Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party  (Read 15236 times)

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party
« Reply #90 on: November 25, 2011, 02:44:02 am »

From CNBC -- Tea Party Activists Challenge 'Occupy Black Friday' With 'BUYcott Black Friday' --

Quote
Anti-[Occupant] groups are taking on the protesters of "Occupy Black Friday" with "BUYcott Black Friday".

Liberate Philadelphia / Liberate America, a Tea Party coalition of groups countering the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, are challenging the latest move by Occupy Wall Street protesters to occupy or boycott publicly traded retailers on Black Friday by instead encouraging consumers to shop on Black Friday to help the economy recover.

"At a time when our economy is most fragile and ratings agencies are talking about another downgrade of the U.S. credit rating, it's completely irresponsible for Occupy Wall Street to attempt to bring the U.S. economy to a halt on the busiest shopping day of the year", Liberate organizer and a spokesman for the Tea Party, John Sullivan, stated in a press release.

Although "Occupy Black Friday" is not meant to be an anti-capitalist movement, according to the group's website  ::), supporters of Liberate Philadelphia / Liberate America claim that the entire "Occupy Wall Street" movement is not in support of a free market.

"Occupy's message is frequently one of destroying the American free market", Liberate organizer and President of the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, Teri Adams, stated in a Liberate Philadelphia / Liberate America press release.

It is very clear at this point, relatively speaking, who the good guys and who the bad guys are.

Communist hordes trespassing on private property (or violating the rules of alleged "public property", as long as such a horrible concept continues to exist) deserve to be kicked out, and they deserve to be pepper sprayed and worse if they refuse to leave.
Logged

paulkinzelman

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 35
Re: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party
« Reply #91 on: November 25, 2011, 01:28:27 pm »

Mainshark...
Quote
I note that you skip right over the pepper-spraying of protesters.  No response to that?
I didn't think a response was necessary his behavior was so outrageous, but then after Alex's reply maybe it wasn't so obvious. That guy should lose his badge and be sued for assault. I can't believe a libertarian would support that kind of assault.

Quote
Except you only seem to view sources as "credible" if they agree with your preconceived notions, from what I've been able to tell.
No, there are certain people with which I don't agree, but I respect them and to me they have credibility and I'll listen to them and consider what they have to say.

Quote
Perhaps you need to spend time with a more-diverse group of individuals, then, eh?
I have a number of right-wing friends and I have discussions with them. However, this thread seems to have devolved into parallel universe perspectives so I don't see a lot of point in continuing this discussion - nobody is joining in with which I feel that I can have a good discussion so I'm expecting this will be my last post at least on this thread. I was looking for commonality and cooperation, not contrariness and ignoring a number of obvious facts - like how many credible people (ex police captain, lots of Iraq war vets, etc.) are participating in OWS.

Quote
Take out even 10% of the government meddling, and the bubble would never have gotten as big as it did, nor the crash be as bad as it has been.
You seem to have a ideological inclination to blame the gov't for everything no matter what when things are rarely that simple. There's a whole lot of blame to go around. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Quote
they never would have been in a position to do what they did, if the government hadn't stacked the deck in their favor.
What you're missing is that the gov't isn't necessarily good or bad, it's a bunch of people who might act in a good or bad way depending on who they are and what their goals are. Right now, they're doing the bidding of the rich and I oppose that, but I don't think eliminating gov't is the answer, I think it can be made to work. And I think that's a possible outcome of OWS because of the quantity of people involved. A couple of good examples - Vietnam War opposition, Civil Rights, etc., things changed when lots of people got involved. I think you'd get a lot farther with what you want to see (some of which I agree with), if you participated in OWS rather than opposed it. That was the goal of my post, but I can see at this point, it's wasted effort on my part to continue this thread. I'm going to spend my energy supporting OWS, even if I don't agree with everything some people favor. I think it's our best opportunity to at least begin addressing the myriad of things that are broken in this country.

Quote
supporters of Liberate Philadelphia / Liberate America claim that the entire "Occupy Wall Street" movement is not in support of a free market
I have no idea who the Liberate people are, but nobody at this point can speak for the movement so right off the bat, this pronouncement is suspect. I support a free market *within limits*. This is the kind of cherry-picking that makes it sound like you're just being contrary instead of wanting to contribute to the discussion and promote real change that can happen.

