Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party (Read 6722 times)
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
I heard a poll recently (from ABC I believe) that said that 50% of Americans identify with either the Occupy movement or the Tea Party.
It seems to me that the fundamental principles of both movements are the same, which means that if both got together and formed a 3rd party or something, there might be more people in that 3rd party than in either of the two mainstream parties.
There are some differences, of course, but I think if we were to stay focused on what is in common instead of the differences, that could happen.
One issue is that the OWS movement has no leader (which is good in some ways because it makes it difficult for the big money to co-opt or take it down), and the Tea Party seems to have leaders, but they listen to big money which subverts the principles that started the Tea Party movement in the first place.
Because most people agree that the government is in desperate need of cleaning up, if the differences were to be solved, it seems to me we could overpower the big money and the corporations from directing the government. The Tea Party could come out in support of the OWS movement.
Personally I'll support people in either party or side who are willing to focus on the fundamental issue. If that issue is not solve, then nothing else matters. I'll support Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, or Buddy Roemer, people from both parties, because they all understand the fundamental nature of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
The present Tea Party movement is ideologically fragmented and incoherent, but the original spark -- which came about in association with a Ron Paul moneybomb on the historical event's anniversary, December 16, 2007 -- is the very polar opposite of the Occupy movement! The Occupy commies are idiots who have no grasp of economic reality, no respect for individual Rights (which begin with Property Rights), and bare all the resemblance to the mobs of 1917 Russia - nothing about them resembles America in any way, shape, or form! They are more vile and dangerous than the U.S. Government as a whole - even the U.S. Democratic Party, and, heck, even the modern-day Chinese Communist Party, where barbarians like them are counter-balanced by more pragmatic forces. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 12:36:04 pm by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
While some OWS people may fit your description, the overall movement has nothing to do with what you claim it does. If you get a lot of your information from Fox News, that would explain your misperception. You should really read up on what the journalists are writing who are actually on the ground covering the general assemblies.
The fundamental question to consider is whether a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing is a healthy society because that's where we're heading. If you think it would be healthy, then there's nothing to discuss. If you think it's not healthy, then we can have a discussion about how to prevent the current destination.
Clearly, the OWS movement is concerned about what I consider a disastrous society - taking us back to the feudal times. I would think any true grass roots populist movement would be concerned about this, including the Tea Party. Corporations controlling the government is the definition of fascism. I would think/hope the Tea Party would be against this.
Freedom won't mean much if you don't own anything.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
While some OWS people may fit your description, the overall movement has nothing to do with what you claim it does. If you get a lot of your information from Fox News, that would explain your misperception. You should really read up on what the journalists are writing who are actually on the ground covering the general assemblies. I get my information from a multitude of sources, including left-wing TV propaganda like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time w/ Bill Maher. The left-wing bias at Fox News is only an inch smaller than with the rest of the mainstream media, which caters to people who are stupid enough to buy the things they are advertising (mostly young single urban yuppies miseducated into a considerable amount of anti-capitalist guilt). The fundamental question to consider is whether a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing is a healthy society because that's where we're heading. If you think it would be healthy, then there's nothing to discuss. If you think it's not healthy, then we can have a discussion about how to prevent the current destination. The wealthiest 1% don't "own everything". In a rational (and therefore free) society, individuals own themselves and the consequences of their actions. USA is far from perfect, but very few countries have a greater degree of economic freedom, and therefore less cronyism. Just as the 1% of people who've spent the most time studying medicine would have more than 1% of a society's medical knowledge, so do the 1% who have been the most effective at creating value. Under Dubya, the top 1% earned 18% of the income and paid 28% of the taxes. In a freer society, in absence of both government cronyism and government theft, their income might be less or it might be more - that isn't something that I would venture to predict. You must also remember that material wealth is only one aspect of capitalism. Your capital includes your life, your body, your mind, your time, your reputation, your biological status over your children, your contractual assets, etc. Under capitalism, even the richest person cannot take away any of those things from even the poorest person without his consent! Clearly, the