Social Question

mazingerz88's avatar

If an Occupy Wall Street ( or somewhere else ) protester gets killed, would you come out and join the movement?

Asked by mazingerz88 (18388 points ) November 24th, 2011

During Thanksgiving dinner, there were four people at the table who did not like it when a cop heavily sprayed student protesters with pepper spray. They said if a Wall Street protest gets out of hand resulting in a protester getting killed by the authorities, they would come out and join the movement.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

120 Answers

marinelife's avatar

Not necessarily.

snowberry's avatar

Would you please give a reference, a link or something? I’m not getting it.

CaptainHarley's avatar

That’s an overly emotional response. Join a movement for rational reasons or leave it alone.

If a protestor was killed by the police, I might protest the killing, but unless the OWS movement renounces any support from George Soros, communists, anarchists, and perhaps unions, I would not join.

syz's avatar

@snowberry Link

I support the overall message of the OWS movement (an elegant synopsis). I don’t understand why the death of a protester would change things – either you support the tenets or you don’t. Protesting the use of undue force would be a separate issue.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@syz

Agreed! Very perceptive answer. : )

dappled_leaves's avatar

@CaptainHarley Why do you single out George Soros? I have never heard his name mentioned in connection to the OWS movement. Actually, the only thing I ever hear about him lately is that Glenn Beck is obsessed with him.

CaptainHarley's avatar

LOL! @dappled_leaves

He’s a case of someone with more money than brains, in my opinion. I keep hearing rumors that he’s hiding in the shadows behind OWS.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@CaptainHarley lol. Let me know if you find a source for those rumours.

gondwanalon's avatar

Cops are people with feeling and emotions and are very capable of making mistakes. They also cary hand guns. It would not surprise me that at some point a cop could panic and blow some fool away. That would definitely not encourage me join the movement.

CaptainHarley's avatar

I will say this… if the OWS people become the objects of continued violence, I WOULD protest. They may be many things, but they are still Americans with the right of “redress of grievances.” It’s a bit trite, but I truly believe that “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” With me, this is a bedrock principle

mazingerz88's avatar

@CaptainHarley Well said. I’m with you there Cap. I’ll even bring the San Miguel beers.

CaptainHarley's avatar

@mazingerz88

Yayyyy! When do we start? : D

mazingerz88's avatar

@CaptainHarley You said it Cap, when the OWS people become objects of continued violence. Or…I could just bring the chilled San Miguel anyway for the sole reason of clinking and chugging it. Allow the beer to occupy our bellies. Lol.

TheIntern55's avatar

I think it depends on the details of the death. I would for a different movement. The Occupy movement seems way too out of hand now. It’s time for these people to stop.

CaptainHarley's avatar

LMAO! @mazingerz88

Dude! You think too closely to the way I think for you to be safe! : D

CaptainHarley's avatar

@TheIntern55

Nobody deserves to die for exercising their right to free speech, freedom of assembly, redress of grievances, or any of the other rights enumerated in the Constitution.

TheIntern55's avatar

@CaptainHarley I didn’t say I wouldn’t care. I don’t think anyone has died in this movement, right?

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
mazingerz88's avatar

@Jaxk Only if an unarmed protester gets killed by the police.

plethora's avatar

Any fool should be able to determine that an OWS protest is a good place to get harmed or killed. If they persist and get killed, tough break.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@plethora I have heard people saying this lately, specifically of the woman who lost her child after being pepper sprayed, and I find it quite shocking. People have every right to protest peaceably, and should not have to expect to be attacked violently by police, simply because the police want them to move.

bkcunningham's avatar

My first reaction when I saw the video of the UC Davis protesters getting pepper sprayed was dismay and anger. I even asked on another Fluther question how in the name of God those kids could sat there getting pepper sprayed full-on in the face like that. Then I started reading and researching more than one source on the story. They knew they were going to get pepper sprayed. They were begging it to happen and had been warned numerous times to move their protest so they weren’t blocking the path or whatever you call it on the campus. By how many were the campus police outnumbered?

Take a look at this and tell me what you think? I hope this adds to the discussion and isn’t seen as a hi-jack. I’m sorry if it derails it too far from your original intent, but I think it is worth considering. As you can see from the comments posted below the video, people are divided on what they see and their reaction to the views of the actual scene, as they should be. That is what makes the world go round. I’m glad we don’t all walk lockstep in my world.

http://waxy.org/2011/11/viewing_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying_from_multiple_angles/

mazingerz88's avatar

@bkcunningham Thanks for posting something that adds real substance to the discussion. I’m sorry I haven’t read the link yet but my knee jerk reaction is it does not matter much personally to me if the students went out of their way ala mission impossible to be peppered spray. It’s a gray area in the practice of democracy, between those who wish to protest and their choice of place and those authorities who give them permission when and where they’re suppose to do it.

More often than not, there will be disagreement and provocation, the very nature of politics. Every one blocks another’s path once in a while. I would go around a block so Tea Party protesters could exercise their freedom to protest in a spot they picked. Again, more often than not imo, it’s not about logistics. When Newt Gingrich rips on the OWS protesters as causing harm to businesses around Wall Street, he is declaring himself tone deaf to the main cause of the movement.

Picking on protesters taking a dump under a tree in a park is just an obvious petty reaction, a misdirection to paint the other side as illegitimate. They’re a drain to the city’s coffers, oh, how can they do it in a time like this, etc. etc. We know what is really happening. We know what this is all about.

Those students were not blocking the path of anybody. People were walking freely all around them, including the cops.

laureth's avatar

@bkcunningham et al. – from what I understand, it wasn’t proper cop protocol to pepper-spray anyone who wasn’t (1) violent towards a cop, to where the cop feared physical harm, (2) trying to harm a third party, or (3) trying to escape arrest. These students were doing none of the above.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@laureth Nor should it be “proper cop protocol”. Weren’t these weapons developed to be a policeman’s non-lethal alternative to shooting and killing a person? If a gun is not an option in this situation, then neither should pepper spray or tasering be. These weapons were not developed for crowd control. Rachel Maddow did an excellent piece on this a couple of days ago, if anyone is interested.

plethora's avatar

@dappled_leaves People have every right to protest peaceably
Most people have every right to visit my home peacably too. But if they dramatically overstay their welcome, I will find a way to dislodge them.

OWS has now turned into utter stupidity by, apparently stupid people, and they have had plenty of time to protest whatever the Hell they tried to protest.

I would suggest hitting everyone of them with a tranqualizer gun and packing them into trucks and driving them to the middle of nowhere with no coordinates and no directions. Let them find their way home.

