Occupy Wallstreet

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

So yes, in some cases I will be willing to concede that I take little issue with laws about private space (concerning commercial areas, not a random person's home as you imply later in your post) when the issues at stake are about the basic rights and freedoms of a population being put second to the interests of corporations and financial institutions.

To imply that I support tyranny is a very childish jump in logic and a very weak way to try and invalidate my opinion.

So, the scenario you support begs two questions: who decides when it is acceptable to overrule laws? Who decides the definition of "basic rights and freedoms of a population?"

They're occupying the space where those responsible for the destruction of thousands of lives reside.

Please explain.

And people in power spend more time trying to convince everyone that protesters are lunatics or criminals than they do listening to what they have to say.

What are they saying? It seems as though we've agreed that the protesters do not have a concise or clear message, so how is one supposed to discern what they are saying in a coherent fashion?

[Dylflon]

So, the scenario you support begs two questions: who decides when it is acceptable to overrule laws? Who decides the definition of "basic rights and freedoms of a population?"

I didn't say anyone was overruling a law. But in cases of civil disobedience groups will ignore some laws. I'm not saying a mob should be able to kill people or rape or commit fraud or anything. But the police force has to decide if property rights for multi-billion dollar companies are more relevant than a group's desire to protest in that space.

And asking me who defines basic rights and freedoms isn't directly related to my argument. Explain to me what you're getting at so I can respond to the question.

Please explain.

Would you like me to summarize the events of the recent stock market crash wherein those who worked for financial institutions bundled and sold people's debts and then bet against those people's ability to pay back those debts based on confusing mortgage terms buyers were duped into? If I've gotten any details wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure Wall Street is directly linked to the financial and housing collapse with correlates to thousands of families losing their homes.

What are they saying? It seems as though we've agreed that the protesters do not have a concise or clear message, so how is one supposed to discern what they are saying in a coherent fashion?

I've always understood that the easiest way to listen is by listening. I'm not suggesting that the protest movement can at this point deliver a concise message but there's been more than enough opportunity for protestors to voice many concerns through the media. Valid points I might add.

They're trying to change the discussion in politics, but that's not happening at all. Nobody's listening.

You're the person who confused me the most, Andrew. From what I know about you, you seem to me like the kind of person who would at least recognize politician's needs to talk about some of the issues the protestors bring up (like perhaps the expanded role money and corporations play in politics). Because I find you to reasonable. However, I'm concerned that you feel they have nothing relevant to say and should just go away. You never struck me as the kind of guy who would support such marginalization. I really hope I'm completely off base with how you feel.


Edit: I phrased that last bit wrong. It's unfair for me to assume your position on the politicians and I see in this thread that you agree with some things I say. But my concern remains that you don't find the protestors worth listening to.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm very much enjoying this discussion, so I'm merely dropping in some random facts/thoughts/tangents as a partial observer. I don't want to break up this discussion, but there's some stuff worth thinking about below.


Examples of laws/policy that have failed because the law came before human rights:

-Prohibition and the War on Drugs, really
-Sex offender laws and statutory rape
-Anything slavery and civil rights, duh

Examples of current laws that undermine basic Constitutional Rights:

-namely the Patriot Act and all the warrant-less wiretapping.
-a number of people have been arrested/detained without the fair right to a trial, which is also supposed to be protected by the Constitution
-you could argue that the TSA impedes certain rights, but flying is a private industry and flying isn't a right, it's a privilege; so gray area

The US Prison population, which far exceeds everyone else, is padded by silly drug laws and laws that really don't consider the basic rights of humans:

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations.

Criminologists and legal scholars in other industrialized nations say they are mystified and appalled by the number and length of American prison sentences.

The United States has, for instance, 2.3 million criminals behind bars, more than any other nation, according to data maintained by the International Center for Prison Studies at King's College London.

