PDA

View Full Version : Dear Occupy: Does The 2012 Election Matter?




fr33
09-03-2012, 10:08 PM
video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHhx5T5yVlc

It's a shame we couldn't convince the occupy people to vote for Ron Paul. Maybe some did but most didn't. I don't blame us. I blame occupy people for being idiots and not understanding economics and why corporations exist. At least a lot of occupiers are principled.

Xhin
09-04-2012, 12:22 AM
Occupy people see only one part of the problem. They see the corporotocracy but blame it on capitalism rather than government regulation. Similarly, they see how the bankers caused the recession but don't see how the fed created an unsustainable bubble that the newly deregulated bankers exploited in the first place.

FrankRep
09-04-2012, 12:24 AM
I blame occupy people for being idiots and not understanding economics...

Hopefully more people will realize this.

NewRightLibertarian
09-04-2012, 12:28 AM
Boy am I glad this movement has largely fell to pieces.

fr33
09-04-2012, 12:31 AM
I support their outrage, I just don't support their solutions at all.

tttppp
09-04-2012, 12:31 AM
Its amazing Occupy people recognize the problems but hold Obama completely blameless. So not only do they not understand economics, they don't understand basic management. Obama is president, if you are not happy with our system, you have to blame him. Additionally, they point the finger at corporations, well guess who accepts bribes from corporations.

Xhin
09-04-2012, 12:32 AM
It IS possible to get anti-capitalists to accept the ideals of a free market. I've done it before. You just have to show how capitalism and marxism are different attitudes rather than political systems, and both can co-exist and even complement one another on a free market.

Xhin
09-04-2012, 12:35 AM
Yeah well corporations/bankers are to blame too. The main problem with attacking corporations is that you'd do that via regulation, and influencing regulation for their own ends is why they're in power to begin with. If you can avoid libertarian rhetoric and get them to see that government interference is what creates problems in the first place, then you've made significant progress.

tttppp
09-04-2012, 12:40 AM
Yeah well corporations/bankers are to blame too. The main problem with attacking corporations is that you'd do that via regulation, and influencing regulation for their own ends is why they're in power to begin with. If you can avoid libertarian rhetoric and get them to see that government interference is what creates problems in the first place, then you've made significant progress.

Its possible, but you'll get some very stupid responses when explaining free markets. One time I was explaining free market solutions in my accounting classes, and one person replied that wouldn't work because some accountants would lose their jobs. They really need years of education, not just one discussion.

Xhin
09-04-2012, 12:55 AM
The main problem is that the attitude/values between libertarians and marxists are different, so it heavily impacts the kinds of free-market solutions you offer. For example, suppose there's a business that is horrible to its workers. The libertarian solution is to work elsewhere (which isn't always an option) or start your own business (which most people don't want to do). The marxist solution is to have the business be run *by* the workers, or influenced heavily by them. The difference seems to be that libertarian solutions want everyone to start their own business or individually bargain with businesses, while marxist solutions are collective and value labor over entrepreneurship.

However, there's no reason you can't apply a marxist solution to a free market. All you have to do is adjust the rhetoric of "churches and charities help out their communities" to "organized laborers help out one another", because it's the same damn thing. Laborers have an equal amount of economic power to innovators/managers, so can exploit that to set their own work conditions.

The key is to get them to accept the structure of the system without injecting your own set of values into it.

fr33
09-04-2012, 01:00 AM
Its possible, but you'll get some very stupid responses when explaining free markets. One time I was explaining free market solutions in my accounting classes, and one person replied that wouldn't work because some accountants would lose their jobs. They really need years of education, not just one discussion.hehe I have 2 sisters that are accountants. They hate Ron Paul. That person wasn't totally wrong. But it's not likely a RP presidency would have been able to abolish the income tax (unfortunately). The statism is ingrained.

tttppp
09-04-2012, 01:14 AM
hehe I have 2 sisters that are accountants. They hate Ron Paul. That person wasn't totally wrong. But it's not likely a RP presidency would have been able to abolish the income tax (unfortunately). The statism is ingrained.

My solution was more than just tax. It was designed to fix the financial accounting industry, prevent fraud, provide better information to investors, while reducing costs. It did involve merging financial and tax reporting. As it is now, companies can cheat one way on their financial reports and cheat the other way on their tax reports. Its a completely stupid system.

That person was right that accountants would lose their jobs, but its not the job of government to hand out jobs. Its their job to create the most efficient system possible. If accountantw lost their jobs, they could get a new job doing something that is actually productive.

fr33
09-04-2012, 01:21 AM
My solution was more than just tax. It was designed to fix the financial accounting industry, prevent fraud, provide better information to investors, while reducing costs. It did involve merging financial and tax reporting. As it is now, companies can cheat one way on their financial reports and cheat the other way on their tax reports. Its a completely stupid system.