The way they are conducting themselves, they have almost guaranteed that a few will get killed. Tough break for stupid people.

syz's avatar

^ Nice. Not.

augustlan's avatar

@plethora Last time I looked, I didn’t see any time limit on our constitutional rights.

syz's avatar

You know, I’ve found various aspects of the OWS group silly or annoying or stupid, but I say kudos to them. They’ve put their lives on hold to fight to change what they perceive as a wrong. When’s the last time those who bitch about them got up off their asses to do something to try to change the world?

plethora's avatar

@augustlan There is no time limit on our constitutional rights. There is a limit, derived from common courtesy, on how long one can freely use other people’s money, other people’s time and other people’s property. OWS has exceeded all three in hundreds, if not thousands, of places.

mazingerz88's avatar

@plethora I hope you don’t mind but, common courtesy? In this case? Are you serious?

plethora's avatar

@mazingerz88 There is a limit, derived from common courtesy, on how long one can freely use other people’s money, other people’s time and other people’s property.

Perhaps I’m missing something and would be willing to listen. I think we can do whatever we want with our own property. I do not think we have the right to do anything at all with anyone else’s property except with their consent. So far, to my knowledge, OWS has used OPM, OPT, OPP and OPT (other peoples taxes) exclusively. A majority of the citizenry considers OWS an unruly nuisance.

So what am I missing?

laureth's avatar

@plethora – Public space is paid for by taxes, so anyone using public space is a “moocher” to some extent. But most protests are done in public, or they are not as visible, thus effective. (I can hold up a sign in my bedroom that says, “I am the 99%” – but who would see it or care?) The whole point of protesting, of petitioning for redress, is to bring about change. That’s why it’s explicitly allowed in the very first amendment. If I cannot use public space to do so, it’s sort of a moot point, and I don’t think a moot point would be knowingly enshrined in the first amendment.

That said, why is it always assumed that public protesters are using strictly other peoples’ money and not their own? I pay taxes, too. Some of the public space, which is provided to everyone as a convenience, is paid for by me. If I protest there, strictly speaking, I would be using my own money. And since I support the “Occupy” message, even if I can’t be there, I don’t mind them using my space. If it makes you feel better, your space can be somewhere else, untrodden by the unwashed masses.

syz's avatar

@plethora you’re being deliberately close-minded. OWS has created a national, nay, world wide discussion of the effect of money on our society, our laws, and our economy. Corporations are people?!? Banks can recommend investments that they know will fail?!? It’s ok for our politicians to be bought by the rich?!? Come on, seriously?

How else do you suggest that those that are not millionaires or billionaires get their message heard? How else to suggest a normal citizen have his anger and disgust felt? (And if your answer is “to vote”, then I suggest that you read up on the Koch brothers)

Jaxk's avatar

@laureth

I think you’re overlooking one small detail. At no time do your rights trump mine. The parks and roadways are intended for everyone’s use. The OWS protesters are restricting the use of those lands for everyone else. They are blocking the roadways and sidewalks that everyone uses and restricting access to legitimate businesses. You can use the public lands and parks but you can’t live there. That’s one of the reasons they permit those things for demonstrations, so that they can insure as little disruption as possible while still allowing reasonable protest or demonstration.

It has gone beyond reasonable and is affecting the public right to use these areas and avenues for public affairs and commerce. They have created a crime zone and a public health problem. It’s time to stop. I suspect if you were one of the people being laid-off, just before Christmas, because no one could get the shop or restaurant where you work, you’d feel differently. I know I would, I’d be damned pissed.

laureth's avatar

@Jaxk – You have a good point, and people should be able to access the things they need to access. While OWS in Zuccotti Park is a bad example of Occupy doing these things, it is by no means the rule when it comes to the Occupy protests. Occupy Dallas, for example, got a permit and is being hosted at City Hall. So did Occupy Detroit, and when it expires, they plan on asking for an extension or moving. Occupy Buffalo has been well behaved. Occupy Grand Rapids has been offered a church parking lot to sleep in, instead of public space. So has Occupy Salem. And some Occupy sites are indeed allowing other folks to use the public spaces, as these folks are caring for and feeding the local homeless. Occupy Suffern had no problems and the people dispersed at night. Occupy Santa Rosa is also considering sleeping away from camp. Occupy Windsor is known for being well-behaved, as is Occupy Columbus. And, perhaps the most novel of all, Los Angeles is offering its Occupy encampment a pretty sweet deal that I hope they’ll take.

This doesn’t cover every Occupy site by a long shot, but it’s clear that not every Occupy group is like unto OWS in NYC. There are a wide variety of ways to accommodate many needs, and I hope many more gravitate to a better model, without giving up their voice.

wilma's avatar

As long as they aren’t breaking the law I think they are fine. I respect their right to get their point across and be heard.
If they obstruct traffic and pose a safety hazard then they are breaking the law and should be dealt with accordingly. They can demonstrate in the public park in my town all day long, but 8:00 PM they better clear out because the park closes then and it’s against our town ordinance for them to be there.
If they obstruct traffic so that a fire truck or ambulance cannot get to where they need to be then they could be charged with a lot more than loitering.

dappled_leaves's avatar

@laureth Thank you for taking the time to research and post that.

plethora's avatar

@laureth @syz It took Patrick Henry about 10 minutes to protest the failure to take up arms. It took Thomas Jefferson 17 days to write the Declaration of Independence. OWS is taking months to make protests for the alleged “99%” that none of the rest of us even believe in. I’m certainly not in the 1%.....and am damn well not in the OWS’ fairy tale 99%.

laureth's avatar

@plethora – With many more people than in the Founders’ day, and a much more cynical and always-on media, you can’t do the same thing to protest all the time. These days, Patrick Henry’s blog post and Thomas Jefferson’s manifesto would be lost amongst the “Copy and paste if you support the troops!” and “Here’s a big graphic I pasted to show that I put the Christ in CHRISTmas!” drivel, or, at best, given a thirty-second spot a couple times in a 24-hour news cycle. Protest marches in Washington are so passé that the traffic report on DC radio station WTOP lets locals know so they can avoid the area. I suppose they feel they have to do something different to get attention anymore – or at least something that has only been done rarely. Let’s hope it ends better than the Bonus Army protest did, eh?

plethora's avatar

@laureth And let’s hope they turn themselves into something other than what only the far left would wish to identify with. They have not captured my heart yet.

Patrick Henry’s blog post and Thomas Jefferson’s manifesto
Patrick Henry made an impassioned speech to Congress that changed the course of our lives. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence for a tiny tiny country forcing its independence from the most powerful country on earth at the time…..and which is a document which still guides us today.

My guess is that if you @laureth needed and wanted a job, you would leave no stone unturned until you had one and you would get it. If you and I can do that, why can’t the “marchers”?

bkcunningham's avatar

That protest eventually ended in the passage of the Bonus Act, assured the election of Roosevelt and the implementation of some very Progressive agenda items for Roosevelt, @laureth. Although he was against paying the vets the extra money, even vetoing a bill to compensate them what they were promised, Roosevelt ultimately saw that supporting the vets would work to his advantage and garner support for his agenda.

laureth's avatar

@plethora – I understand what Patrick Henry and TJ did. But how many people nowadays know any speeches that were made in Congress in the last few years, or anything they write unless it’s something a Republican released as a tear sheet that Fox News can report verbatim and claim is original reporting? That’s why I said “blog post” and “manifesto,” to show what they would be nowadays.