China, which is four times more populous than the United States, is a distant second, with 1.6 million people in prison. (That number excludes hundreds of thousands of people held in administrative detention, most of them in China's extrajudicial system of re-education through labor, which often singles out political activists who have not committed crimes.)

San Marino, with a population of about 30,000, is at the end of the long list of 218 countries compiled by the center. It has a single prisoner.

The United States comes in first, too, on a more meaningful list from the prison studies center, the one ranked in order of the incarceration rates. It has 751 people in prison or jail for every 100,000 in population. (If you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up.)

The only other major industrialized nation that even comes close is Russia, with 627 prisoners for every 100,000 people. The others have much lower rates. England's rate is 151; Germany's is 88; and Japan's is 63.

The median among all nations is about 125, roughly a sixth of the American rate.

There is little question that the high incarceration rate here has helped drive down crime, though there is debate about how much.

Criminologists and legal experts here and abroad point to a tangle of factors to explain America's extraordinary incarceration rate: higher levels of violent crime, harsher sentencing laws, a legacy of racial turmoil, a special fervor in combating illegal drugs, the American temperament, and the lack of a social safety net. Even democracy plays a role, as judges — many of whom are elected, another American anomaly — yield to populist demands for tough justice.

Whatever the reason, the gap between American justice and that of the rest of the world is enormous and growing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/w...pagewanted=all

These are mostly social issues, I'm less familiar with the financial sectors. The current SOPA act is on par with the Patriot Act, only for your Internet. If SOPA passes, for all we know this very forum could be blacklisted. America will be the next China. Many of the pro-SOPA folks are getting big kickbacks and funding from the RIAA and other large corporations.

I don't think we need to argue that the RIAA is more interested in money than anyone's rights.

At any rate, no one has really touched on why corporations are allowed to lobby, why running for President costs almost a billion dollars, or things like that. I'm curious what everyone thinks.

Relative to the rest of the world, I'm pretty sure the US spends waaaaaaaaaaaaaay more on campaigning. And I'm 100% okay with politicians being required to publicly air out who they get money from. You oppose healthcare for everyone, do you? Oh, you're getting a couple million dollars from Big Pharma every year! Well, fuck you!

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I didn't say anyone was overruling a law. But in cases of civil disobedience groups will ignore some laws. I'm not saying a mob should be able to kill people or rape or commit fraud or anything. But the police force has to decide if property rights for multi-billion dollar companies are more relevant than a group's desire to protest in that space.

And asking me who defines basic rights and freedoms isn't directly related to my argument. Explain to me what you're getting at so I can respond to the question.

I was trying to show that alleviating some laws because some people think it is right to do so is a slippery slope. The reason why Professor alluded to tyranny is because history is riddled with examples where this happens (often with original good intentions). I agree the prospect of the United States falling into tyranny is basically zero, but it is an important historical point that we shouldn't forget.

I also was trying to understand the crux of what you're saying. These discussions tend to get rather confusing and difficult to follow, so I only wanted to focus on a few points.

Would you like me to summarize the events of the recent stock market crash wherein those who worked for financial institutions bundled and sold people's debts and then bet against those people's ability to pay back those debts based on confusing mortgage terms buyers were duped into? If I've gotten any details wrong please correct me, but I'm pretty sure Wall Street is directly linked to the financial and housing collapse with correlates to thousands of families losing their homes.

I would generally agree with that, but I would add the caveat that I think the government is also culpable in addition to Wall Street, and that just blaming "Wall Street" is probably an unfair generalization (it was more so likely the malicious intent of a few, and the ignorance of many). The core problem is that who was responsible and what exactly happened is extremely complicated (this is also why it happened in the first place). Loans that homeowners had no chance of paying back were treated as AAA bonds, and were then re-packaged, packaged again, even sometimes once more, into pools of mortgage loans (mortgage-backed securities). When you have so many financial layers of re-packaging (aka. a creative way of hiding what the underlying asset infact is, and its risk-level), things simply become way too complicated to understand what is truly going on any more. When you couple this with the fact that the majority of these securities resided in major commercial banks, you have an extremely dangerous consolidation risk.

