Occupy Wall Street. Can someone please explain to me what it is?

[nailz]

Hell, I'd elect Metal Sam as President over the current clueless clown that occupies 1600.

Will you please describe an accurate accounting of why you dislike our current president based on something he has passed that isn't directly related to what bush promised with pin-pointed problems and specific reasons of dislike? IE: No saying "LOL BAILOUT THAT DIDNT WORK" or "OBAMACARE DUH".

 

[TheLongshot]

The problem with politics in America is bigger than just who sits in 1600. At this point, I don't think it makes much of a difference who sits there right now, and focusing on that fixing what ills America is the wrong place to look.

 

[Corsair]

You know, guys, contrary to popular belief, it *is* possible to have a political discussion that doesn't *immediately* devolve into mudslinging, if you abide by some rather basic rules, and don't come brandishing your ad-hominems from the outset.

I'd aslo add that being a condescending asshole to people who disagree with you won't really get you anything except maybe some petty personal satisfaction. Will that -really- make you feel better about yourself?

 

[adaher]

Ehh no. The ACLU, NRA, etc are corporations by dictionary definition, but not by legal definition. A corporation is legally bound to monetize and create profit, so a non-profit organization cannot ever be a corporation. Also the New York Times' product is protected (as is any publishing company's product, or any intellectual property) by the first amendment, but it as a company should not be protected by the first amendment because a company is not a person, it is a body of people with outside forces and influences.

Anyone that thinks the bill making Corporations people or whatever is a good thing hasn't seen Colbert basically tear the whole thing down with his own Super Pac, allowing him to basically troll campaigns.

The ACLU and the NRA are legally corporations because corporations bring certain immunities for their members, the most important being limited liability. So pretty much any organization that handles money and involves more than a few people is going to be incorporated.

Now how can a product be protected by the Constitution if only people have rights? Is not a political ad a product?

And what Colbert is doing is fine. His organization has free speech rights just like every other organization.

 

[adaher]

Uh...

Freedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials. While such freedom mostly implies the absence of interference from an overreaching state, its preservation may be sought through constitutional or other legal protections.

How can a corporation, which is not a person, have freedom of expression?

The problem isn't corporate electioneering, it's corporate influence over the political system as it pertains to legislation and executive actions. And the reasons for this problem relate to the role of government and the fact that we elect people who don't know anything about economics or business. 90% of Congressmen, even supposed "free market" Congressmen, just do whatever the businesses of their district want them to do. At the state level, it's even worse. Companies outlaw their competition and fairly well off professionals band together into associations and lobby for restricted entry into their profession to keep their fees high.

And it's not as if corporate influence is the only problem in government. The government is influenced by many interest groups. Business is the single most powerful lobby, but there are others and most of the others are united around a purpose, whereas the business lobby has few issues that all businesses agree upon. UPS is trying to use Congress to kneecap their main competitor, Fedex, so there's no united front here like there is with the NRA, another very influential interest group. Or AIPAC, or the Cuba lobby, or the super powerful AARP. And there's no real way to get a handle on this without violating the 1st amendment. There is no substitute for Americans just keeping an eye on their legislators and the President and booting them if they are corrupt. Those who try to get around the 1st amendment, thinking they are imposing "sanity" on the system are doing violence to the Constitution because they assume that voters will always be too stupid to keep an eye on things. But if that's the case, why do we even have the vote? Either trust the people, and respect the vote, even when you disagree with it, or don't trust the people, and overthrow the government to replace it with a dictatorship more to your liking.

 

[adaher]

One note about corporate writing of legislation:

The main reason corporations write legislation is because corporations are the only ones that know how to do so in many cases. Congress is mostly made up of legal professionals. They don't know anything about the oil industry, the steel industry, or even the food industry. They are only qualified to regulate the legal profession(which BTW, being sympathetic to fellow attorneys, they don't usually bother to do well. After all, lawyers are trustworthy upstanding folks, while those evil corporate CEOS need a firm hand. LOL.) So what happens when a bunch of attorneys sets out to regulate say, the IT industry? We've seen it. Those of us with only a passing knowledge of the internet laugh out loud at the ridiculous statements these guys make on the floor of Congress about the internet. Imagine how much more ignorant they are about how an oil derrick works.

So who do you get if you need to write this legislation? The only people you can get are current and former experts who worked in the industry!