Also, why do you assume that the marchers have necessarily left stones unturned? With 13,900,000 unemployed people and 3,354,000 job openings, assuming the HR people hired the best available instead of waiting to gank a better candidate from another company, roughly 10,546,000 people can’t find a job under any rock whatsoever. No matter how hard they try, no matter how good they are, no matter how many people tell them to “get a job, hippie!”.

plethora's avatar

@laureth Although I consider you one of the brightest people on Fluther, let’s take this to a simple level. Remember the old municipal swimming pools? Maybe they are still there. Well, although they are for the public, they are not built for ALL the public to use at the same time. Therefore, if I went to pool after pool looking for a place to swim and they were all packed with people protesting something, I would be pissed. Need I say more? I will. OWS people are misusing public space. It is for the public, but it is not for any use whatsoever for extended periods of time. If they cannot figure out how to make a statement in a day or two, my inclination is to throw them out, and I have just about reached the point where I am willing to contribute money to whoever will do exactly that.

I always assume that anyone who does not have a job has left some stones unturned.

As for the low number of job openings, would you be willing to protest TO Obama et al re his flagrant use of power to allow illegal aliens to be hired instead of shutting off the supply of jobs to those illegals so that Americans would be hired? And major corporations like Marriot and Hilton.

ETpro's avatar

Sorry to be jumping in so late, but I just wanted to declare that I have already joined in the Occupy Boston march to the Washington Bridge, a structure so broken down that the protesters could not safely walk onto it to post their “Fix this bridge” banner, because engineers deemed it unlikely to hold the weight of the crowd.

bkcunningham's avatar

Bostonians are still paying for The Big Dug, @ETpro. No money for the bridges.

laureth's avatar

@plethora – Obama “allowing” businesses to hire aliens would do absolutely nothing if the businesses didn’t deign to hire them. Would you be willing to protest TO those businesses by refusing to shop there until they change their hiring policies? If so, this site (it even seems to lean Right) might be a good place to start. Can’t vouch for it, just used a Google search.

That said, hiring illegals is something that goes in waves in the United States, as people alternate between being mad at those darn foreigners taking our jobs, and mad that those darn widgets are costing too much at the store. Luckily, illegal immigrants don’t do that much damage.

plethora's avatar

@laureth Better than boycotting, I would report any business for not using E-Verify

Big business is a major violator, names like Hilton and Marriott, as you might imagine. And it makes no diff to me whether they are Rep or Dem. Seem to be bipartison violations.

Since we are way off-topic, I will simply disagree on whether illegals take citizens’ jobs. Certainly they add an economic benefit. The same economic benefit the citizens would add, if big business and small were not hiring cheap illegal labor. But there are other issues

Thanks for the website. I like it and will use it.

ETpro's avatar

@bkcunningham The Washington Bridge repairs were part of the package that President Obama sent to Congress this fall. Republicans blocked it.

plethora's avatar

@ETpro Might it be true that the Washington Bridge repair was a smaller piece of much larger budget balancing strategy on which both the Republicans and the Dems could not agree? Or was this a real “meany bad guy trick” that those Republicans pulled on the citizens who use the Washington Bridge?

ETpro's avatar

@plethora There is no amount of spin that will erase the fact that this Senate has used the filibuster more than any in all history.o Mitch McConnel and Jim DeMint both made their priorities clear. Defeat everything Obama asks for and ensure the economy stays as depressed as possible. They both said it was a strategy to win back the White House in 2012. Do nothing, then blame Obama for getting nothing done.

The bridge was part of the recent jobs legislation and tax cut package the President sent to Congress. Today, Republicans opposed the extension of the Payroll tax cut., THey are even willing to increase taxes on the middle class to get Obama. The only tax cuts they are fighting to protect are those for millionaires and billionaires, and for Wall Street and the banksters.

If you want to call Republicans nice for being reverse Robin-Hoods, go ahead. But don’t ask me to agree.

plethora's avatar

Ahhhh… @ETpro At last count, to my knowledge the Repubs have sent five bills to Obama to balance the budget….and he ignores them. But he ignores them skillfully.

ETpro's avatar

@plethora Thank goodness he does. Cutting $1.6 trillion in spending in a weak economy would plunge us into a deep recession or a depression. Of course, that would be fine with Republicans. It would be all Obama’s fault. Just like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was all Bill Clinton’s fault, even though the three authors were all Republicans and it was the Republican signature legislation of that year. Clinton signed it, so when Wall Street crashed thanks to the Casino Capitalism it allowed through deregulation and gutting the Class-Steagall Act of 1933; it was all Clinton’s fault. They definitely have becme the Party of No Personal Responsibility.

plethora's avatar

@ETpro Please ET, The Glass-Steagal Act of 1933 was attacked for 20 years before it fell at the hands of Wall Street, aided and abetted by Dems and Repubs alike. I watched it go piece by piece and wept at every lie that carried it away. And it took 20 years to get that done by malefactors of every stripe in Congress and those who worked hand in hand to do it.

laureth's avatar

@plethora – You can choose to disagree on illegal aliens, or whether 10 million people just haven’t looked under enough rocks, but that is on you. Is there evidence that would convince you otherwise (other than what I have shown), or is it an “ideology trumps evidence” thing?

bkcunningham's avatar

Just a sidebar question. Since you are talking about unemployment figures, I wonder if you know how the government comes up with the numbers they release @laureth?

bkcunningham's avatar

Did you know it before you looked it up? I have yet to meet anyone who knew how they get the figures. Not one. People think they get the figures from the state employment commisison offices. Not so.

garb's avatar

Actually there are a lot of jobs available, but people refuse to take a salary cut since that means their standard of living would have to be lowered temporarily and that is unacceptable for some.

Then you also have the group that studied some ancient history, foreign language, feminism and philosophy in school rather then focus on something practical that can be of better service to small business’s and Corporations.

Back in the day you had the same story. Farmers either learned to use the new machinery or starved to death.

Finally, you have those with too much pride to lower their working status. One who was a highly paid accountant will not compromise by mopping floors and cleaning toilets for lower pay.

Almost everyday when I go shopping I see stores on both ends of the street with signs of hiring. It’s the people who don’t know how/want to adapt.

ETpro's avatar

@plethora I don’t disagree one bit. Clinton still defends Gramm-Leach-Bliley to this day. But moving on from 1999, while lobbying money clouded many an eye back then, most Democrats today are fighting to return to financial controls. It is nost definitely the GOP today that is working tirelessly do undo regulations and return us to the Casino Capitalism that was such a disaster in the last decade, and back in 1929.

