extra income needed to let her two remaining children eat and you are able to survive.

Then, a few years later, you develop Silicosis because of inhaling so much dust. The mining company wouldn't provide you with proper prevention methods and you didn't have the money or knowledge to even buy a mask. Now, you don't have any way to pay for medicine to cure Silicosis, so you wait out your death while your wife goes to work in the mine in your place. This is a very true story that I've experienced repeatedly, only the name was changed.

No one forced you to take the job (it's voluntary) so I guess that means you're not being oppressed, right? Voluntary transaction. Nothing oppressive about it, eh?

Either you are extremely ignorant of the way the world works or you have an incredible lack of compassion. I'm really hoping it's the former.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Hooplehead

  • Explorer
  • *
  • Posts: 70
  • Gender: Male
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #89 on: November 21, 2011, 03:00:07 pm »
Why don't these dirty hippies put down their iPads and find work?  I just hope the latte-sipping protesters don't eventually get jobs in Korea, and just go back to their barista job at the "alternative" coffeeshop.

Offline Davox

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 501
  • Gender: Male
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #90 on: November 21, 2011, 03:43:11 pm »
Would you agree that using force to take resources off a person (even if your intentions for its use are good) is objectively wrong?

For a guy who claims not to be an objectivist, you sure use 'objectively' in the exact same way and for the exact same arguments that they do.

I could well be an objectivist. I haven't the first clue. I've only read Atlas Shrugged.

Quote
The thing is, if intelligent and rational people can intelligently and rationally disagree with your position/morals, your positions are probably not actually 'objectively' correct.  Doesn't make them stupid or invalid or wrong, per se, just not 'objectively' correct.  Because that's not what objective means.  In that case, your positions are just axioms/premises, and people are always permitted to disagree with you on those without being 'objectively' wrong.
Axioms and premises aren't the same thing. Axioms aren't testable in the same way that premises are. Axioms are ideas that we can't test, but accept to be true. Therefore, you can't really disagree with them, unless you have some new information that no one else possesses.

Are you saying that there is some kind of relativism when it comes to right and wrong? That someone isn't wrong simply because they are a nice person or they argue "rationally" (I'm taking "rationally" to mean agrees with your point of view, here)? Frankly, I find that to be an odious notion.

Quote
In terms of this argument, there are value systems, popular ones even, that allow for violence, force, coercion or threats thereof being used against people in specific circumstances.  Even most proposed libertarian societies allow such things, under certain circumstances (like breach of contract or other property-related crime).
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it is right.



Quote
It is hardly the case that everyone MUST believe that using any kind of force to remove any kind of resources from someone is always 100% wrong.  Which is what you stated, intentionally or not, your opinion to be.  I guess what I'm saying is, be careful with words like 'objective,' they carry a heavy weight in a debate that you may not intend.

They don't have to believe that, but they would be advocating violence (or the threat thereof) against innocent people. Which I have trouble NOT finding to be morally wrong.

I guess my issue with your position is that you just know you're 100% objectively correct, and I'm wondering how you can be so confident in what you believe.  Especially when the vast majority of people, many of whom are much much smarter than both of us, disagree with at least some positions that we each hold, whatever they may be.   Do you honestly think that you personally have the One True Morality, and that every other thinker in the history of the world who has searched for truth has been incorrect or only partially correct, and as a result you're sure you're much smarter than every single one of them? Seriously, if you're this sure you're correct, why aren't you publishing your thoughts in peer-reviewed journals?  If you're right, you'd be the most famous philosopher, heck, the most famous person in the whole history of humanity.  However, if you're not 100% certain, you probably ought not use words like 'objectively' to back up your opinions.

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #91 on: November 24, 2011, 03:14:17 pm »

"According to an article in the Huffington Post, the average Wal-Mart worker makes $8.81 per hour, while the CEO makes $8990.00 per hour." Wow.
http://www.occupywallst.org/article/occupy-seattle-occupies-wal-mart/#comments
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #92 on: November 25, 2011, 07:55:57 am »
To be honest, I think that emphasizing the wage disparity is a mistake. It's a problem, but you really can't blame the corporations for acting like corporations, or stockbrokers for acting like stockbrokers. I mean, of course they're going to make as much money as they can… whether or not they 'deserve' the money that they make isn't something that's really up to anyone else to decide. If it's legal, they'll do it… if they can make it legal, they'll make it legal. They'll do whatever they can to make as much and lose as little money as possible. That's what they do… it's what they're supposed to do, and it will never change. 