That person was right that accountants would lose their jobs, but its not the job of government to hand out jobs. Its their job to create the most efficient system possible. If accountantw lost their jobs, they could get a new job doing something that is actually productive.As long as the income tax system exists people will game it. It is immoral to punish profit with tax. In fact I can't think of any moral justification to force someone to pay taxes. If liberty is truly the goal taxation is unacceptable.

fr33
09-04-2012, 01:25 AM
The income tax gives every justification and benefit to the corporation. Corporations are used to launder tax revenue instead of individuals funding the system. Nobody wants to give anything back except for the teens than never earned a damn thing.

tttppp
09-04-2012, 01:29 AM
As long as the income tax system exists people will game it. It is immoral to punish profit with tax. In fact I can't think of any moral justification to force someone to pay taxes. If liberty is truly the goal taxation is unacceptable.

I would be all for no taxes if it was possible. How do you suggest the economy would function without any taxes and nobody there to enforce our rights?

Weston White
09-04-2012, 02:31 AM
Largely, OWS people are (confused) socialist-progressives; there is no way in goodness graciousness most of that bunch will be understanding or supportive to somebody like Ron Paul, at least not presently.

Weston White
09-04-2012, 02:47 AM
Really, there is nothing immoral about using the gains and profits of others to collect a moderate sum of revenue in order to pay for the necessary expenses of a legitimate system of government, so long as such retains its prudence; however, when that line has crossed into whims of extravagance or it has otherwise turned to effect one’s capital or stock as its subject then a great immorality has taken place. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about the income tax itself, only in the way that it is being (and has been) misapplied.

TheTexan
09-04-2012, 03:34 AM
I'd be interested to hear Occupy's opinion of secession

Peace&Freedom
09-04-2012, 06:38 AM
Really, there is nothing immoral about using the gains and profits of others to collect a moderate sum of revenue in order to pay for the necessary expenses of a legitimate system of government, so long as such retains its prudence; however, when that line has crossed into whims of extravagance or it has otherwise turned to effect one’s capital or stock as its subject then a great immorality has taken place. There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal about the income tax itself, only in the way that it is being (and has been) misapplied.

The income tax is illegally being misapplied, but it doesn't change it's basic nature as legalized theft. Theft is immoral, so taxation is immoral, regardless of it being codified into current law. What next, will we morally justify cops summarily executing suspects on the street, because it's more efficient for the state to make it legal to do so, than trying them in court?

Who decided what's prudent or what's extravagant concerning other people's property, or that forcibly taking it to fund allegedly necessary expenses of the state is not immoral? Funding government is a problem, but does that mean initiating force (legally mugging people with taxes) is the solution? Embracing the immoral initiation of force by papering it over with misdirecting talk about governmental necessity is fundamentally unlibertarian.

Peace&Freedom
09-04-2012, 07:09 AM
Boy am I glad this movement has largely fell to pieces.

It didn't fall to pieces, it was smashed to pieces by the state. The movement exposed the need to prosecute the utterly corrupt financial giants, and to stop corporate welfare or bailouts of Wall St. at the expense of Main St. At the start the protests were not at heart political, but the laments of citizens who felt like crime victims. They felt like that, because it was true. What bankers have gone to jail over the mortgage-backed securities fraud? Or knowingly selling crappy credit default swap investments to clients? Or MF Global money walking? Or LIBOR market fixing? Or the attempts to dump $150 trillion in Euro derivatives (debts) into American banks, so they would fall under FDIC guarantees as 'assets' for American taxpayers to pay off?

Such exposure of the white shoe boys was proving embarrassing (and politically, entirely too independent) to a Democratic White House in an election year, so it pushed to have Occupy's protests disrupted. Provocateurs were slipped in to perform acts that discredited it and to invite police crackdowns. As usual, the establishment either moves in to try to co-opt, or marginalize any alternative movement, to make the world safe for the duopoly binary puppet show. The Occupy argument was distorted down to a simplistic 'anti-business' (Democratic) vs. 'pro-business' (GOP) narrative, so no one would notice that, once again, corrupt banksters were not going to jail.

TheTexan
09-04-2012, 07:17 AM
They identified generally the same problems, but their solutions suck... so I think we should get them on board with secession, and then let them have California (sorry any Californians, just take one for the team ok)

moostraks
09-04-2012, 07:39 AM
It didn't fall to pieces, it was smashed to pieces by the state. The movement exposed the need to prosecute the utterly corrupt financial giants, and to stop corporate welfare or bailouts of Wall St. at the expense of Main St. At the start the protests were not at heart political, but the laments of citizens who felt like crime victims. They felt like that, because it was true. What bankers have gone to jail over the mortgage-backed securities fraud? Or knowingly selling crappy credit default swap investments to clients? Or MF Global money walking? Or LIBOR market fixing? Or the attempts to dump $150 trillion in Euro derivatives (debts) into American banks, so they would fall under FDIC guarantees as 'assets' for American taxpayers to pay off?

Such exposure of the white shoe boys was proving embarrassing (and politically, entirely too independent) to a Democratic White House in an election year, so it pushed to have Occupy's protests disrupted. Provocateurs were slipped in to perform acts that discredited it and to invite police crackdowns. As usual, the establishment either moves in to try to co-opt, or marginalize any alternative movement, to make the would safe for the duopoly binary puppet show. The Occupy argument was distorted down to a simplistic 'anti-business' (Democratic) vs. 'pro-business' (GOP) narrative, so no one would notice that, once again, corrupt banksters were not going to jail.

Spot on with this^^^.


They identified generally the same problems, but their solutions suck... so I think we should get them on board with secession, and then let them have California (sorry any Californians, just take one for the team ok) Lol!

Victor Grey
09-04-2012, 08:58 AM
I didn't trust OWS when it started, I don't now, either.

To me OWS is a bunch of leftists throwing a fit that their own progressive economic philosophy failed, and wish to pass the buck to capitalism claiming they needed to be even more economically leftist. They were just fine with it, until the bubble burst. They loved it.

When Obama and democrats bailed out corporations, they got on their knees and kiss their politicians on the rear.

There are a few good people peppered in, a few dumb kids with a hazy idea of what's going on, and there are a few that sympathize with them more that me because, as fr33 stated:


I support their outrage, I just don't support their solutions at all.

Nevertheless I don't support them and I see them going nowhere.

When election day comes, they'll vote for the exact same people that are already residing in office currently.

OWS is a predominately young progressive complainfest, that want to call Bush economically conservative, and Obama economically different.
They're just one enemy wailing about the consequences of their own creation and how it benefited another enemy.

pcosmar
09-04-2012, 09:10 AM
When election day comes, they'll vote for the exact same people that are already residing in office currently.

OWS is a predominately young progressive complainfest, that want to call Bush economically conservative, and Obama economically different.
They're just one enemy wailing about the consequences of their own creation and how it benefited another enemy.

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0911/ignorance-ignorance-point-of-view-la-la-la-la-demotivational-poster-1258905282.jpg

Weston White
09-05-2012, 02:04 AM
The income tax is illegally being misapplied, but it doesn't change it's basic nature as legalized theft. Theft is immoral, so taxation is immoral, regardless of it being codified into current law. What next, will we morally justify cops summarily executing suspects on the street, because it's more efficient for the state to make it legal to do so, than trying them in court?

Who decided what's prudent or what's extravagant concerning other people's property, or that forcibly taking it to fund allegedly necessary expenses of the state is not immoral? Funding government is a problem, but does that mean initiating force (legally mugging people with taxes) is the solution? Embracing the immoral initiation of force by papering it over with misdirecting talk about governmental necessity is fundamentally unlibertarian.

Nevertheless, a few things to maintain perspective on:

1. Nobody has a right to make a profit, which is all that the income tax is intending to reach.
2. Police shooting people in the streets has nothing to do with the matter of income taxes.
3. What is and is not prudent is established in both America’s founding and its case law.
4. Without an effective system of government being in place there can be no libertarianism, but only anarchy.

Peace&Freedom
09-05-2012, 11:02 AM
Nevertheless, a few things to maintain perspective on:

1. Nobody has a right to make a profit, which is all that the income tax is intending to reach.
2. Police shooting people in the streets has nothing to do with the matter of income taxes.
3. What is and is not prudent is established in both America’s founding and its case law.
4. Without an effective system of government being in place there can be no libertarianism, but only anarchy.

Your 'perspective' seems to be default authoritarian. Instead of questioning state authority, you appear to be presuming it on face value.

1. According to YOU, no one has a right to profit. The rest of us believe in property rights, the right to free enterprise and right to enjoy the profit or fruits of our labor.
2. Summary execution without due process, and legalized theft through taxation are two aspects of the same thing, wrongful use of government force.
3. The state or civil government is itself not necessary for a free people, thus the truth of its claims as to necessary or prudent expenses are not established.
4. Under libertarian understanding NO government is needed (anarchism) OR, only one large enough to protect life, liberty or property (minarchism). In either case, ONLY the defensive use of force can be justified. The modern income tax, which didn't even exist prior to 1913, clearly does not qualify as being needed for effective government.