Occupy Wall Street

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
565

[quote]phaethon wrote:

If you could be handed a high GPA from your father [/quote]

This bothering you bothers me. Wouldn’t it be something if fathers once again busted their asses to keep their families together, passing on a bit more than they themselves had? When did we make this virtue into something seedy? Shouldn’t we be applauding the act of leaving children with wealth instead of debt? Shouldn’t we be saying, “Ok, dad, you may have to bust your ass on two back breaking jobs so your kids can concentrate on busting their ass in school, but you’re obligated too. Your obligated, as a parent, to do no less. If someone is going to go on to higher education/or skilled labor and escape poverty it’ll have to be your children. That’s life. That’s the transmission of opportunity and progress.”

The plight of the poor has nothing to do with large inheritances. It has do with father’s who aren’t even there. If you can provide electricity, food, a roof, and a virtuous role model, you’re wealthy. It’s more than enough to raise a child capable of going further, who then gives his/her own child even more opportunity. And so on and so forth.

566

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You want to decrease the influence of these Big Whatevers? Decrease the size and scope of government. And I’m not calling for some brand of anarchism - just take away the means by which they exercise their influence over the LIttle Guy.
[/quote]

Easier said than done mate. But I do agree.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And more besides, they need to think this through - this notion that corporations shouldn’t be able to influence the very rules and regulations that these corporations have to live under is, frankly, pretty creepy in practice and completely contary to the point of democratic government.
[/quote]

Here though I don’t really understand why you think so. A corporation is not a person. It is an entity collectively owned by a group of people and managed by another group of people on their behalf.

The people who own shares in a company should be allowed to voice their concerns. As should the people who work there. But why should we let the corporation, as its own entity, have any say over the matter?

I can call up my lawyer tomorrow and create a hundred companies. Why should they have any say over government policy? Surely those companies I just created shouldn’t be able to influence the system in a way that gives them as much power as another human. Not even if I was a really rich man and gave each of these companies 10 million dollars and hired a few staff for each one.

The people are the only important players in a true democracy.

567

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Agree in a sense, the problem is the corporatism of America. I disagree in that the way they hold their power is through regulations. We need to get rid of the regulations which corporations use to keep control.
[/quote]

Our entire society is built upon trust. There needs to be a significant punishment for those who violate this trust through shady practices. One solution is regulation. Another is through the courts.

Many on the right think the courts should handle it…but I have seen enough contract cases to know that unless you have bucket loads of money and time then you won’t get anywhere. I know of many contract violation court cases that have been going on for 10+ years. Can you pay for a lawyer for 10 years? How about even for a single year?[/quote]

Well that is a problem with the court system.

Regulation are unconstitutional in nature, as they bypass the legislative branch to create laws. Usually ones with an agenda, not to protect the citizens.

Make simple laws, and remind judges they can be tried criminally for breaking the law in their roles as well.

The problem with most courts is this whole premise of case law. That is not law, the laws are passed and the judges are only to rule on those laws. But some just want to make a name for themselves and press their ideology, rather than rule on the law. That should be crminally prosecuted if found.

568

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

Agree in a sense, the problem is the corporatism of America. I disagree in that the way they hold their power is through regulations. We need to get rid of the regulations which corporations use to keep control.
[/quote]

Precisely - for those that are worried about big corporations’ influence over government, never do they quite realize that the more expanisive government is, the more big entities (Big Oil, Wall Street, Big Labor, whatever) can influence it.

You want to decrease the influence of these Big Whatevers? Decrease the size and scope of government. And I’m not calling for some brand of anarchism - just take away the means by which they exercise their influence over the LIttle Guy.

And more besides, they need to think this through - this notion that corporations shouldn’t be able to influence the very rules and regulations that these corporations have to live under is, frankly, pretty creepy in practice and completely contary to the point of democratic government. Look, I don’t like their overszied influence over the process as much as the next guy, but if the government is going to exercise power over a concern, that concern has to have a right to have its voice heard on the matter. I don’t want to live in a nation where it doesn’t.

The oversized influence in government of Big Whatever is a problem in society, and is in need of being addressed - but not through a process of stripping these concerns of having their say over the laws being passed that affect them.

And, as a quick aside, big corporations love a massive regulatory regime - it acts as a economic barrier to entry for smaller concerns.
[/quote]

The corporation is represented by the individuals that comprise it, it should have no more or no less influence then that. Just like the union is made of the individuals that comprise it and should have no more or no less influence than that.

569

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This bothering you bothers me. Wouldn’t it be something if fathers once again busted their asses to keep their families together, passing on a bit more than they themselves had? When did we make this virtue into something seedy?
[/quote]

It isn’t in the least bit seedy. It is still a virtue and should really be something that every parent strives for.