The blame here is purely on the governments and how they have completely and utterly failed to act in the interests of their citizens… and refused to involve them in the decision-making process. The real issue isn't money (though that is a big one)-- it's helplessness…

The protesters should stop being angry about the wage disparity and calling for taxes on the rich or whatever it is they want, and start pushing for more referendums. The politicians can't be trusted to represent the people-- so people need to be given more of a chance to represent themselves. Considering we're living in a digital age where information is available and it's more possible to encounter all kinds of viewpoints and develop a well-rounded perspective about the issues, I think it's about time.
Me: Yes it is.
You: No it isn't.
Me: Yes it is
...and we'll sound like school children or (as has become common) ESL school "teachers" with ADHD.

There is no objective basis for that claim, it's your opinion based on subjective values. Many have a similar opinion to you, many don't (I have a dissimilar opinion). Our opinions probably tell us more about the relationships we have and the experiences we've had than anything else.

I agree that it's normal for a corporation to act like a corporation and I totally understand that point and validate it. I just don't believe that a corporation should exist. I also believe that a corporation may not always exist and that things may change. I'm entitled to that opinion as much as you are to yours.

As far as the real issue being helplessness vs. money, I agree with you on that. Just b/c I posted the walmart link don't be misled to think that I feel that is the core issue. This is a topic which includes many posts related to the Occupy movement.

I think the protesters are pushing for a change in the system (or "referendums") -- a change that would give more of a voice to the people. It seems that the core of Occupy Wall St has libertarian-socialist tendencies which I somewhat share.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #93 on: November 25, 2011, 09:39:03 am »
To be honest, I think that emphasizing the wage disparity is a mistake. It's a problem, but you really can't blame the corporations for acting like corporations, or stockbrokers for acting like stockbrokers. I mean, of course they're going to make as much money as they can… whether or not they 'deserve' the money that they make isn't something that's really up to anyone else to decide. If it's legal, they'll do it… if they can make it legal, they'll make it legal. They'll do whatever they can to make as much and lose as little money as possible. That's what they do… it's what they're supposed to do, and it will never change. 

The blame here is purely on the governments and how they have completely and utterly failed to act in the interests of their citizens… and refused to involve them in the decision-making process. The real issue isn't money (though that is a big one)-- it's helplessness…

The protesters should stop being angry about the wage disparity and calling for taxes on the rich or whatever it is they want, and start pushing for more referendums. The politicians can't be trusted to represent the people-- so people need to be given more of a chance to represent themselves. Considering we're living in a digital age where information is available and it's more possible to encounter all kinds of viewpoints and develop a well-rounded perspective about the issues, I think it's about time.
Me: Yes it is.
You: No it isn't.
Me: Yes it is
...and we'll sound like school children or (as has become common) ESL school "teachers" with ADHD.

There is no objective basis for that claim, it's your opinion based on subjective values. Many have a similar opinion to you, many don't (I have a dissimilar opinion). Our opinions probably tell us more about the relationships we have and the experiences we've had than anything else.
Just because someone has a different opinion based on different world views doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Repeating said doesn't constitute an argument.
True, not all opinions are equally based on empirical scientific evidence.

In this case, however, people are looking at the same scientific empirical evidence, understanding the same things about it (i.e. I'm looking at the grass, the grass looks green) but we/they have a different hierarchy of values . That hierarchy is completely subjective. Someone's #1 value may be "personal liberty" while someone else's #1 value may be equality. I'm willing for personal liberty to be trampled in some cases in order for there to be more equality. Others would be willing for there to be oppression by big business in order to not compromise on personal liberty. Equally valid stances.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #94 on: November 25, 2011, 10:25:58 am »
Someone's #1 value may be "personal liberty" while someone else's #1 value may be equality. I'm willing for personal liberty to be trampled in some cases in order for there to be more equality. Others would be willing for there to be oppression by big business in order to not compromise on personal liberty. Equally valid stances.

Not if you abhor violence.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but did you even read what I wrote? You're missing the point.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #95 on: November 25, 2011, 10:31:25 am »
Someone's #1 value may be "personal liberty" while someone else's #1 value may be equality. I'm willing for personal liberty to be trampled in some cases in order for there to be more equality. Others would be willing for there to be oppression by big business in order to not compromise on personal liberty. Equally valid stances.

Not if you abhor violence.
I don't mean to sound condescending, but did you even read what I wrote? You're missing the point.

Yes. You said you were willing to use violence (trample liberty) to achieve equality.

you're still missing the point, man...maybe another read of the past conversations on this topic, or can somebody help this brother out?
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline hilarity ensues

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Gender: Male
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #96 on: November 25, 2011, 12:45:48 pm »
Me: Yes it is.
You: No it isn't.
Me: Yes it is
...and we'll sound like school children or (as has become common) ESL school "teachers" with ADHD.