ETpro's avatar

@garb First, let me welcome you to Fluther. I wish the rest of my greeting could be as warm, but I must respond to your claims, as they seem patently indefensible by fact and logic; and incredibly devoid of human empathy for the unemployed.

The actual numbers of jobs available and number of people seeking jobs were posted above. The fact is that if all the available jobs got filled tomorrow, there would still be over 10 million Americans looking for work. When George W. Bush screwed something up, he did it in real style!

You claim to know what all 13 million plus unemployed people think. I doubt that’s true. I can’t get inside each unemployed person’s head any more than you can.. So I don’t KNOW that they would rather take a pay cut than remain unemployed. But I have to think that out of 13 million plus people, quite a few would rather collect more at the end of the week from working than they do on unemployment. Most certainly, they would rather collect a smaller pay check than nothing at all after Unemployment Insurance runs out.

The ideology motivating your post is that of the GOP war on workers. If only we could get rid of the minimum wage, we’d have full employment. And those meddlesome unions. Kill them all and we’ll see America prosper. Oh, and the GOP governors have shown a penchant for repealing eliminating child labor laws as well. Get America to work in middle school. Why don’t we just fulfill the Koch Brother’s wildest dreams and return to slave labor. I bet then we’d have the whole country back to work in a heartbeat.Oh, the prosperity would be awesome—for the Kochs.

plethora's avatar

@ETpro I agree with you 100%. The Leahy bill is practically worthless, done hurriedly with none of the sponsors understanding the problem, much less the solution they came up with. Glass-Steagall was far better.

plethora's avatar

@garb Welcome to Fluther. Just so you’ll know, you have just witnessed @ETpro ‘s “slash and burn” debate technique. they seem patently indefensible by fact and logic; and incredibly devoid of human empathy for the unemployed. Not much room for negotiation there. And just for good measure, he threw in some of his special sayings. GOP war on workers for instance. I get away with this criticism because he and I actually like each other, although usually disagreeing on Fluther. He does manage to throw up a phalanx of facts at the whisper of his name…..all from a liberal perspective. But it’s much better than boring agreement. Actually I think the man does have a heart….misguided of course, but quite intelligent.

So Welcome again…..let’s hear some more from you.

ETpro's avatar

@plethora Ha. I love you too. And in defense of my polemic, it isn’t as if @garb is entirely innocent of reciting his own right-wing set of talking points. Just read through @garb‘s post. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

When I see disregard for the facts, I don’t set out to negotiate, I set out to call attention to the difference between reality and ideology. No ideology is of value if it has to ignore truth and rather be based on lies and false assumptions.

“liberal perspective”? You know I am not so easy to pigeonhole. I hold some positions that are definitely not liberal legends. It would be off topic to list them here, but asking about cross partisan beliefs in a new question might make for an interesting discussion and more understanding.

garb's avatar

@ETpro,

First of all, I was only writing from personal experiences (friends, colleagues, relatives, acquaintance). In total, I know about 40 people who are unemployed, and they’re unemployed for the very reasons I stated above. I have no reason to assume otherwise for the other 10 million, nor do I care. It’s their problem.

Secondly, I don’t care what the republicans or democrats have to say. I value my own will. I value survival of the fittest. It doesn’t matter what the current state of affairs are in the government/economic system. I always hold the individual responsible, not a group or system. You have those who know and try to adapt and those who don’t or don’t try.

Reverting to anything other then the individual when it comes to one’s shortcomings is merely excuses for one’s inferiority.

mazingerz88's avatar

@garb I agree with most of what you posted so I clicked on a GA for you. I could be 100% in agreement if in your last sentence, you were just referring to those 40 unemployed people you know and not everyone in general. There are forces out there, political and economic that really screw up even the best of us. And this is the reason why people gather en masse to let their collective voices be heard.

garb's avatar

The collective blames the groups and systems, but I blame the collective for failure to adapt to systems. I don’t care how oppressive and corrupt the system is, I still blame the individual. There will always be a hierarchy. There are always those who are maladaptive and those who are adaptive. This applies in any system, and you cannot change that. Equality will never exist.

mazingerz88's avatar

But do you really expect those Enron employees who got screwed by what their top executives did to adapt by simply saying, oh well, we’re inferior and equality never exists anyway?

garb's avatar

I don’t care what they do, as long as they’re not a burden to me. I would suggest they go start looking for a new job, or learning a new skill.

If they start camping out in tents and calling for more government regulations on markets, more social welfare programs, and higher taxes on the rich, then that is a burden to me, the taxpayer. In which case they made an enemy for life.

plethora's avatar

@mazingerz88 Enron was a crime punishable by law and resulted in prison sentences. Same for Worldcom. Neither are examples of systemic injustice.

mazingerz88's avatar

Right. Just curious, would you agree that the Occupy protesters are up against a form of systemic injustice they perceive to be occurring within Wall Street?

garb's avatar

And what would those systemic injustices be?

mazingerz88's avatar

I don’t know, hence the question. But it’s clear those protesters are out there with their own perceived injustices, whether they think it’s systemic or not.

garb's avatar

Well, one of the things that they’re protesting about is wealth inequality. The protesters blame specific groups of people, and put blame on the social/economic system.

I disagree. I blame the protesters. It’s an individuals will, intelligence, and strength that determines his/her success or failure, not some group or system.

laureth's avatar

@garb re: “I don’t care what they do, as long as they’re not a burden to me.”

That’s the thing. These folks who have no, or very little, income – they will eat. And it will be a burden to us, somehow. Here’s how.

Ideally, there would be jobs for these people, or they learn a skill and create a niche and we will pay them for their goods and services they produce, but not everyone can do that. They still need to eat.

Next best, is if they can’t find a job, they are provided training in order to be more marketable, and maybe a meal and a place to sleep so that they have the wherewithal to learn in the training sessions. This is usually paid for by taxes. Then, they go on to be productive. But that won’t happen for everyone.

Next best after that, if they can’t work because they’re broken or old or something, or if their area’s economy is so tanked that there are no jobs, is that they still get the meal and the warm place to sleep. This is paid for by “welfare” like food stamps, or charity. But those budgets are getting smaller, and are tempting to cut, huh?

After that, if they can’t get a job, or a meal and a place to sleep, they may become an entrepreneur, using the resources available to them, but will we like what they do? They may steal. They may mug you. They may shoplift, or deal drugs. We still pay for all of that, in higher prices at the store, in inconvenience, in higher insurance, or directly when the wallet is stolen so they can feed their kids.

And even then, if we “crack down” and are “tough on crime” and “throw them in the slammer,” we pay for the prisons, the prison guards, the prison food, the appeals, the public defenders, and even the gaudy jumpsuits. Any way we cut it, these people will eat, and we pay for it.