I've always understood that the easiest way to listen is by listening. I'm not suggesting that the protest movement can at this point deliver a concise message but there's been more than enough opportunity for protestors to voice many concerns through the media. Valid points I might add.

They're trying to change the discussion in politics, but that's not happening at all. Nobody's listening.

You're the person who confused me the most, Andrew. From what I know about you, you seem to me like the kind of person who would at least recognize politician's needs to talk about some of the issues the protestors bring up (like perhaps the expanded role money and corporations play in politics). Because I find you to reasonable. However, I'm concerned that you feel they have nothing relevant to say and should just go away. You never struck me as the kind of guy who would support such marginalization. I really hope I'm completely off base with how you feel.


Edit: I phrased that last bit wrong. It's unfair for me to assume your position on the politicians and I see in this thread that you agree with some things I say. But my concern remains that you don't find the protestors worth listening to.

See, I think this is maybe the crux of what we're trying to talk about. I'm not disagreeing over the message of the movement (I agree that increasing inequality is a very serious and major systemic issue that needs to be dealt with), but the method of the movement -- I just don't think it's effective. The problem with these kinds of protests is that they rarely convert anyone. The protest eventually becomes more concerned and focused on the preservation of the protest over the actual message. This ends in the protest re-empowering itself and converting hardly anyone to its message.

[Dylflon]

I was trying to show that alleviating some laws because some people think it is right to do so is a slippery slope. The reason why Professor alluded to tyranny is because history is riddled with examples where this happens (often with original good intentions). I agree the prospect of the United States falling into tyranny is basically zero, but it is an important historical point that we shouldn't forget.

I also was trying to understand the crux of what you're saying. These discussions tend to get rather confusing and difficult to follow, so I only wanted to focus on a few points.

I just got annoyed by the tyranny bit because the invasion of corporate property by protesters couldn't lead to tyranny. It's only the circumvention of laws by the government that can do that.

I would generally agree with that, but I would add the caveat that I think the government is also culpable in addition to Wall Street, and that just blaming "Wall Street" is probably an unfair generalization (it was more so likely the malicious intent of a few, and the ignorance of many). The core problem is that who was responsible and what exactly happened is extremely complicated (this is also why it happened in the first place). Loans that homeowners had no chance of paying back were treated as AAA bonds, and were then re-packaged, packaged again, even sometimes once more, into pools of mortgage loans (mortgage-backed securities). When you have so many financial layers of re-packaging (aka. a creative way of hiding what the underlying asset infact is, and its risk-level), things simply become way too complicated to understand what is truly going on any more. When you couple this with the fact that the majority of these securities resided in major commercial banks, you have an extremely dangerous consolidation risk.

The government is responsible in that it deregulated the banks. While I believe that this was a horrifying and reckless mistake, more blame does fall to the financial institutions. The guy who gave the crazy person the gun is partially responsible; just not as responsible as the crazy guy who did the shooting.

However, I will agree that more focus should be put on the political system that allowed this to happen.

See, I think this is maybe the crux of what we're trying to talk about. I'm not disagreeing over the message of the movement (I agree that increasing inequality is a very serious and major systemic issue that needs to be dealt with), but the method of the movement -- I just don't think it's effective. The problem with these kinds of protests is that they rarely convert anyone. The protest eventually becomes more concerned and focused on the preservation of the protest over the actual message. This ends in the protest re-empowering itself and converting hardly anyone to its message.

When you have to go into survival mode to keep your protest from being disbanded, that should tell you a lot about the current situation.

People need to be publicly upset in a way that forces politicians to take notice. I think we know that it doesn't matter what party is in power. The system is broken in a way that we can't trust politicians to fix on their own. Especially since at the heart of the problem is the greed and short-sightedness of the very politicians we rely on to make things better.