There is no objective basis for that claim, it's your opinion based on subjective values. Many have a similar opinion to you, many don't (I have a dissimilar opinion). Our opinions probably tell us more about the relationships we have and the experiences we've had than anything else.

Ahhh the old 'it's all subjective' line... the ultimate debate-buster.

To be honest, I don't think you can get more objective than, in the words of Clint Eastwood, 'deserve's got nothing to do with it'. When you start thinking about what should be, you lose sight of what is. It's ridiculous to go around demonizing rich people and glorifying the poor... morals and decency aren't always barriers to success, things aren't that simple. White collar crime exists and it should definitely be answered.. and some of them should probably be held as enemies of the state... but to say that suddenly everyone who makes above a certain amount of money should be forced to surrender most of it for the 'greater good' is unrealistic and a little loopy.

I agree that it's normal for a corporation to act like a corporation and I totally understand that point and validate it. I just don't believe that a corporation should exist. I also believe that a corporation may not always exist and that things may change. I'm entitled to that opinion as much as you are to yours.

I don't think I've given you any reason to get defensive about your opinions... I think I'm more of a moderate for sure, but expressing a contrary opinion doesn't mean that I don't think you should have your own.

And if they're going to abolish the corporations, they have to do it extremely subtly, sneakily, and step-by-step... which probably won't happen, because I honestly don't think that you can run a country on taxes alone. Who knows what kinds of donations will start to disappear? The way the system works now, you can easily hold the government hostage if you have enough money. Going after the corporations could actually cause even more damage to things that actually matter.

As far as the real issue being helplessness vs. money, I agree with you on that. Just b/c I posted the walmart link don't be misled to think that I feel that is the core issue. This is a topic which includes many posts related to the Occupy movement.

I think the protesters are pushing for a change in the system (or "referendums") -- a change that would give more of a voice to the people. It seems that the core of Occupy Wall St has libertarian-socialist tendencies which I somewhat share.

I don't think there is a core... that's the problem.
"Enough is enough! I've had it with these Monday-Friday kids in these Monday-Friday classrooms!"

Offline Jrong

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • Gender: Male
  • are bhaiya, all izz well...
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #97 on: November 25, 2011, 03:12:45 pm »
Me: Yes it is.
You: No it isn't.
Me: Yes it is
...and we'll sound like school children or (as has become common) ESL school "teachers" with ADHD.

There is no objective basis for that claim, it's your opinion based on subjective values. Many have a similar opinion to you, many don't (I have a dissimilar opinion). Our opinions probably tell us more about the relationships we have and the experiences we've had than anything else.

Ahhh the old 'it's all subjective' line... the ultimate debate-buster.

To be honest, I don't think you can get more objective than, in the words of Clint Eastwood, 'deserve's got nothing to do with it'. When you start thinking about what should be, you lose sight of what is. It's ridiculous to go around demonizing rich people and glorifying the poor... morals and decency aren't always barriers to success, things aren't that simple. White collar crime exists and it should definitely be answered.. and some of them should probably be held as enemies of the state...

Ahhh....you really must be lost if you think you can make objective statements on values or morals. If you believe in a higher being that has communicated his morals to you, then I accept and respect that (even though I don't believe it). I'll step back and let you deal with other believers b/c we'd be arguing from different apriori beliefs -- pointless. If, however, you happen to be an atheist, there is no way in hell you can make an objective statement on morals or values (i.e. what's right, what's not). :-)

We can debate facts...but these value differences have nothing to do with facts as they are based upon the same empirical evidence. We could, however, debate the issue of OWS if we had certain values in common:
A.) We want to see a more equal world
B.) We want to get rid of human suffering
I'd be glad to do that.

Anyways, you misunderstand me when you say I demonize rich people. I don't. I'm closely related to them. I understand that they don't often understand how they got their millions (by direct/in-direct oppression) or have empathy for those who suffer. I don't demonize them, I demonize the process of getting rich (stepping on the backs of others). I don't know your family or your inheritance, but I'd bet I have more to lose by fighting for a just system than you do, vato.

Quote
to say that suddenly everyone who makes above a certain amount of money should be forced to surrender most of it for the 'greater good' is unrealistic and a little loopy.

Let's put this in perspective. Our ancestors came down from the trees only 3million years ago and we live in a world where some monkeys have 1,000 times more bananas than other monkeys? I'm not really against that except, what makes this bad is that the only way these monkeys can have 1,000x more bananas than other monkeys is if some monkeys don't have enough to survive.