When economies tank, people have a habit, if they can’t find ways to support themselves, of gathering and protesting, and asking someone, anyone, to give them jobs. I suppose it is cheaper to start firing bullets into hungry crowds asking for jobs, than it is to train them, feed them, or even jail them. But firing into crowds is not something that I want my country to start doing. In fact, it’s a practice that usually characterizes the enemies of my country – people we go to war with.

Peace and public safety is always a fine line to walk.

garb's avatar

Actually, there is a very good way to get rid of the burden, by bringing back the chain gangs like in the 18th century, and then convert all public union labor jobs such as road construction and maintenance into department of corrections responsibilities. If the welfare collectors refuse to establish employment within society, and they turn to criminal behavior to support themselves, then the state should force employment on them at gunpoint. It would save the taxpayers money because this kind of labor would be far cheaper than the public union demanded wages, pensions, and benefits. It would also be a greater deterrent to crime than is our now established penal system which basically only demands that a man play cards, lounge around, and occasionally rape each other.

ETpro's avatar

@garb Thanks for stating that this just applied to 40 people you know who are out of work. Unfortunately, that detail was ommitted from the OP, so it sure looked like you were issuing it as a blanket statement. And reading your statement of individual “survival-of-the-fittest” thoughts above, it sure seems as if you believe that the individual can triumph over anything, and shame on all who fail.

So it would be your contention that it the Great Depression, 25% of Americans all suddenly grew lazy and simply wouldn’t work. It had nothing to do with casino capitalism run amok. And all the people who played by the rules and found their life’s savings gone overnight and the doors of the banks chained shut were simply ignorant. That’s what they get for playing dumb, right.

How about the people who were stupid enough to be born Jewish in Germany around 1930. Hitler’s inc=inerators were just what they deserved for being stupid in the birth lottery, right> It’s all the individual’s fault. Nazism was completely innocent? Are you serious? Have you though through where your Ayn Rand Objectivism leads?

Now that you have disclosed your ideological bias, I wonder if you are aeven close to being a fair witness when you testify that all 40 of your unemployed friends are out of work simply by choice. You seem to be saying that even though there are only 3 million job openings and there are 13 million people looking for work, all 13 million are the problem, and could easily get a job that doesn’t exist because external conditions have no impact.

garb's avatar

I know exactly where my individualism leads me, to more freedom.

You’re missing my point. You can blame all the systems and groups you want, but I don’t care what excuse you have for someone who cannot survive on his/her own. I only care that I’m not burdened with it. I come first, then someone else.

I don’t care that 13 million people cannot find work. Let them find work in another country. They can do whatever they want just as long as they’re not a burden for me.

If they try to create a system that burdens and limits my freedom further, then that is an attack on me, and as with any attacker, you defend yourself.

ETpro's avatar

@garb I don’t disagree one bit regarding personal responsibility being a good and necessary thing. It’s always wise to do all you can to make the best of whatever situation life hands you. But to insist life has no power over you is arrogant and out of touch with reality. The thousands who died in the earthquake and subsequent tsunami that hit Japan did nothing wrong. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. To insist that nothing can ever impact your rise to perfection is to promote yourself to god. Unfortunately, none of us have the authority to promote ourselves to that status.

Hitler did create a system that burdened and limited people’s freedom. He had a very well-armed cadre of jackbooted thugs to enforce it for him. Your boasts notwithstanding, he would have crushed you and your wife and family under his heel had you been Jewish, or gay, or a union organizer or a Gypsy, or a communist.

Where I draw the line on the church of self aggrandizement and it’s altar of absolute personal responsibility is where it turns its back on the suffering a system imposes on others, and rather scoffs that’s what they get for playing dumb. I am reminded of what Pastor Martin Niemöller said:

“First they came for the communists,and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Sometimes, when a system is clearly wrong, it is the personally responsible thing to do to speak out and condemn the wrong even if it isn’t you that’ is being hurt.., yet

garb's avatar

Someone may not have done something wrong, and the system or group may be at fault, but it certainly wasn’t my fault, and I certainly am not obligated to help those who were not at fault. You can protest and fight back all you want against any group or system, I’m not stopping you. However, if you burden me while you do it, and if you replace a garbage system with a different type of garbage system, then you’re no better than that which you blame.

So the Wall Street protesters don’t like a group and the current social/economic system, fine, but their idea of a new system is no different of a burden and an equal limitation of freedom. They want more tax hikes (especially on the rich), more social welfare programs, more market regulations, more government jobs, unions, affirmative action, etc…

Their ideas are an attack on me, and I will defend myself. I will adapt to my environment, just like as if I lived under the times of Hitler.

laureth's avatar

OK, say you fire all the unions, and put unemployed people in chain gangs doing previously union labor. We’re all of a sudden (1) feeding and clothing those on the chain gang, and (2) made a bunch more unemployed people who will be demanding jobs/food. The problem isn’t solved. People will still be fed.

Personal freedom – and the ability to be secure in your person and property – isn’t just about being a rugged individualist. It’s always been a fine line between that, and what might be called “the social safety net.” Desperate people do desperate things, including making the comfortable much less so.

ETpro's avatar

@garb I certainly can’t speak for all OWS protesters, nor can any one person. They are not a single voice. But I can speak to what they are against in growing inequality. From 1945 to 1980, we had an economic system that worked for everybody. The wealthy grew richer, and the poor and middle classes grew as well. We didn’t have much of a middle class back in the Gilded Age, and what we had was mostly destroyed in 1929 by the Great Depression. From 1945 forward for 35 years, the middle class steadily grew as the poor moved up into it.

Reagan ushered in the Conservative Revolution in 1980. He cut the top tax rate an incredible 67%. From that point forward, we began to pile up national debt (it tripled in Reagan’s 8 years), and the rich started getting FAR richer far faster while the middle class began to evaporate. The top 1% saw their income explode by more than 300%, while the 99% remained virtually flat in real dollars over the next 31 years. Real income for the bottom 60% is actually down over the past decade. We went form 65% of Americans being solidly middle class in 1980 to just 46% being there today. The middle class’ losses went to the ranks of the working poor. This track, if we stay on it, will convert the USA to a third-world banana republic in the next 20 to 30 years. If we do that, we will no longer be able to spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined. Our defense will decay, and those we have pissed off in the past will look to carve us up and devour us.

The OWS movement’s rage should not be focused on the 1% who are making it. Some may feel that way, but I say they are wrong to do so. In a recent poll, 65% of the nation’s most wealthy said they favored modifying the system so they did more to help put those hurting back to work. We all benefit most when the system works to lift us al, and many among the top 1% know this. The OWS focus should be on the greedy would-be oligarchs who never stop pushing for even more tax breaks and corporate welfare for themselves, even though they already hold the lion’s share of the entire nation’s wealth.

garb's avatar

@laureth,

You’re not feeding them for free. They’re working for it. Likewise, for the newly unemployed. Also, returning the power back to the individual to defend him/herself by any means necessary would reduce the amount of criminals ending up in prison. Instead, they would end up in a coffin. If one attacks your private property you may fire at will, as least that is the way it should be. The burden would be far less then what we have now.