Lastly, quite aways back somebody brought up the claim that the Dems were responsible for the major crash. I didn't reply at the time (there was so much other misrepresentation to point out), but I did note that this claim lacks common sense, because at the time, the Repubs controlled everything - Pres and both Houses. There's no way the Dems could have done anything. The Repubs could have rammed thru anything they wanted (look at the ironically-named Patriot act not to mention the wars). This is the kind of thing that renders this discussion not a good use of my time, so I don't think I'll be inclined to post anymore at least to this thread.
Logged

MaineShark

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5044
Re: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party
« Reply #92 on: November 25, 2011, 05:25:15 pm »

Quote
I note that you skip right over the pepper-spraying of protesters.  No response to that?
I didn't think a response was necessary his behavior was so outrageous, but then after Alex's reply maybe it wasn't so obvious. That guy should lose his badge and be sued for assault. I can't believe a libertarian would support that kind of assault.

No libertarian would.

But why should he lose his badge and be sued for assault?  From what you've said, what he did was non-violent.

Quote
Except you only seem to view sources as "credible" if they agree with your preconceived notions, from what I've been able to tell.
No, there are certain people with which I don't agree, but I respect them and to me they have credibility and I'll listen to them and consider what they have to say.

I've seen no evidence of that.

Quote
Perhaps you need to spend time with a more-diverse group of individuals, then, eh?
I have a number of right-wing friends and I have discussions with them. However, this thread seems to have devolved into parallel universe perspectives so I don't see a lot of point in continuing this discussion - nobody is joining in with which I feel that I can have a good discussion so I'm expecting this will be my last post at least on this thread. I was looking for commonality and cooperation, not contrariness and ignoring a number of obvious facts - like how many credible people (ex police captain, lots of Iraq war vets, etc.) are participating in OWS.

That doesn't sound like a diverse group, at all.  It sounds like a whole bunch of folks who love big government.  They use different rhetoric to support their love of big government, maybe, but they are not ideologically-diverse.

Quote
Take out even 10% of the government meddling, and the bubble would never have gotten as big as it did, nor the crash be as bad as it has been.
You seem to have a ideological inclination to blame the gov't for everything no matter what when things are rarely that simple. There's a whole lot of blame to go around. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

No.  Although that seems to be exactly the case with OWS.  It's all the fault of the evil capitalists, right?  I've said repeatedly that lots of folks are to blame.  It's just that, as the 800-pound gorilla in the room, the government is the more-important target.  OWS seems to want to absolve the government of any blame at all.

Quote
they never would have been in a position to do what they did, if the government hadn't stacked the deck in their favor.
What you're missing is that the gov't isn't necessarily good or bad, it's a bunch of people who might act in a good or bad way depending on who they are and what their goals are. Right now, they're doing the bidding of the rich and I oppose that, but I don't think eliminating gov't is the answer, I think it can be made to work. And I think that's a possible outcome of OWS because of the quantity of people involved. A couple of good examples - Vietnam War opposition, Civil Rights, etc., things changed when lots of people got involved. I think you'd get a lot farther with what you want to see (some of which I agree with), if you participated in OWS rather than opposed it. That was the goal of my post, but I can see at this point, it's wasted effort on my part to continue this thread. I'm going to spend my energy supporting OWS, even if I don't agree with everything some people favor. I think it's our best opportunity to at least begin addressing the myriad of things that are broken in this country.

Attacking innocent people can never be a "good" thing.  And that's what makes an entity a "State" rather than just a bunch of folks hanging out chatting: the fact that it claims the authority to initiate force against folks who have done nothing objectively-wrong.

Lastly, quite aways back somebody brought up the claim that the Dems were responsible for the major crash. I didn't reply at the time (there was so much other misrepresentation to point out), but I did note that this claim lacks common sense, because at the time, the Repubs controlled everything - Pres and both Houses. There's no way the Dems could have done anything. The Repubs could have rammed thru anything they wanted (look at the ironically-named Patriot act not to mention the wars). This is the kind of thing that renders this discussion not a good use of my time, so I don't think I'll be inclined to post anymore at least to this thread.

While I think blaming one wing of the single political party over the other wing of the same party is silly, they do have a point: the Demoblicans had more than enough numbers to filibuster or otherwise prevent the vote, so it was dropped.

I'll also note that the Republicrats didn't "ram" the un-Patriot act through... it was passed with support from both sides of the aisle, and the current Warmonger-In-Chief has continued and even expanded the abuses, along with all the new wars he's drummed-up.  Yet I don't hear OWS condemning him for it...
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..

Alex Libman

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 353
Re: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party
« Reply #93 on: November 25, 2011, 06:42:15 pm »

I didn't think a response was necessary his behavior was so outrageous, but then after Alex's reply maybe it wasn't so obvious. That guy should lose his badge and be sued for assault. I can't believe a libertarian would support that kind of assault.

If someone squatted in your living room and refused to leave, what would you do about it?  Let's assume for a second that you're on a limited budget and can't afford a bus-full of Swedish supermodels to gently push him out with their cleavage...  Using pepper-spray is one of the less damaging alternatives.  One wonders how many of the world's most destructive communist revolutions could have been prevented with enough pepper sprayed at the right faces at the right time...