The riches of a few depend on the suffering of many. Without their suffering, there cannot be the rich. It's the way the system is set up as I laid out a page or two back in this thread. I think it's unrealistic to believe that this system of oppression can continue too much longer.

I believe that often debates end up being more pointless than they have to be because each person debates out of a set of assumptions and they don't communicate those assumptions to the other person. Each person "assumes" that the other person has the same assumptions (apriori beliefs) as they do, and they end up talking past each other. I think we're probably going to have to clarify some things and understand each others values (and how we got those values) if we're going to respect the others viewpoint and have a meaningful discussion.
____   ____   __   __   ____   ____!

Offline hilarity ensues

  • Waygook Genius
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Gender: Male
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #98 on: November 25, 2011, 03:53:56 pm »
^I'm not opposed to the end of the disparity, I'm opposed to radical action. The situation may be urgent, but you still need to put aside your morality and indignation and emphasize strategy… 

Touting socialism as the answer actually undermines your credibility. Most Americans don't want socialism. Even if the corporations are inherently evil and greedy and destroying the world, which they are, taking their money away from them on the premise that 'other people need it' just isn't going to work... it's not an argument that most people are ready to hear. Some people definitely are... but unless the protesters can convince the moderates (they're around, I promise) that they're not unstable radical socialists, then they're never going to succeed in bringing about any type of change. When people propose outright revolution, it's wayyyy too terrifying for most of the country… especially since things still haven't hit rock bottom. Demanding that 'corporate America must go' is still too scary for the average person to accept…
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 07:12:47 pm by hilarity ensues »
"Enough is enough! I've had it with these Monday-Friday kids in these Monday-Friday classrooms!"

Offline woman-king

  • Hero of Waygookistan
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
  • Gender: Female
Re: Occupy Wall Street!
« Reply #99 on: November 25, 2011, 09:48:45 pm »
^I'm not opposed to the end of the disparity, I'm opposed to radical action. The situation may be urgent, but you still need to put aside your morality and indignation and emphasize strategy… 

Touting socialism as the answer actually undermines your credibility. Most Americans don't want socialism. Even if the corporations are inherently evil and greedy and destroying the world, which they are, taking their money away from them on the premise that 'other people need it' just isn't going to work... it's not an argument that most people are ready to hear. Some people definitely are... but unless the protesters can convince the moderates (they're around, I promise) that they're not unstable radical socialists, then they're never going to succeed in bringing about any type of change. When people propose outright revolution, it's wayyyy too terrifying for most of the country… especially since things still haven't hit rock bottom. Demanding that 'corporate America must go' is still too scary for the average person to accept…

Meh, not scary.  Just totally untenable to most people.  I think a lot of the innate American objection to socialism is based much more on pragmatism than anything else, particularly from moderates.  It's not as much of an issue of ethics or ideology as some people seem to think.  I think don't think it's that the United States is just not "ready" to take that next progressive step into socialism, or something.  I think that system is fundamentally incompatible with American culture--just as, conversely, socialistic ideals are quite compatible within  certain other cultures, like Sweden or Finland.  Of course, if you're a Marxist, I believe revolution of the workers is supposed to be inevitable in all societies, which is a pretty narrow way of looking at the world and all its infinite possibilities, in my opinon.

What Occupy will probably end up accomplishing, realistically speaking, is to make sure that rebuilding the economy on a more solid foundation than it's rested on in recent history becomes the hot topic in the 2012 election.  They're doing a great job of painting a visceral picture of the distress many young Americans are in because of economy.  I wouldn't be surprised, however, if that focus ultimately engendered a lot of support for Republicans, who sort of have the reputation in America for being strong on the economy.  Check out what just happened in Spain--MAJOR conservative victory in their recent election after weathering a sh*tty economy where something like 20% of people in their 20s-30s are unemployed.  I'm no expert, but it looks like the rest of Europe may be revamping its entire system along much less socialistic lines (I'm thinking of England's cuts to its government spending last year as well).  I could see that taking off in the United States as well, because the individualistic work ethic is so culturally embedded there. 

And the thing is, with hilarity's point, more referendums and more citizen involvement with their representatives and leaders via the Net and other technology is completely possible and probably inevitable, regardless of whether the power dynamics shift left or right next year.  I would love to see more of that come out of Occupy, instead of people trying to capitalize on it as a platform for a socialist agenda which frankly, to most moderate Americans, is not so much scary as overly simplistic, and well . . . sort of tired and outdated.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 09:50:22 pm by woman-king »