I know that you can never get rid of the burden, but the idea is to minimize it as much as possible.

@ETpro,

As I mentioned, there are always winners and losers, and the only way to save a loser is to punish the winner, hence you had such success from 1945–1980 at the expense of the few individuals. The rich were in the 94% tax bracket. This is exactly what I’m talking about. You abuse the individual to save the maladaptive collective. This is a massive burden for the individuals.

All these government programs and regulations are burdens and restrictions of freedom for the individual, and the more you have of these programs and regulations the higher the tax bracket you need to make for the winners, so that the losers can be supported without a deficit.

Reagan did the right thing, except he didn’t cut it enough of it, and he didn’t cut the programs to accommodate the tax cuts.

I’m not going to support anyone who wants to burden me further. This is my point, you replacing one garbage system with another garbage system. That’s what the ows wants. That’s why I can’t stand liberals or republicans. Now Ron Paul, that would be a step in the right direction.

garb's avatar

From what I’m reading the cause of the economic growth during that period is highly debatable. It’s even debatable who and what ended the prosperity. So this point has no end.

My concern is only the burden, and from 1945–1980, you had a massive tax and regulation burden. That is not debatable.

ETpro's avatar

@garb ”...the only way to save a loser is to punish the winner, hence you had such success from 1945–1980 at the expense of the few individuals.” That simply false, unless you define taking as not giving the rich everything. The rich and the middle and poor all profited equally between 1945 and 1980. They all got wealthier in lockstepo, which is healthy for society and for the rich who depend on a healthy society.

Also, it is a blatant lie that top rate was 94% throughout that period. It was 94% for exactly 1 of those 36 years. When the war ended, it was reduced. It ranged between 92% as we payed down the debt of recovering from the depression and winning the war, and 70% as we stabilized. And that high rate only applied to income of (depending on the year) $400,000 to $250,000 per year. Even a quarter of a million dollars was a king’s ransom in those days. With all the inflation, it’s still not chump change today. The rich did just fine. That is why they were called “the rich”.

Please bring forth your next piece of spin to cling to your ideology regardless of how many lies it takes to support it.

garb's avatar

Um, you accuse me of lying, yet I never said any of the things you wrote right now. You literally picked a false premise to me, then argued against that false premise. Not only are you lying, but you’re manipulating my text.

I’ll try one more time…

Economic inequality is only a problem for the poor and the middle class, correct? I, a wealthy person, don’t have any problems, and don’t care about the problem of the poor and middle class. I don’t care about the protesters, or the 13 million unemployed, or the welfare collectors.

Now, if you’re blaming the system for the inequality, then explain to me how do you intend to solve the problem with the poor and middle class without burdening me and violating my free will or private property. How would this Utopia work?

If you can answer this question without burdening me, then I have reason to support your cause. If not, then you’re just a less severe version of Hitler, since as you said, under the time of Hitler, there was a burden and limitation of freedom.

laureth's avatar

Re: “Economic inequality is only a problem for the poor and the middle class, correct?”

Possibly. Until the rest of everyone is so poor, that they can no longer buy your product, or so poor that you look like a ripe moneyfruit ready for the beheading. Those are often the two end results.

laureth's avatar

This might shed some light on the topic if folks are interested in economic inequality. I hate linking to the Wiki, but it’s a good place to start learning about something.

garb's avatar

Poor people were and are always a minority. A system cannot and would not function if the majority of people were poor. So there is no “rest of everyone”. It would only be a small percentage, just like it is now. There are about 40 million poor people in America in a population of 300+ million. There are 300+ million Americans and only 13 million unemployed, as you showed. This is nothing. You still have a much greater majority that is buying and selling.

If the poor get violent against the rich, then the police would put them down, or the rich would put them down with private security, mercenaries, or would do the job themselves.The poor never win against the rich. They may have a temporary win or two, but they come back to poverty.

Look how many revolutions you had against royalty, did it help? Nope. The same rebellious poor people just ended up in poverty in the enacted system. This brings me back to my original point, that inequality is caused by one’s lack of intelligence, strength and will.

garb's avatar

Judging by your comment, you agree that in order to solve inequality, the maladaptive (poor people) will be violent against the adaptive (the rich), to remove their freedom of choice, to violate their property rights, and to burden them with the task of supporting the maladaptive. Either physically or through newly enacted systems that would do it for you. Sacrifice the individuals for the collective, right?

If I’m mistaken, then feel free to elaborate on how you can achieve economic equality without having to resort to what I stated above.

laureth's avatar

I’m not saying that I would choose to do this to solve inequality. I’m saying that it’s akin to a natural force, something like the tides.

Re: “Poor people were and are always a minority. A system cannot and would not function if the majority of people were poor.”

Have you seen this article by any chance? Perhaps it will explain why the system isn’t working that well nowadays.

mazingerz88's avatar

@garb I’m not sure whether you really are interested in hearing how economic equality or something remotely close to it could be achieved, coming from someone like say, an OWS protester. It’s clear you have made up your mind that there would always be inequality and even if it reaches to a point where stolen guns fired stolen bullets at your house, you feel confident you will survive. And that is all that matters to you. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

My opinion is you are not helping, as far as coming up with ideas on how to treat OWS protesters as human equals and talk to them without hint of disdain. If you feel they owe you because you pay your taxes and wanting more of your wealth is attacking you, then I would not mind if you don’t respond to my post.

ETpro's avatar

@garb You are right up there with Newt Gingrich and his ilk. I quote your own words, and you launch into a diatribe of how I am distorting them, Sorry, poor chap. But like Newt and Mit, you must cope with the fact we have video these days, and lie as they might, the tape speaks for their former selves. Same for what you wrote. It’s right there for all to read. I leave it for each of them to decide who is telling the truth.

If you really want to be in a fight, you have joined the right Army in picking the God of Greed to fight for. The OWS people aren’t saying that we should not have a 1%. Someone will always be in the 1%, and that is fine. They are saying the 1% don’t need all the money, and they can’t have it.

You think that 99 people will lie down and let you take everything they have and starve them to death so you can gorge yourself beyond any human need? Good luck. You are going to need it. Boasting of your great bravery won’t win a fight you pick against 100 to 1 odds.

garb's avatar

@laureth,

If it’s only natural for the losers to violently attack the winners to gain equality, then that just proves my point on why I can never support a system that violates the individuals, since I value the individual over the collective.

Your link further proves my point, that the system goes through a breeding out process. It eliminates the losers, and only keeps the winners. The winners will continue to work and buy products, and the winners will continue to operate Corporations and business’s. The losers get neither for failing to adapt to the environment.