The problems come about when the son believes he has earned everything for himself and got where he was because he was somehow inherently deserving of it. Hence the attitude of many born into wealth that those who aren’t so lucky “just didn’t work hard enough” and that it is “their own fault for not trying hard enough” etc.

It is the sense of entitlement of many of the wealthy that they don’t owe anybody anything that is the problem.

570

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
You want to decrease the influence of these Big Whatevers? Decrease the size and scope of government. And I’m not calling for some brand of anarchism - just take away the means by which they exercise their influence over the LIttle Guy.
[/quote]

Easier said than done mate. But I do agree.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
And more besides, they need to think this through - this notion that corporations shouldn’t be able to influence the very rules and regulations that these corporations have to live under is, frankly, pretty creepy in practice and completely contary to the point of democratic government.
[/quote]

Here though I don’t really understand why you think so. A corporation is not a person. It is an entity collectively owned by a group of people and managed by another group of people on their behalf.

The people who own shares in a company should be allowed to voice their concerns. As should the people who work there. But why should we let the corporation, as its own entity, have any say over the matter?

I can call up my lawyer tomorrow and create a hundred companies. Why should they have any say over government policy? Surely those companies I just created shouldn’t be able to influence the system in a way that gives them as much power as another human. Not even if I was a really rich man and gave each of these companies 10 million dollars and hired a few staff for each one.

The people are the only important players in a true democracy.[/quote]

We aren’t a democracy, that is the fallacy pushed into our conversations from the time we are little, we are a democratic republic. Democracy leads to the majority taking from the few and has no protection fro the individuals.

571

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This bothering you bothers me. Wouldn’t it be something if fathers once again busted their asses to keep their families together, passing on a bit more than they themselves had? When did we make this virtue into something seedy?
[/quote]

It isn’t in the least bit seedy. It is still a virtue and should really be something that every parent strives for.

The problems come about when the son believes he has earned everything for himself and got where he was because he was somehow inherently deserving of it. Hence the attitude of many born into wealth that those who aren’t so lucky “just didn’t work hard enough” and that it is “their own fault for not trying hard enough” etc.

It is the sense of entitlement of many of the wealthy that they don’t owe anybody anything that is the problem.[/quote]

Well in that scenario the only person they owe is their parents. Now as good person they should show charity and concern, but are technically not obligated to anyone else. By using the government int he form of taxes to take their money to give to others you make relations worse, hence the term class warfare. Now they despise the ones using the government entitlements. Where if they interacted first hand through voluntary charity, they would learn compassion and see the real needs. It would also help eliminate the moochers. In fact that worked well up until the progressives made it the governments role.

572

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, wait - is it that they don’t want jobs, or they don’t want jobs where they work 60 hours a week for peanuts? You’re certainly making it sound like the protestors (at least, the ones who get attention, which, lets face it, will always be the loudest and stupidest) are just demanding that they be given things - which is a far cry from saying “We want jobs that aren’t absolute shit.”[/quote]

Well, they are demanding that they be given things exclusive of “decent jobs”. That has been fairly obvious from the information we’re getting from the protests.

But, I’m not seeing this protest for decent jobs you are referring to as it pertains to Wall Street as the enemy standing in the way of these decent jobs. If you have a source, I am happy to look at it, and I’m serious about that. I just haven’t seen this.

[quote]Because they’re busy on the internet posting about everything wrong with the movement.
[/quote]

Why would someone held lead the protests if they think the protest is wrong-headed?

573

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I could argue redistribution of money serves no real purpose, you are just making a slave/serf class dependent on someone else, while at the same time demotivating others.
[/quote]

But could you provide emperical evidence to back up your claims?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I work hard to ensure my children have what they need going forward, who the hell are you or some government entity to take it away.
[/quote]

Ahhh I see. The entitlement attitude.

574

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I could argue redistribution of money serves no real purpose, you are just making a slave/serf class dependent on someone else, while at the same time demotivating others.
[/quote]

But could you provide emperical evidence to back up your claims?

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
I work hard to ensure my children have what they need going forward, who the hell are you or some government entity to take it away.
[/quote]

Ahhh I see. The entitlement attitude.[/quote]

Well case studies, Rome, Britain, America

Oh so you don’t believe in the idea of private property? If I earn something, if I buy something is it not private property? Much different from entitlement, that is when you feel entitled to something that is not yours or you did not earn. I am saying it is private property and you have no authority to take it.

575

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Well in that scenario the only person they owe is their parents. Now as good person they should show charity and concern, but are technically not obligated to anyone else.
[/quote]

Why are they only obligated to their parents? This is the entitlement attitude I am talking about.

Could his parents have achieved jack shit without the help and knowledge provided by the rest of society and all of our hard working ancestors? They didn’t create their wealth in a vacuum.