You seem to have a ideological inclination to blame the gov't for everything no matter what when things are rarely that simple. There's a whole lot of blame to go around. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Yes, some non-governmental actors acted irresponsibly, which had contributed to this economic crisis, but they mostly were acting in response to government's economic meddling.  If those specific individuals would have went against the government-created current, others would have taken their place.  In a free market, people who make bad decisions bear the consequences, and the system simply routes around them, giving more responsible individuals more capital.  It is government intervention (including manipulation of currency and terms of credit) that screws everything up.


What you're missing is that the gov't isn't necessarily good or bad, it's a bunch of people who might act in a good or bad way depending on who they are and what their goals are.

"Governance" isn't necessarily good or bad.  "Government", on the other hand, is by definition involuntary.

There may be situations that cannot be resolved without violence, but those situations become less and less common as civilization advances.  Once you attain a sufficiently rational populace where each individual can act in his or her self-interest, government stops being a necessity and starts being a cancer.  (A recent case of libricide-with-impunity shows that even most Free Staters aren't rational enough as of yet...)  Political libertarians should put forth a pragmatic system of governance that gradually works to make itself 100% voluntary, while avoiding "shock therapy" and giving everyone the time to adjust.  What we have today -- a government willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to brainwash people into giving it ever-more power -- is definitely evil!


Right now, they're doing the bidding of the rich and I oppose that, but I don't think eliminating gov't is the answer, I think it can be made to work. And I think that's a possible outcome of OWS because of the quantity of people involved.

The primal nature of government is that it wants to stay in power.

What incentive does it have to do "the bidding of the rich"?  Some, since rich people can move their brains and capital elsewhere, as is their Right to do so, but the government can simply put barriers in place to prevent that.  Government uses ritualized theft (aka "taxation") from competent individuals to buy its way into power, but when there's any talk of merely reducing this theft now suddenly it "favors the rich"...  A fair system wouldn't have any ritualized theft at all!

A government's power ultimately comes from the bulk of public opinion, which is why modern governments utilize democracy as a means of social control.


A couple of good examples - Vietnam War opposition, Civil Rights, etc., things changed when lots of people got involved.

I don't agree with protests against the Vietnam War.  Vietnam could have been transformed through an American victory, like Japan had been after WW2, and hundreds of millions of people in that region would have been better off as the result.  A free Vietnam could have been a step toward liberating Communist China, socialist India, and expediting the collapse of USSR itself!

I do agree with protests against the draft (involuntary conscription), and that situation has since been resolved - mainly by Republicans.  I also dislike government spending, but the military is one of the last things that can be privatized, and it can only happen in a world where commies are few, and where lots of people (including corporations) are willing to pay good money to blow them up.

The progress of racial equality in this country should not be limited to just "Civil Rights" legislation.  Much of the racial strife goes back to the government's enforcement of slavery, and then its botched withdrawal.  Things have been improving gradually ever since, mainly due to economic factors and the inherent irrationality of racism.  Some of the protests / civil disobedience in the name of racial equality was indeed beneficial, but much of it was demands of "positive rights" in violation of other people's actual negative Rights, including the Right to Property and freedom of association.


I think you'd get a lot farther with what you want to see (some of which I agree with), if you participated in OWS rather than opposed it.

All evils of history -- theocracies, monarchies, communists, fascists, etc -- came about by pointing at what they claimed was a greater evil.  The OWS is not any different.  One should be very careful in trying to lay a pragmatic course to diminishing the evils of government, as history shows how easy it is to end up with much more evil than you've started out with...

This distinction begins with clarity and predictability.  American minarchism in the style of Barry Goldwater, Ayn Rand, and Ron Paul is clear, predictable, and constructive.  The Tea Party is pretty far from those ideals, though they do overlap to some degree.  Some Free Staters have also ventured very far from being rational and coherent in their civil disobedience, and especially in their online conduct...  But OWS is the most incoherent, random, unprincipled mob of them all!


[...]  I support a free market *within limits*.  [...]

Freedom within arbitrary "limits" is not freedom.  The only limits to freedom should come from Natural Law, which is an economic concept that is understood through science, not through "occupations" and drum circles...


Lastly, quite aways back somebody brought up the claim that the Dems were responsible for the major crash.  [...]

Many of the causes of this recession have been brewing for a long time, and I would definitely say that Dems have contributed to the problem to a much greater degree.  They are the Party trying to increase government spending (stealing more money to buy themselves more power).  The Republicans clearly at least pay more lip-service to cutting spending, criticizing the Federal Reserve, and opposing market manipulation like the Community Reinvestment Act.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2011, 06:52:00 pm by Alex Libman »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Up