The system works, but it will only work for those who can adapt, but that’s the same way with any system. You will always have buyers and sellers, just you will have quality buyers and sellers, not quantity.

This is a natural process.
Sparta Army 300 (quality) vs Persian Army 300,000 (quantity) = Sparta Wins.

@mazingerz88,

I’m interested in how economic equality can be achieved, but only if it doesn’t burden or violate me. From laureth’s answer, it seems burdening and violating me is a natural process, well excuse me if I fight back against this. In a natural process as well.

I don’t see any other way to help the ows unless it involves what I just wrote. If you have any idea’s I’m all ears.

@ETpro,

You don’t get it et, I can link you 10 opposing links for every link you give me. I’m not interested in a fact debate with you, because there are hundreds of theories as to what caused the surge of wealth during that time frame.

So instead of having a pointless argument, I asked you a simple question to prove your system is not a restriction of freedom and not a burden. You said earlier you oppose Hitler’s rule, since he restricted freedom and burdened people. But what did you do? You ignored my question entirely because you know you cannot answer it without it coming down to burdening and restricting the freedom of the individual to save the collective.

This is why I will never support anything you say, or the ows, or anyone else who values the collective over the individual. An individual is priceless.

P.S. I have plenty of bullets for any immoral savage that decides to steal something that doesn’t belong to them.

You should really look into evolution, natural selection, survival of the fittest. Nothing changed. This is how the world really works.

garb's avatar

Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to convince you. I just wanted to give my opinion.

I’ll be happy to have a change of thought if I hear something persuasive, but it never comes to that.

ETpro's avatar

@garb If you never hear any thing that persuades you to change, there are two possibilities. You are perfect in every way. Everything you believe is absolute truth, and there will never be any reason to question or amend any of it. Or, you are so deeply into your ideology that any challenge to it you immedately dismiss as invalid. I ask you, which is more likely?

garb's avatar

I was only implying “it never comes to that” regarding this topic because every answer I heard (and I’ve heard plenty) ended in the same result, that you have to sacrifice the individuals to save the weaker maladaptive collective.

I gave you a chance to answer my question, but this is the second time you’re dodging it. If you can give me a unique answer, by all means…

Think of it like this. If I don’t care who or what system you blame, or what you do to fix it, then you would never hear from me at all. I would be a ghost.

So ask yourself why is it that you hear from me? Why is it that I oppose you? Obviously you’re proposing something that makes me care enough to fight back against you. Had you handled the situation in a manner that won’t burden or restrict me, we wouldn’t be conversing right now.

So you have only one choice really. Handle your inequality problems without involving me, or else I will always fight against your cause.

You obviously cared enough to argue with me over my opinions.

laureth's avatar

It’s not any more maladaptive of a collective if the individuals you sacrifice to it (or for it) make less money than more. And “adaptive” can mean different things. Think of it this way: if you, living in your mansion, are attacked by a mob, the adaptive thing you must do is save yourself and those you value, yes? Folks in the mob are also adapting to the situation in which they find themselves, by taking what they need to live.

It sounds like you are a fan of Ayn Rand, and value her concept of “producers” vs. “moochers.” Am I correct? If so, it is proper to remember that Rand’s work is fiction, and when something is fiction, it relies only on the author’s ability to make a story or concept hang together – not on the ability of a story or concept to hang together in the real world. For example, I could write a work of fiction about a bunch of Communists living in a communist system where everyone is happy all the time, no one is oppressed, and they all want to share with their comrades, and that would all seamlessly happen in my story. But it wouldn’t reflect reality, it would just be my happy little delusion. Similarly, Rand’s world is not reality, nor is (was) she an economist. (She famously even “mooched” at the end there, before she died, instead of taking the poor, painful death she would seem to advocate for those who made poor life choices.) For economics, I would rather look at economists’ work who studied reality as a science, rather than as a novelist, even if I disagree with the economist. Even better if the economist’s ideas and predictions have been borne out, over those whose ideas and predictions originate in ideology alone.

garb's avatar

If the adaptive individuals allow themselves to be overrunned by the maladaptive collective, then yes, the tables turn. The adaptive become maladaptive and the maladaptives adapt.

But that is a big IF, and I don’t mind that challenge. Individuals like me can team up with other individuals to fight against a common enemy (the maladaptive collective). As I gave an example with The great 300 spartans that defeated 300,000 persians.

Maladaptive people are quantity, not quality. That’s why the poor can never defeat the rich. The rich are quality, the poor are quantity.

I’m actually a fan of what inspired Ayn Rand. Science. Just like you value science. Ayn Rand was inspired by evolution. Social Darwinism, natural selection, survival of the fittest. So yes, I’m a fan of science

Most of the world adopted the Keynesian economic model that is based on “science” and most of the world is crumbling economically, so what does that tell you about the use of science in economics? Look at all the Keynesian economists who laughed at people who said there would be a financial crisis. If they’re so scientific they would have calculated this event, but they didn’t. After the financial crisis, they made videos showing how these so called scientists were laughing while those few who predicted it, turned into billionaires.

My point is there is a reason why economics is a social science, and not a hard science, because if it were a real science, you would be able to predict every move of the market. You would be able to get rid of uncertainty and accurately make investments, but you can’t because the market is organic and is in a constant change of flux flow.

laureth's avatar

First off, if you believe that Social Darwinism is science, we must have different definitions of what science is. Social Darwinism is more akin to a meme.

Economics is not a hard science like physics, true. It’s more akin to “warfare” as a science, because it is affected by human nature and human behavior. But you can still make predictions, because those are pretty much the only way to test hypotheses in economics. Reputable economists (at least, the ones I consider reputable) would look at the outcomes, compare them to the predictions, and if they weren’t (close to) right, realize that they don’t know as much as they thought they did, and try to figure out where they went wrong. And on the whole, Keynesians and their ilk seem to care more about that then the Austrians I’ve talked to. The Keynesians I’m aware of, were talking about this bubble before it broke, whereas the Austrians often didn’t call it until well after.

It’s interesting that your view changed, on the relative number of poor folks. First, you say, “Poor people were and are always a minority. A system cannot and would not function if the majority of people were poor.” And, more recently, you say, “Maladaptive people are quantity, not quality. That’s why the poor can never defeat the rich. The rich are quality, the poor are quantity.”

Working in an office, shuffling papers around, and taking advantage of minute changes in a stock’s price to make a passel of dollars every day doesn’t mean that you are better, more useful to society, or produce more wealth than a lower-paid farmer, teacher, or factory worker. It only means that they are underpaid, and the day trader is overpaid, for what they do. What they produce is real wealth: food, manufactured goods, human capital. Money is not a useful measure of one’s quality.

mazingerz88's avatar

@garb Excuse me but I just can’t resist from saying this, “the rich are quality my ass” Lol.
There is no stopping the “quality rich” if left to their own supposedly superior ways and devices from self-destructing. If there were no losers to be eaten, winners would end up devouring each other. My opinion is winners only exists because losers exist. You survive by supporting and encouraging enough number of losers to cross over and become winners like you. It creates the illusion of, if not totally being balanced, at least the playing field is leveled. Some of the losers think it’s not even leveled.