[Typhoid]

Especially since at the heart of the problem is the greed and short-sightedness of the very politicians we rely on to make things better.

And you voted for....Obama, right?

Sorry, I forgot which American politician you rely on.

That is joke, comrade.

When you have to go into survival mode to keep your protest from being disbanded, that should tell you a lot about the current situation.

To be honest, what that tells me, is that the protest doesn't have a strong enough organized message, and is just full of people with nothing to do. No credible protest really needs to struggle to keep itself alive.

[Dylflon]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

And you voted for....Obama, right?

Sorry, I forgot which American politician you rely on.

That is joke, comrade.

Despite the jokingness, I kinda believe now that it doesn't matter which politician is in power when the system is broken. I'd still rather it be Obama than a Republican candidate, but I think we've witnessed now that hope for change doesn't really lead to results when the political machine fights change every step of the way.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

Despite the jokingness, I kinda believe now that it doesn't matter which politician is in power when the system is broken. I'd still rather it be Obama than a Republican candidate, but I think we've witnessed now that hope for change doesn't really lead to results when the political machine fights change every step of the way.

Agreed.

Btw, thank you for replying to this thread and moving the focus back to why people are protesting opposed to why people don't like how this partictular protest is being handled. I was about to lose my mind reading the first couple pages of people basically quoting the mainstream media trying to downplay the effectiveness and misreprsent the character of the people who are at occupy wallstreet.

The fact that we're even having this discussion proves that it is effective.

As for offering solutions to the problems, that's what representatives are there for. Not everyone is going to have answers for how to fix what's broken in the system as it is today. The point is to bring attention to the fact that the system IS broken. Eventually with enough public support (in theory) there should be a politician who comes out and represents these people who feel like the system is broken, and who tries to get voted in to actually fix it.

Right now, all we can do is hope that the system can still be fixed by non violent means. But if it can't be, people need to be ready to do what they have to do. That's how the country was built to begin with.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

I just got annoyed by the tyranny bit because the invasion of corporate property by protesters couldn't lead to tyranny. It's only the circumvention of laws by the government that can do that.

I never said that the invasion of corporate property by protesters leads to tyranny. I said that ruling by the will of the enlightened few, rather than the will of the people (reflected in laws passed in a government determined by self-rule) can lead to tyranny. If you ignore or refuse laws in a self-determined government, you are rejecting the democratic process, not protecting it. Hence my comments about following your argument down the rabbit hole. Your reaction to this specific set of events reveals a troubling distrust of lawful self-rule, IMO.

That said, in American there are inalienable rights; rights that cannot be removed even through a democratic process (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness). In that way I agree with KG that we may have stepped on some of them, but that would be for the courts to decide (and a lesser extent, elections).

[Typhoid]

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.

That said, in American there are inalienable rights; rights that cannot be removed even through a democratic process (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)

That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I'm only going to comment on this specific quote because I literally just finished smoking a joint - no intention of derailing, or arguing etc.



That's a whole other can of worms, though.

George Carlin put it best: man doesn't have rights by birth, you have privileges.

I don't think the "pursuit of happiness" is a right. Anything that is conditional is not a right. Rights are things like Free Speech, Free Religion, Free Sexuality. Those are rights.

If the only rights man has are given to him by other men, then men can take them away without repudiation. Unalienable (misspelling corrected) rights (based on natural law) are the only rights we really have, because man cannot give them or justly take them away. Understanding this concept is a lot easier if you believe in a creator.

Also, how is pursuit of happiness conditional? It guarantees you the right to pursue your own joy, and reflexively prohibits you (or the government) from inhibiting anyone else from that pursuit (eliminating acts against others as a route to happiness). Now there are a lot of ways to interpret our unalienable rights, but that was intentional.

Also, these rights are identified in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution, so they remain more a natural law than a human law.