But here's the funny thing. Even the Founders lived in a time where it was tough to regulate businesses they were ignorant of. But it doesn't take an oil expert to be able to say, "Oil companies shouldn't spill their oil all over the Gulf of Mexico." Just write a law saying oil companies can't spill their oil all over the waterways! But no, they want to go deeper. They want to write laws about processes, and documentation about those processes. And since they don't know the first thing about oil drilling, they don't really have a choice but to seek the expertise of oil drillers. So a lot of corporate influence is simply a question of the role the federal government has chosen for itself: the micromanagement of companies. Sarbanes-Oxley forces companies to even report who has keys to the broom closet. That's how bad it's gotten.

 

[booB]

So, your answer to corporations having too much say in government is to not govern corporations at all and let them do what they want? Yeah, that's a solution.

Yep. Vote with your wallet. If you don't like what they're doing or what they're selling, don't fucking buy it. Let them go out of business. With government out of the equation, they can't be artificially propped up or get special treatment.

It's astounding how Americans today have no sense of responsibility.

 

[adaher]

Activist government is a double-edged sword. The same government that regulates a politically unfavored company out the wazoo will also give subsidies to a politically favored company and look the other way while they violate the law.

You can't have one without the other and if you think it's any different in other countries you're wrong. Corporations are even more powerful in places like Sweden, because something like 3 companies control a quarter of the economy. They don't need to lobby the Swedish government. They know that all they have to do to destroy Sweden's economy is just leave. And most countries other than the US are in that position.

 

[booB]

These libertarian (or far-right) ideals are so hilariously contradictory and nonsensical, how any rational human being can adopt them makes no sense to me. People prattle on about "freedoms" and "liberties" but let me break it down to you: we are not free because freedom doesn't exist. Are you hungry? You need to eat? The neural impulses telling you to eat force you to eat, just like the threat of starvation forces you to eat. Now you might say that of course being bound to our body's needs is different from being bound to a government, but it's not. Let's go higher up the ladder. We are bound to natural disasters, floods, sickness and disease right? We can't do anything about those things, we are a slave to that natural order -- to nature. And you might say again that it has nothing to do with government but it does.

No it doesn't. Our current system of governing has already ensured that it is not tied in any way to natural law or natural order. And if you think libertarian = far-right, you clearly don't know what either "libertarian" or "far-right" means.

The "bureaucracies" that you hate so much about the DMV or the TSA are no different from the "bureaucracies" in the current health insurance industry or hell -- waiting in the Apple store to get an appointment with Apple care.

One set is imposed upon us by force; the other is opted into through being a customer of those services. I see a world of difference there. And it's not "bureaucracy" that bothers me (that's your buzz-word, not mine); it's forced monopoly. If I don't like the way a government agency operates, I still have to be its customer. I have no choice to opt-out of its service. If I don't want to wait in line at the Apple store, I'll simply buy another product.

You pine for some sort of magical, hyperbolic deity in the free market to change everything

There's nothing magic about free will. You want something, you buy it. You don't want to take part in something, you don't. Companies fight for your business, rather than lobbying for special treatment from the government to ensure their longevity. It's pretty simple.

And so you might ask "if you feel that way, then why do you care so much if we switch to a 'libertarian' free market economy? If it's the same thing as now, then why protest it?" The answer is simple: I don't care about the difference between the "free market" and "government." What I protest are the cynics who will never be satisfied trying to impose something that they will ultimately not be satisfied with either, and at the cost of the well being of everyone else.

Are you sure you're not just a government shill yourself? Otherwise, why would you be advocating so strongly for a statist system which has us all knee-deep in doo-doo, at the exclusion of a greater degree of freedom of choice and more control over our successes and failures?

You run on hyperbole and nonsense, buzzwords, magical hopes and dreams.

Look in the mirror.

You thought we were literally voting for Obama for literal "hope" and literal "change" when we actually voted for him because we were simply dissatisfied with the direction the last administration went in.

And are now having "buyer's remorse". Obama's direction has not been much, if any, different from Bush's direction, which is the political status quo in this country. More central power, worse results.

Rationality, science, and intelligence brings about true change, not manufactured nonsense in the form of borderline propaganda. The kind of thinking on the Tea Party's part is NO different from that of Al Queda (and no, I am not calling the Tea Party terrorists -- I am however calling them extreme radicals), while maybe not religious, it most CERTAINLY is not objective or scientific.

Ah, I get you now. Things you agree with are labeled as rationality, science and intelligence. Things you disagree with = hyperbole and nonsense, buzzwords, magical hopes and dreams. This explains your equating libertarian philosophy with far-right politics; clearly you are a far-leftist that believes "everything I don't stand for belongs WAY OVER THERE!!!".

If you were interested in REAL science and REAL information, you would do some research and see that the more authoritarian approach to economics always results in the worst scenarios. Look at communism. Look at Greece. Look at the EU. Look at California. Look at America during and after the gold standard. Try being open-minded and actually learning about the subject, rather than simply being opposed to it through rhetoric. It's not rational.

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: let's restore sanity please.

Yes, let's quote a political and economic genius to further "prove" our point! No, he's not just a comedian!

 

[TheLongshot]

Yep. Vote with your wallet. If you don't like what they're doing or what they're selling, don't fucking buy it. Let them go out of business. With government out of the equation, they can't be artificially propped up or get special treatment.

It's astounding how Americans today have no sense of responsibility.

It is a fine idea, except that it doesn't work. Many corporations are too big for a single person or even a dedicated group of people to have much of an effect.

No it doesn't. Our current system of governing has already ensured that it is not tied in any way to natural law or natural order. And if you think libertarian = far-right, you clearly don't know what either "libertarian" or "far-right" means.

While I agree with you that in general libertarian isn't far right, the Tea Party has been co opted by the far right.

One set is imposed upon us by force; the other is opted into through being a customer of those services. I see a world of difference there. And it's not "bureaucracy" that bothers me (that's your buzz-word, not mine); it's forced monopoly. If I don't like the way a government agency operates, I still have to be its customer. I have no choice to opt-out of its service. If I don't want to wait in line at the Apple store, I'll simply buy another product.

Well, there is one way to opt out: move to a different country.

But, sometimes choice isn't that easy in the "free" market either. If I want electricity, I have one power company to chose from. (Dominion) If I need to go to the hospital, there is one company that controls most of them in my area (Inova).

BTW, at least in the government, you have the opportunity to choose people who would work to change government to the way you want it to. The only way to do that with corporations is having a large share of it.

There's nothing magic about free will. You want something, you buy it. You don't want to take part in something, you don't. Companies fight for your business, rather than lobbying for special treatment from the government to ensure their longevity. It's pretty simple.

Except that laws and regulations are there for more than just the consumers, but also for companies to actually be competitive with each other, and sometimes for other industries to even be viable. If you think it is as simple as letting the customer decide, you are ignorant in how a truly free market works.

And are now having "buyer's remorse". Obama's direction has not been much, if any, different from Bush's direction, which is the political status quo in this country. More central power, worse results.

I have no buyer's remorse over him, even if I have been disappointed at times. In the end, as I said before, one man isn't enough to change the mess government has become.

If you were interested in REAL science and REAL information, you would do some research and see that the more authoritarian approach to economics always results in the worst scenarios. Look at communism. Look at Greece. Look at the EU. Look at California. Look at America during and after the gold standard. Try being open-minded and actually learning about the subject, rather than simply being opposed to it through rhetoric. It's not rational.

Um, California is screwed up not because of "authoritarian" approaches, but because the citizens of California are allowed to directly vote on laws. Basically, the citizens of California handcuffed their government and we see the mess that came as a result of it.

Yes, let's quote a political and economic genius to further "prove" our point! No, he's not just a comedian!

Comedians aren't respected as much as they should be. The best ones can cut through the BS and point out essential truths of human nature. While no one claims that Jon Stewart is either a political or economic genius, he is very good at pointing out the hypocrisy in our political system (and more often, in the media that reports on it.)

 

[adaher]

The main thing that keeps corporations powerful is that they know how the system works and most anti-corporate activists don't. Hard to fix something if you don't know what's wrong with it. "Corporations have too much power" is about as helpful a diagnosis as, "Your car is like totally screwed, dude. Someone should fix it."

It's important to know how corporations use their power and how it fits into the larger way that power is wielded in Washington. It also needs to be put in perspective compared to non-business special interests, like the NRA, the AARP, and Israel lobby, the Cuba lobby, the trial lawyer lobby, the AMA, and literally thousands of other lobbies that have the ear of Congressmen and the President. Why do these lobbies exist? What would happen if they didn't?

Also, how do other countries handle undue influence? I've found that most of them do it by limiting everyone's political rights. You can't squash corporate speech without limiting all speech. Which is beside the point, because political speech isn't even the issue. It's just something anti-corporate activists focus on because it's visible and they think they can do something useful about it. Like send the authorities after documentary makers.

 

[Akumu]

Can I go down and check out these protests without being punched in the dick by the NYPD?

Judging from how things have been shaping up, that might be a tough call.