In the end, those 300 Spartans eventually got slaughtered.

garb's avatar

@laureth,

Please do me a favor and stop with your links. Do I really have to link you a bunch of links now in opposition to what you wrote…

How about this simple statement. If someone gets sick or is poor, and you don’t help him/her, and he/she cannot help him/herself, then he/she will end up dying. Or he/she will end up learning how to adapt to the environment on his/her own.

What don’t you agree with here^^^?

As for Keynesian and Austrian, here is case and point. Keynesian’s Laugh as Austrian

I didn’t change my view. I’m saying that every system will always have its winners and losers. The winners will be the functioning economy and society in general. The losers will be nothing. If there were no winners in society, then you have a serious problem, but can never happen winners and loser is a natural process.

It doesn’t have to be money. It can be anything. Intelligence, strength, whatever…You still have winners and losers. Doesn’t matter how you become a winner.

The use of science in economics has been around for quite some time now, yet why can’t I calculate what the next price of the Dow Jones or S&P 500 will be?

Why can’t economics who uses science do that? And if you admit they can’t, then that is by definition an uncertain/unpredictable market.

garb's avatar

@mazingerz88,

Winners would compete with each other, you don’t need losers at all. Keep in mind, the one’s who are working and the one’s who are owners, are all winners, since they’re all still active in society. Those are inactive are useless to society. They become a burden.

So it’s the winners (the buyers and sellers) who would be competing with each other, and then you have new breed of winners and losers, and so on…

The 300 Spartan’s got slaughtered, but you had 30,000+ more Spartans (winners) as a result of that.

mazingerz88's avatar

@garb Lol. I knew you would say that about the 300 Spartans! I’ll just fixate on those first 300 being slaughtered.

I was under the impression you simply labeled the poor as losers and the rich winners. But there you go again with your, imo, hurtful labeling of inactive people as useless. To really make this as simple as possible, I’ll just see you at the polls.

And sincerely, good luck on all the possible financial contribution you might be bestowing upon your political generals. No doubt, it’s going to be much much cheaper compared to paying more taxes. ( Assuming you are that wealthy…)

garb's avatar

How are inactive people useful? What do they contribute besides a massive burden on those who are active?

You’re not going to scare me if you change the system. I’ll adapt to the new one, it’s no big deal. It’s you who should worry if I change the system according to my views.

mazingerz88's avatar

@garb Nah. Not really. Nothing lasts forever. I don’t mind if America collapses tomorrow. It’s the cold indifference and apathy and superiority complex borne out of being better in surviving, within human nature that despises me more. That world? That world is not worth living in. But that’s me.

garb's avatar

Yes, the world isn’t fair, boohoo.

laureth's avatar

Garb, if you think economics is just about the next stock market price, I daresay you don’t understand what economics is.

I’m sorry you don’t like links. I prefer to move in the realm of something more than just ideology. If you would like to argue ideology endlessly, we can’t really go anywhere.

Yes, if someone gets sick enough, and cannot afford medical care, or is not helped in some way, they will die. You seem to see this as a feature, not a bug. However, I see human beings, who are blessed (or cursed) with qualities like self-awareness, conscience, and a moral system (if they’re not sociopaths), as having more responsibility to each other than just your average dingo. If Neanderthals can care for their sick and wounded, are we admitting that we’re less advanced than they were?

Oh shucks, a link.

garb's avatar

@laureth,

I never said it’s just about the next stock market price, just using an example. The best example though is what I said earlier, if most of the world adopted economic systems that are based on science, and most of the world is crumbling economically, what does that tell you about the usefulness of science in economics?

You can argue endlessly with links, that’s my point. I can link you 100 links that say the opposite of what yours do. “My links are better then your links” There is always two or more sides to the story.

Now before you go to “however”, you clearly confirm that the sick person requires help from the stronger person to survive. In this case, the argument between us is over because my only issue was burden and restriction, and since you just confirmed there is no way of fixing inequality without burdening and restricting the adaptive winners, and since I value the individual over the collective, I therefore cannot support your cause, or the ows, or any similar fashion.

I have plenty of responsibility. Wife, kids and family. That’s more then enough for one life time.

laureth's avatar

Have you ever considered that co-operation is a winning strategy, as opposed to competition being the only valid method of winning?

What does the economy being in a shambles tell me about economists? It tells me that we should have listened to better economists. I understand that the economists that the Right favors, had little clue about the impending bubble-burst. However, the ones that did have a clue, were poo-poo’d.

Finally, when I argue, I don’t just argue for the benefit of my opponent, I also do it for anyone out in the audience who is following along. I don’t introduce links to say that “mine are better than yours,” I introduce them to back up what I say; they often explain what I’m expressing in more detail than I am willing or able to do in this space. It’s for those who have an interest in reading more. It is also possible, I suppose, to judge my arguments by the quality of my links, but if you see all links as being equal (no matter their origin or reputation), that won’t help you. There are two or more sides to every story, but not all sides are equally valid.

garb's avatar

I never had the need to consider cooperation because competition was always a winning strategy.

I think we should stop listening to everyone. I think each individual should think and act for him/herself. Should be responsible for his/her actions.

laureth's avatar

Cooperation might not be a winning strategy for you, especially if you can’t find anyone willing to hold up their end of the cooperative effort on your behalf. (Being sociable and helpful is the sort of adaptation that encourages others to do so.) However, it has been a winning strategy for uncounted hordes of other human beings, as much (if not moreso) than competition.

garb's avatar

So what would be the difference if I link you articles written by prestige economic scholars that back up what I say?

Who decides who is right? Me, you? Who is the authority figure?

laureth's avatar

If this argument is like most others on the internet, you will decide you are right, I will decide that I am right, and the invisible audience out there will come to their own conclusions. They may even decide that you and I are both full of crap, or that we both have points that are well worth considering. Where I come from, there doesn’t always need to be a winner and a loser: sometimes, by working together, we can come to a truth faster or more thoroughly than either of us could, alone.

garb's avatar

@laureth,

Well I go through voluntary cooperation everyday. I trade. It takes two people to voluntarily cooperate with each to make a trade work.

Whatever works for you. I do whatever works for me.

ETpro's avatar

@garb Thank you for keeping the debate civil. I will do my best to return the favor. I am afraid that in all the back and forth, if you had an initial question, it is lost on me. Can you restate it, and I will provide my answer. We may or may not agree, but at least I should be endeavoring to answer whatever question it is you originally posed.

PS: I’m not just being lazy in asking. I did follow back up the thread, and I was still unsure what the original question might be.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther