Occupy OTF

[Noodle]

Occupy Vermont!

[BobCox2]

To Occupy OTF is not hard U All.

I never even needed a thread to do it before.

[Talga Vasternich]

The OWS protests remind me a bit of a text line of the Sex Pistols: "I don't know what I want, but I know how to get it."

Problem is, they DON'T know how to get it and are being led to believe they are doing something.

For me, the whole issue is an expression of frustration and dissatisfaction. No matter how silly or uninformed the people are, they are unsatisfied and there are a lot of them. Something will have to be done about it because people want to be happy or at least content with what they have. No matter whose fault it might be, if too many of them get too unsatisfied, they will start riots or a revolution.

They are unsatisfied that they don't have what others have and are jealous and envious. That's all there is to it.
And they're protesting the wrong addresses. They should be camped out in Washington DC to end the continuance and growth of iron-fisted government oversight of business.
BTW... they have rioted (in a somewhat small scale) in a few places. No better way to lose popular support than to generate negative headlines for your movement, if you ask me.

[krischan]

OK, now you believe to know the reason for their dissatisfaction. What can be done to find a solution? You can probably let a few police squadrons in wedge formation attack those who start rioting, but you cannot do that to those who use their right of freedom of speech, no matter how silly their reasons seem to be for you. All you can do is trying to convince them.

The problem with these constitutional rights is that even though the people's reasons are wrong in your eyes, they are still allowed to have their point of view and make their decisions about a lot of important things regarding the country, like the next election.

In a country or society, people can only become rich because the society supports that concept, because an economic system enables people to amass wealth and a society or government force sustains it. If the people themself decide to deny certain elements of property to others (e.g. by establiching a government of their choice), that decision is just just as valid as keeping things as they are. I don't mean to say that the one is better than the other, but that the question of what is allowed is a matter of laws

[Talga Vasternich]

OK, now you believe to know the reason for their dissatisfaction. What can be done to find a solution?

And if I feel no solution is necessary for what they are protesting against?

You can probably let a few police squadrons in wedge formation attack those who start rioting, but you cannot do that to those who use their right of freedom of speech, no matter how silly their reasons seem to be for you. All you can do is trying to convince them.

No one needs to convince them of anything.
If they peacefully protest, I completely support them. When they rape, destroy, prostitute minors, and assault because they think their act of protest protects them from responsibility for their actions, they should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

The problem with these constitutional rights is that even though the people's reasons are wrong in your eyes, they are still allowed to have their point of view and make their decisions about a lot of important things regarding the country, like the next election.

If (and that is a BIG if) they vote, power to them. I would hope they would make informed decisions instead of choosing the candidate who promises to give away the most of someone else's money and property.

In a country or society, people can only become rich because the society supports that concept, because an economic system enables people to amass wealth and a society or government force sustains it. If the people themself decide to deny certain elements of property to others (e.g. by establiching a government of their choice), that decision is just just as valid as keeping things as they are. I don't mean to say that the one is better than the other, but that the question of what is allowed is a matter of laws

Again, if laws are being followed, great.
Change is most effective when people work together.
If, however, people are trying to force change (in this case being redistribution of wealth) at the expenst of someone else's property, the protesters can go find another society to live in. They're free to leave a situation they consider to be unacceptable.

[BobCox2]

After the last 10 years all these people are on the doorstep of the powers that be
complaining and the reason is...

The Country is broken cause the systems is fixed.

Including the Courts

[krischan]

And if I feel no solution is necessary for what they are protesting against?

I meant a solution for these people, not for what they protest against.

No one needs to convince them of anything.
If they peacefully protest, I completely support them.

Then it would be all fine for you.

When they rape, destroy, prostitute minors, and assault because they think their act of protest protects them from responsibility for their actions, they should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Are they doing that? I'm not aware of a "rape to occupy Wall Street" faction.

There are certainly people who use violence, because they believe it to be justified means, to promote their own goals or just for its own sake, but these people are a minority. They just draw the most attention. Separate them from the others and throw them into jail. However, the issue is being abused by others, so they can throw them all into the same basket. Unfortunately there are enough silly people who are easily subject to that kind of manipulation, just as there are silly Occupy Wall Street people who are manipulated into crossing the line by other demagogues.

If, however, people are trying to force change (in this case being redistribution of wealth) at the expenst of someone else's property, the protesters can go find another society to live in. They're free to leave a situation they consider to be unacceptable.