 

[nailz]

So this shit is still going on and it looks like Bloomberg wants it cleared out this Friday. And I'm flying in Saturday for Vacation. Man, I just need the riots to hold off for one more week...

 

[freakchylde]

How can a corporation, which is not a person, have freedom of expression?

Actually, the case had to do with a small corporation, consisting of few people who were making a documentary about Hillary, which happened to have a release date that coincided with the election. The FEC tried to claim that this was a case of illegal campaign contributions (which was not the case). The result, is that small business owners, such as myself, can contribute the money we earn from our small business to the campaigns of our choice, without having to contribute equally to their opponent and be limited to the restrictions of corporations instead of what we are, which is individuals.

The blow back, is the result that there is no real legal division between huge corporations and small corporations like me, therefore we all get the same rights - that of the individual.

 

[adaher]

So this shit is still going on and it looks like Bloomberg wants it cleared out this Friday. And I'm flying in Saturday for Vacation. Man, I just need the riots to hold off for one more week...

The irony is that the protesters in New York are actually on private property, while nearly everywhere else they have been on public property. In places where they are on public property, the government has been fairly quick to evict them. In New York, where they actually occupy a park owned by a Wall Street company, they are being tolerated. And I don't think Bloomberg can remove them unless the company that owns the park wants them evicted. Funny that the protesters want to empower the entity that uses force on them, but is protesting the entity that lets them protest.

 

[adaher]

Actually, the case had to do with a small corporation, consisting of few people who were making a documentary about Hillary, which happened to have a release date that coincided with the election. The FEC tried to claim that this was a case of illegal campaign contributions (which was not the case). The result, is that small business owners, such as myself, can contribute the money we earn from our small business to the campaigns of our choice, without having to contribute equally to their opponent and be limited to the restrictions of corporations instead of what we are, which is individuals.

The blow back, is the result that there is no real legal division between huge corporations and small corporations like me, therefore we all get the same rights - that of the individual.

One of the less covered parts about Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion was the fact that McCain-Feingold exempted media corporations from its requirements. Kennedy determined that this was arbitrary and created a class of "disfavored" corporations who weren't allowed to speak, and a class of favored corporations who could spend unlimited amounts on advocacy(such as Fox News and the NY Times).

Then Congress proceeded to respond with a DISCLOSE Act that created even more arbitrary distinctions. It specifically completely exempted the NRA and no one else from its requirements, while carving out other special exemptions for labor unions. If that had passed the Senate, SCOTUS would have thrown that one right back at them. You just cannot decide that certain entities are "good" and thus entitled to be treated as people, while others are "evil" and should be silenced and subject to arbitrary legislation.

 

[nailz]

The blow back, is the result that there is no real legal division between huge corporations and small corporations like me, therefore we all get the same rights - that of the individual.

Why can't you just donate it as you, the person?

 

[nailz]

The irony is that the protesters in New York are actually on private property, while nearly everywhere else they have been on public property.

They're there because the city ushered them off public property, and the company that owns the park has let them stay there, and now wants them off their land. On Friday. "For cleanup." And when they can come back, no tents, no staying overnight, none of that.

In places where they are on public property, the government has been fairly quick to evict them.

Good job, government. Silence protests against you.

In New York, where they actually occupy a park owned by a Wall Street company, they are being tolerated. And I don't think Bloomberg can remove them unless the company that owns the park wants them evicted. Funny that the protesters want to empower the entity that uses force on them, but is protesting the entity that lets them protest.

Legal clarification. Not 'graciously'; the park has a 24-hour public access as mandated by the variance agreement which created it. US Steel made the agreement, Brookfeild inherited the agreement when they bought the property.

 

[adaher]

Many parks have 24 hour access, but you can't put up tents and tarps in most public parks without a permit. Which is just another example of overbearing government, but I guess even after getting pepper sprayed the OWS protesters are still too dense to figure out who they should actually be protesting against.

I've never been held up at an ATM by a CEO, nor have I ever been harassed by one on my way to work. No CEO has ever given me a headache over whether or not I paid the correct amount of taxes. Those of us in the metal crowd should be especially wary of attempts to demonize small groups as responsible for the ills of society. At one time, metalheads were one such group, until gangster rap took the heat off us.

 

[Berek2000]

Interesting how the OWS movement came to a local city here in SC. They had a permit to occupy a town square for 24 hrs. One of the conditions of the permit was you had to keep moving. you couldn't lay down or sit down. needless to say the "movement" didn't last the whole 24 hrs. Not even close. So much for dedication to the cause.