OWS movement is concerned about what I consider a disastrous society - taking us back to the feudal times. I would think any true grass roots populist movement would be concerned about this, including the Tea Party. Corporations controlling the government is the definition of fascism. I would think/hope the Tea Party would be against this. Taking us back to the feudal times?! That is precisely what OWS is doing! Except of course they represent a version of feudalism adapted to the modern world, where the "divine right of kings" is replaced with the "divine right of governments", and power struggles that end with coronations are replaced with similar ritualization of the ballot box. Pro-business interests don't control the U.S. government, all sorts of interests do. Government power is like a loaded gun, everyone must try to grab it or be the one to get shot, but the pro-business interest group in aggregate is the one that needs government the last! When socialist idiots empower government and then corporations outsmart them and use it to their advantage, that isn't called "fascism", that's called "poetic justice"! Fascism is a marketing campaign for socialism as it played out in certain European countries, which isn't substantively different from what in other countries had been called communism. In 1920s Germany, the communists were the fascists who were a bit more internationalist in their thinking, while the fascists were the communists who didn't like immigrants and Jews. The war between fascism and communism was no different than a war between two monarchies - basically the same ideology adapted to opposing national interests. Greed for wealth is the driving engine of civilization, just as long as the Natural Rights that are necessary to make civilization possible are sufficiently protected. Greed for political power, which is what OWS represents, is the cancer of civilization, which, as a global movement, can take all of humanity into a new dark age of socialist tyranny! Freedom won't mean much if you don't own anything. Yes it does. I would much rather be homeless in New Hampshire than be the richest kulak whose wealth is about to be "occupied" by some of OWS's earlier manifestations! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
1DayAtATime
|
Welcome to the FSP Forum paulkinzelman!
Since this thread has nothing to do with recruiting I moved it to the general section.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
Love and Peace - moving it is fine. Originally my goal was to point out the commonality between OWS and the Tea Party, but you're right, it's morphed into something else entirely.
I'll reply later to the Alex reply.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
BTW, I signed up quite a few years ago, we were packed, I even bought a truck instead of renting, we were ready to move to NH, but we weren't able to sell the house for over 18 months, so we're still stuck in NM for the duration of the sucky economy.
Re: Fox News left wing bias
Was that a typo? Or do you really think that Fox News is biased to the left? I've seen nothing on Fox News that would indicate to me a left wing bias. If you think FN is left wing, I'm surprised you listen to Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Maher, etc., which are some of my sources.
If you read what I wrote, I did *not* say that 1% own everything. I said that's where we're heading because we've been moving that way for decades. Like the Chinese Proverb, "If you don't change direction, you're likely to end up where you're headed", that's where we're heading.
You seem to be saying that socialism=communism=fascism=Nazism and if that's true, then I'd agree that we're going socialist. But that's not my definition. Do you oppose the Interstate Highway System, police, fire department, etc.? That to me is the useful side of socialism.
And if the OWS movement is as you seem to think, then I'd oppose it too, but that's not my experience of what it's about from interviews with some of the participants. Most Mainstream Media blather on about their opinion instead of actually going down there and finding out for themselves.
Again, is a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing, is that healthy? Is that a society that you'd want to live in? Yes or no. If you think it's OK, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
Re: Fox News left wing bias
Was that a typo? Or do you really think that Fox News is biased to the left? I've seen nothing on Fox News that would indicate to me a left wing bias. If you think FN is left wing, I'm surprised you listen to Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert, Maher, etc., which are some of my sources. I should have put "left-wing" in my previous post in quotes, because I personally don't believe in simplifying things down to the linear left-right paradigm - but most other people do, so I get stuck referencing their nomenclature. I try to base my opinions on pure reason, and I find that a rational philosophy is one that is a lot more pro-technology, pro-capitalist, and pro-family / natalist than society at large. I am definitely more pro-capitalist than Bill O'Reilly, the highest rated show on Fox News, and I'm also more pro-natalist than mainstream libertarians like John Stossel. If you read what I wrote, I did *not* say that 1% own everything. I said that's where we're heading because we've been moving that way for decades. Like the Chinese Proverb, "If you don't change direction, you're likely to end up where you're headed", that's where we're heading. On what specific indicators are you basing this prediction? The major trends we are seeing in America do not in any way point to the wealthiest 1% dominating anything. What we are seeing is the growth of government spending and regulation - most of which is done in the name of "helping the poor" or "the middle class". We are also seeing technological innovation empower all individuals and equalize the intellectual playing field more than ever before. Yes, the crazy tax rates of mid-20th century went down - they had to in response to the tax rates elsewhere in the world. Uncle Sam could get away with top marginal tax rates above 90% back when Soviet Russia would take 100%, not just of new income but of your entire life; but today Russia has a 13% flat tax, and in some countries it's even lower. USA doesn't rank very well on the Tax Misery Index, with places like NYC being on par with Norway! USA's corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world! Tell me, if the store in your neighborhood is charging ridiculous prices compared to a store a couple of miles away, wouldn't at some point you consider switching to the store that gets you a much better value? That is exactly what the top-1% income earners should do! You seem to be saying that socialism=communism=fascism=Nazism and if that's true, then I'd agree that we're going socialist. But that's not my definition. Do you oppose the Interstate Highway System, police, fire department, etc.? That to me is the useful side of socialism. It's an oversimplification to say that I consider them identical, but they are different flavors of the same staple ingredient. (BTW, to geeks like me, "=" is the assignment operator, while "==" is the relational operator indicating equality.)Natural Law is a gradually emerging process. We can theorize about its ideal equilibrium point (i.e. the Non-Aggression Principle) far in advance of being ready to apply it in real life. Just as having zero crime is the desired but yet-unattainable goal, so is having zero government. There was a time when Rights could only be defended for a few select individuals, and only to a degree. Individual Rights strengthen as civilization progresses, and things like religious inquisitions, slavery, government-backed tea monopolies, governmental intoxicant prohibitions, sodomy laws, mandatory military service, the welfare state, and eventually even monopolies in roads, protection services, pollution liability enforcement, and jurisprudence will find their place on the ash heap of history! And if the OWS movement is as you seem to think, then I'd oppose it too, but that's not my experience of what it's about from interviews with some of the participants. Most Mainstream Media blather on about their opinion instead of actually going down there and finding out for themselves. The OWS movement was initiated by Adbusters, a magazine that consistently rallies against Property Rights and Free Speech. (And I doubt even 1% of its readers practice "materialistic minimalism" and miserly frugality to the same degree as myself.) Initially disorganized (or intentionally vague to lure in as many people as possible), Adbusters eventually stated that it's "one demand" was the Robin Hood tax. All popular manifestos to come from this decentralized movement, like the " 99 Percent Declaration" and " Liberty Square Blueprint", are overwhelmingly socialistic. One generally shouldn't make generalizations about such a polycentric movement, but it would be irrational for any rational people to embrace it. Again, is a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing, is that healthy? Is that a society that you'd want to live in? Yes or no. If you think it's OK, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Your question is nonsensical, and answering both "yes" or "no" would be a falsehood. It is impossible for a Rational Economic Actor (i.e. a human being) to "own nothing". Even young children, mentally ill or incapacitated individuals, convicted prisoners, and indentured servants retain their Right to Life and Right to Emancipation. Self-owning adults also have the Right to Liberty and the Right to Property. If you somehow have a society where 1% legitimately own all of the material assets (ex. a high-tech prison with 1 guard per 99 inmates, a very unlikely boarding school with 1 adult per 99 children, or a spaceship where 99% of occupants are in cryonic suspension), then that society would indeed be just. This of course assumes that all prisoners had their crimes sufficiently documented, all children are in that school in accordance with the wishes of their parents / guardians, that people entered cryonic suspension voluntarily, that all contractual obligations are being followed, and no dependent's Right to Life or Right to Emancipation is being violated. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 15, 2011, 08:40:41 pm by Alex Libman »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mdj
|
I don't see much similarity between the two movements except maybe a few things:
- Unhappiness with current state of affairs
- Exercising of 1st ammendment responsibilities
other than that they are mostly different. But these movements show that groups are willing to go against the current power structure and that is a good sign.
I salute the OWS folks for having the balls to protest, but that's the limit of my sympathies.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Alex Libman
|
I think balls are overrated, but I am very much impressed with their innovative use of hand signals. Libertarian gatherings in meat-space should embrace this idea. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
swamp_yankee
|
Again, is a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing, is that healthy? Is that a society that you'd want to live in? Yes or no. If you think it's OK, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Strawman. This isn't an argument or the reality.
By the way, who owned that wealth 200 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?