As said, the concept of property comes with the society and economic system. You have the right to gether property, but it's not undeniable. Nothing is undeniable. A few hundred years ago, the rulers believed that their right to rule is undeniable and given by god himself and not by the people, for more than a thousand years. Most of these systems have been overthrown.

I'm not at all saying that the concept of property is to be given up, but it could theoretically be given up. However, doing that completely would just lead to a system in which the rulers exert power through resources in a different manner, by giving it a different name (as in the Animal Farm parody).

In any case, there are more constitutional rights than having property and in cases of a conflict, they are weighed against each other. That means, these rights are limited or in certain cases even denied by others. IIRC the US constitution mentions a right to live, but US states are still allowed to sentence people to death because of other parts of the constitution.

If there is an undeniable right, it's the untouchable human dignity (the first paragraph of the German constitution and the one which cannot be abandoned legally, unlike the other constitutional laws, although you still need a 2/3 majority in both houses of the parliament to change them) which is closest to the right of the US constitution to pursue happiness.

[jmervyn]

I meant a solution for these people, not for what they protest against.

The solution in NY is apparently a colloquial term: "wooden shampoo".

Are they doing that? I'm not aware of a "rape to occupy Wall Street" faction.

Amongst many, many other things.

However, the issue is being abused by others, so they can throw them all into the same basket.

Yeah, sure, kris. That's why the mainstream media was screaming obscenity and fabricating claims of violence regarding the TEA Party, while it now is sandbagging story after story after story about these malevolent little socialist gobshytes' criminal activities and, well, outright lunacy.

It's only about the tiny number of bad apples, right?

You're quite funny. The German sense of subtle humor, folks!

However, doing that completely would just lead to a system in which the rulers exert power through resources in a different manner, by giving it a different name (as in the Animal Farm parody).

How serendipitous that you should mention Animal Farm...

[krischan]

Exactly, it's just about the bad apples. I don't know how many of them there are, but they are certainly a minority, the 167 incidents mentioned in your link prove that. If a majority had gethered to perform criminal acts, there would have been 10,000 crimes or so.

You will find camp followers, demagogues and opportunists in every organization of a certain size. You don't believe that it only applies to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but not to the Tea Partiers, do you? So why do you get upset when I say that the criminal elements among the first are a minority? It's pretty obvious and I would also say that it's like that in the second.

BTW, I think the Occupy Wall Street protesters are wrong. Not completely wrong, but wrong enough for me not to support them. I don't have to call them rapists etc., however. My point might be summarizeed that they are to be taken serious, instead of just dismissing them as criminals or idiots.

[jmervyn]

Exactly, it's just about the bad apples. I don't know how many of them there are, but they are certainly a minority, the 167 incidents mentioned in your link prove that. If a majority had gethered to perform criminal acts, there would have been 10,000 crimes or so.

I guess my sarcasm was killed by the word filter. The 167 incidents weren't singular, and the count is mounting daily - I think it's 3200 presently. OTOH, with a massively larger population and more protests, the TEA Party has a track record of violence and arrests approaching... none.

You don't believe that it only applies to the Occupy Wall Street movement, but not to the Tea Partiers, do you?

Uh, yes. I do. Your claim is patently wrong. The TEA Party was a group of neophyte upper-middle-class proles who were alarmed and angry about uncontrolled Gov't hubris, receiving their impetus from the Bush administration. The OWS are a mob of hypocritical Statists, Socialists, and word-filtered Fascists, funded by notables of the New Left, rife with violent, anti-Semitic, and rapine intent.

So why do you get upset when I say that the criminal elements among the first are a minority? It's pretty obvious and I would also say that it's like that in the second.

It's not that I'm upset at you; I'm upset that you're being ignorant enough to fall for the storyline of equivalency - it means that the mass media is successful enough that you and probably other light socialist types in Europe fall for their dishonest scenario. The OWS filth are the self-same filth that protest the G8 summits, funded by George Soros, ACORN, and endorsed by the same raft of anti-Western terrorists, tools, and cretins that <always> creep out from under their rocks for a good flag burning.

I don't have to call them rapists etc., however.

So you're asserting that if we looked hard enough, we'd find TEA Party types pimping underage girls and dealing smack? Sorry, kris, but you're quite deluded.