Everybody has an obligation to society.

576

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Here though I don’t really understand why you think so. A corporation is not a person. It is an entity collectively owned by a group of people and managed by another group of people on their behalf.[/quote]

Right, I never said otherwise. But they are made up of people - like a state, a city, a county, or a government agency.

Over what matter? Laws being passed that affect the rights of the shareholders? You don’t think the corporation - as the collective voice of the shareholders - should have a right to say “good law”, “bad law” or “let’s do a different law” to the lawmakers passing laws that impact their lives and property?

Should environmental advocacy groups be able to influence the system? How about labor unions?

I don’t necessarily disagree with this, but we don’t have a raw democracy. We have a constitutional republic, one that rests on a fundamental tenet that you have a right to assemble and petition redress of grievances - i.e., if laws are going to be passed that affect you, you have a right to have your voice heard.

577

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Well in that scenario the only person they owe is their parents. Now as good person they should show charity and concern, but are technically not obligated to anyone else.
[/quote]

Why are they only obligated to their parents? This is the entitlement attitude I am talking about.

Could his parents have achieved jack shit without the help and knowledge provided by the rest of society and all of our hard working ancestors? They didn’t create their wealth in a vacuum.

Everybody has an obligation to society.[/quote]

And their in lies the fundamental difference, I see society as a function of the individual and you see the individual as a function of society. But your model cannot hold true, you cannot have the society without first having the individual, But an individual can exist in and of itself.

And even with your argument, the only obligation is to the infrastructure of the society, not to redistribute the wealth to other entities of society, only to maintain the infrastructure. Which is accomplished by the taxes already paid, once the property is is my private property it is free to do what I wish with it.

578

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Well case studies, Rome, Britain, America
[/quote]

Rome was at its richest and most powerful when it was redistributing money from others. Simply listing countries is not really providing much of an argument. I don’t really think any of those systems collapsed or went badly because of redistribution of money from the rich to the poor.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Oh so you don’t believe in the idea of private property? If I earn something, if I buy something is it not private property? Much different from entitlement, that is when you feel entitled to something that is not yours or you did not earn. I am saying it is private property and you have no authority to take it.
[/quote]

You did not earn anything by yourself. You have been helped and shaped all along the way by society. If nobody had taught you how to read you couldn’t have made it anywhere near where you are today etc etc etc. Hence you owe society. Acting like you don’t is acting like a spoiled child.

Aside:

I believe private property is an important concept if we want society to prosper.

It isn’t an inherent right because most private property is built using and upon goods nobody has an inherent right to. Did you create the land your house is built upon? Did you create the crude oil that was used in farming the foods you eat? Did any human? No. So how can any individual claim he owns it?

You might feel that you have earned your property. That doesn’t mean you have an inherent right to it.

579

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And their in lies the fundamental difference, I see society as a function of the individual and you see the individual as a function of society. But your model cannot hold true, you cannot have the society without first having the individual, But an individual can exist in and of itself.
[/quote]

But the individual without society has next to nothing and can do next to nothing. And thus only what he could reasonably achieve in the absence of any society is what truly belongs to him and only him. The rest belongs in most part to him, but also in part to society.

[quote]apbt55 wrote:
And even with your argument, the only obligation is to the infrastructure of the society, not to redistribute the wealth to other entities of society, only to maintain the infrastructure.
[/quote]

Why is the obligation only to the infrastructure of the society? Unless you include welfare and the like as infrastructure I don’t see how you can claim only the infrastructure. Many people who have contributed significantly to society have been on welfare at some point.

580

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

So, wait - is it that they don’t want jobs, or they don’t want jobs where they work 60 hours a week for peanuts? You’re certainly making it sound like the protestors (at least, the ones who get attention, which, lets face it, will always be the loudest and stupidest) are just demanding that they be given things - which is a far cry from saying “We want jobs that aren’t absolute shit.”[/quote]

Well, they are demanding that they be given things exclusive of “decent jobs”. That has been fairly obvious from the information we’re getting from the protests.

But, I’m not seeing this protest for decent jobs you are referring to as it pertains to Wall Street as the enemy standing in the way of these decent jobs. If you have a source, I am happy to look at it, and I’m serious about that. I just haven’t seen this.[/quote]

?

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. I posted a link some pages ago (and I think you commented on it) that specifically argued for an 8-hour work-day and a 40hour work-week allowing one to support their family. I think he labeled this as the “American Dream.”

581

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Over what matter? Laws being passed that affect the rights of the shareholders? You don’t think the corporation - as the collective voice of the shareholders - should have a right to say “good law”, “bad law” or “let’s do a different law” to the lawmakers passing laws that impact their lives and property?
[/quote]

Not really. Because in the case of large corporations the corporation isn’t directly representative of its shareholders. A large company might decide to lobby for X. 60% of the shareholders might disagree with the company lobbying for X. Short of firing the entire board (quite difficult and time consuming) the shareholders can’t really do much about it though. And unless it is a major issue they aren’t going to fire the board.

There should be some way for the shareholders to voice their concerns but giving companies themselves the right to directly influence government is not a wise practice.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Should environmental advocacy groups be able to influence the system? How about labor unions?
[/quote]

Ideally no. They should be able to try and influence the people on specific issues. In a limited fashion mind you. And then the people can in turn influence the system.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
i.e., if laws are going to be passed that affect you, you have a right to have your voice heard.
[/quote]

Yes “you” … as in another person. Not a legal entity.

The problem is clear. Perhaps you have another way to fix it. I would be interested in reading about it. But the problem is that the very wealthy can exert undue influence upon politicians and hence can get them to act against the interests of the people.

582

[quote]phaethon wrote:

Not really. Because in the case of large corporations the corporation isn’t directly representative of its shareholders. A large company might decide to lobby for X. 60% of the shareholders might disagree with the company lobbying for X. Short of firing the entire board (quite difficult and time consuming) the shareholders can’t really do much about it though. And unless it is a major issue they aren’t going to fire the board.

There should be some way for the shareholders to voice their concerns but giving companies themselves the right to directly influence government is not a wise practice.[/quote]

Of course the corporation isn’t directly representative of the shareholders - neither is your government directly representative of the voters, and that isn’t an accident.

And don’t shareholders voice their concerns by electing directors?

And you said it yourself - unless there is a major issue, they aren’t going to fire the board. Well, if that’s true, then that definitionally means that the shareholders are fine with the decisions of the board…if they weren’t, that’d be a major issue and the shareholders would fire the board.

You’re all balled up - you’ve conceded that shareholders and do express their voice. SO the lack of a shareholder voice isn’t a problem.

Skip the “ideally” part - what do you want? Should unions and environmental advocacy groups have their collective voice silenced the same as for-profit coroprations? Yes or no?

You’re not making sense, because you can’t draw where the line is supposed to be. Corporations try to influence the people on specific issues all the time )think taxes). Is this not ok?

But a legal entity is most likely a person’s property. Or more specifically, a conglomeration of lots of people’s property. If they decide to assemble a collective voice on an issue that affects them (same as an environmental group or a union), why should that collective voice be silenced as to the laws that affect that legal entity?

That’s just plain creepy. What you are proposing is government power that is largely unaccountable to the subject of its regulation.

Sure, shrink government. Trim regulations. Ban earmarks. Get some sunshine in the process and make it simpler.

Expanding government and regulation makes the problem worse, not better. Thr rich and connected can use that kind of an environment to secure privilege quit eeasily. Take that environment away.

583

Case study for taking from the producers and giving to the takers and why it doesn’t work:

All of my tenants are either on Section 8 (Gov Paid Housing) or receive SSI Disability for their children (The children are not really disabled just file the right forms and you are good to go) or receive BOTH. They never work to get off Section 8 and the ones that receive SSID when asked “do you work?” they proudly respond “No I get SSID for my kids”.

The demographic that my tenants consist of have more children to receive more benefits, the more kids you have while on Section 8 the more bedrooms and greater rental payment amount you have. The ones that receive SSID have more kids because they receive $674 a month per child and that does not include food stamps, cash assistance, or any other subsidy. These “Families” (One mother and 3-5 children) consistently have more and more children and they pass on this epidemic of a lifestyle to their children, we have tenants who have daughters who are now having children to get Section 8 housing and SSID payments, Work or Job is a dirty word to these people.

The point is to take from one to give to another does not make the ones who are receiving the distribution work to better themselves if anything they believe that they are entitled to continually receive the benefit or that the benefit should be greater.

The only reason I am neutral about the subsidies is because I have created a way to get my tax dollars back in my pocket as income and create wealth over time for my family and I.

Secondly some of you continually talk about “Corporations” as if there is a disconnect between a company and a owner, you are discounting that the majority of businesses in America are sole proprietor owners, there are no board of directors or share holders, they are all one person. Very few companies percentage wise are publicly traded entities with mass amounts of shareholders.

584

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. I posted a link some pages ago (and I think you commented on it) that specifically argued for an 8-hour work-day and a 40hour work-week allowing one to support their family. I think he labeled this as the “American Dream.” [/quote]

I recall the link, I don’t recall the author’s desire for that. I’m happy to look at it again, but was he a part of the OWS movement?

More importantly, how exactly is Wall Street - the intended recipient of the message of the protests - going to provide for this “American Dream” to become reality?

I’m all ears.