What these economic illiterates don't understand is that wealth is created. It is not a finite pie being hoarded by the wealthy. They created wealth by contributing to the engines of society and uplifting the standard of living for all people.
Bottom line is that its a strictly materialistic movement. There isn't even a pretense of concern about liberty, which is actually refreshing. Its good that these neo-marxists are showing their true colors. Movement is dominated by lazy kids who are mad because the government doesnt force other people to pay for their art school, so they can live for free, while they hang out and smoke all day.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Uncle Walt
|
If OWS is protesting those who "own" Wall Street ... they are protesting themselves.
Union members with retirement accounts or 401 plans ... they "own" Wall Street.
And don't those college "kids" want the same thing, when they eventually get jobs?
From what *I* have heard directly from the OWS people ... they want to be given something, without taking responsibility, thinking that they are owed a "free ride" just for their existance.
On the other hand, the TP wants to cut gov't spending ... unless it affects THEM.
Either way, neither group provides any real solution to government growth. They both just want it to grow in THEIR direction. Thankfully, since their directions are polar opposites, they will never be able to join forces and form a viable political party.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
>>Again, is a society where 1% own everything and 99% own nothing, is that healthy?
>>Is that a society that you'd want to live in? Yes or no. If you think it's OK, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
>Strawman. This isn't an argument or the reality.
Sorry, I don't agree. This IS the fundamental question that you are avoiding answering. If you don't like the actual numbers, then pick some other ones like maybe 1% own 50% or so, that's probably closer to the current reality, but all economic statistics I've seen show these numbers consistently growing for decades.
>By the way, who owned that wealth 200 years ago? How about 2000 years ago?
That's EXACTLY my point. I don't think those societies were economically healthy precisely because of the concentration of wealth.
>What these economic illiterates don't understand is that wealth is created. It is not a finite pie being hoarded by the wealthy. They created >wealth by contributing to the engines of society and uplifting the standard of living for all people.
Ah, the old trickle-down theory, the same one that was called "voodoo economics" by none other than daddy-bush when reagan proposed it when they squared off during the primaries. Trickle-down does not work. The last 30 years demonstrates that.
Sounds like you DO think that a society where 1% own most of the wealth is OK with you, kind of like before the rise of the Middle Class, where society was composed of nobility and serfs. I like to think we've progressed beyond that. But if that's your view of liberty/freedom, then like I said, we've got nothing to talk about.
I was hoping to find some common ground, but I guess I was wrong. Sorry for the intrusion into your forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
>What these economic illiterates don't understand is that wealth is created. It is not a finite pie being hoarded by the wealthy. They created >wealth by contributing to the engines of society and uplifting the standard of living for all people.
Ah, the old trickle-down theory, the same one that was called "voodoo economics" by none other than daddy-bush when reagan proposed it when they squared off during the primaries. Trickle-down does not work. The last 30 years demonstrates that. The last several thousand years demonstrates that it does work. The last few decades have seen more and more government intrusion in the market, on an unprecedented scale. Yes, things have been getting bad, with a huge disparity of wealth, but that's because of the government. Asking for more of the same, as a solution to that problem, is not realistic. Sounds like you DO think that a society where 1% own most of the wealth is OK with you, kind of like before the rise of the Middle Class, where society was composed of nobility and serfs. I like to think we've progressed beyond that. No, we've regressed. Myths aside, medieval serfs actually had more freedom than modern-day Americans, both economic and personal. Which is not to say that they had all that much freedom, but that we currently have so little. The wealth disparity between medieval kinds and their lowest serfs was not as bad as the wealth disparity in modern-day America. This is because of government oppression, and asking the government to institute more and more oppression is not going to solve the problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
>but that's because of the government.
Yes, that's because of corporate profit-driven control of government which is fascism. I think there are aspects of government that can work and are useful.
But it sounds like you're in favor of a time in our society where women have no rights and some people can be bought and sold like cattle? You think we've regressed from that high point of personal rights? You can't be serious.
I really thought (and still do) that some people identifying with OWS and with the Tea Party can find common ground, solve the initial issue (corporate control of gov't equating to fascism and lack of freedom of speech and a number of issues that I think we'd find agreement), and then possibly part ways after that is solved, because if that fundamental issue is not solved, nothing else matters to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
