Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: I'm out.

Posted 9 years ago on Oct. 14, 2011, 12:08 a.m. EST by looselyhuman (3117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I just won't be associated with the wolf-in-sheep's-clothing immoral Libertarianism I see on display here, and which seems to be taking over.

I'm sure many believe the propaganda that's what's best for the ((super duper truly) free) market is best for people, but what's best for the market is what's best for the oligarchs, pure and simple.

They've accumulated a little wealth and that accumulation will continue unfettered by regulation and taxation if they get their way. All these things they tell you are impossible under a free market - monopolies, etc - they have only the theory and well-engineered spin on their side. We have history to tell us the truth...

The year was 1880, the gilded age:

"Here was a society in which people were free to keep everything they earned, because there was no income tax. They were also free to decide what to do with their own money—spend it, save it, invest it, donate it, or whatever. People were generally free to engage in occupations and professions without a license or permit. There were few federal economic regulations and regulatory agencies. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, bailouts, or so-called stimulus plans. No IRS. No Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. No EPA and OSHA. No Federal Reserve. No drug laws. Few systems of public schooling. No immigration controls. No federal minimum-wage laws or price controls. A monetary system based on gold and silver coins rather than paper money. No slavery. No CIA. No FBI. No torture or cruel or unusual punishments. No renditions. No overseas military empire. No military-industrial complex."

[Also no unions]

Sounds great, right, want to go back there?

No monopolies right? Why did Teddy Roosevelt need to bust the trusts? How could monopolies have possibly formed?

Obviously, this society must have been the most just and equal in our history, considering the promises Libertarians make us about how wonderful things will be once government gets out of the way...

'Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." It was an era when government held the keys to corporate and private fortunes—land and subsidies for railroads, tariff protection for manufacturers, mountains for mining companies, timber lands for lumber kings, court orders to prevent strikes, and state militia and federal lawmen and U.S. Army regulars to break strikes and shoot strikers. "Government by campaign contributions," in Henry Demarest Lloyd’s words, gave America the most violent strikes in the industrializing world.'

That last one from: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/6012/

Read all about our future, the past. One of the darkest chapters in our history. I'm sure we'll hear all about how this wasn't the "pure" free market, and look at all that collusion between corporations and governments - right, that was before any of the watered down regulations the big STATISTS (i.e. the Roosevelts) put into place that our friends want removed - but it was MUCH closer to what they WANT than we are now, so we get to head in that direction if they win.

Now, does Ron Paul tow the line 100% on everything Libertarian? He says he doesn't, his supporters say he doesn't, but I know where he's come from, and I believe he'll go back there.

I will fight you.



Read the Rules
[-] 20 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

I want ONE and ONLY ONE thing from ALL of this...


I'm willing to DEBATE everything with the liberals, the libertarians, the conservatives, or even the peace-love-pray party AFTER I KNOW OUR REPRESENTATIVES are representing THE PEOPLE instead of all the SPECIAL INTERESTS and their MONEY.

ONCE WE HAVE OUR GOVERNMENT BACK, we can use the UNCORRUPTED Democratic process to reconcile our OTHER differences.

If we INSIST on fighting over our differences NOW, liberal vs. conservative, etc, we will become FACTIONS with NO POWER ... JUST the way the STATUS QUO wants!

See a proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I feel comfortable debating with conservatives, etc. It's just one group that gives me the heebeejeebees: Libertarians, who toss out the reality that I know, and traditional morality, and replace it with their "pure reason" that makes it impossible to effectively counter. I KNOW it's bullshit. HISTORY shows it's bullshit, the practical application of their free market or near-free market utopian society in the past has always been hell for all but those at the very top...

But I just can't deny the volumes and layers of logic they've piled on top of more pure emotionless logic. It's a total mindfuck and I feel like I'm being brainwashed.

I know that has nothing to do with what you're saying but I needed to vent.

Thanks, Rico, I really enjoyed your 1%er intro post and I'm glad you're here.

[-] 2 points by ChristopherABrown (550) from Santa Barbara, CA 9 years ago

looselyhuman, you've described an interesting thing, something I've been vaguely aware of for years but just now was logically slapped in the face with. Political parties ARE labeling and generalization. They are cognitive distortions!---

Within that, facts are compromised in decision making according to the interests of the one applying the label. They know the reality under it, the one they are trying to hide and misrepresent with some cover that happens to have some logical aspect, despite its being inferior.

[-] 2 points by Atoll (185) 9 years ago

Libertarianism is lacking in "pure logic" in some ways. In that, the logic they derive their reasoning from is subjective. Libertarian bastion Neal Boortz once declared that health care isn't a "right". Maybe he's right.

But having a career isn't a "right". Nor is even having a job or any other "provided" means to support a family. Having utilities isn't a right. Go without any of them too long and the Department of Social services for too long and your God given right to reproduce is violated by having your offspring ripped from your care. So what if you were squatting in an abandoned house (shelter) and killing stray cats for food?
Humanity is well, well detatched from our basic survival elements (at least in the developed world). In this way, "rights" become what the majority is willing to agree upon as a standard of living.
So take that Boortz.
Libertarianism out-logic'd

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

I loled.

You just argued that an absolute, a right, something universal to all humans, is whatever a majority says.

Stay in school.

[-] 2 points by Atoll (185) 9 years ago

The ability to adequately defend yourself and your property (2nd amendment) is not "universal to all humans". Some are less capable than others. It has been this way since the dawn of man. The ability to have your voice heard in a conflict (5th amendment) is not a "universal" thing either. It isn't even today really in some cases.

Live in the real world for a while.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

Your confusing possessing the right with the ability to undertake its exercise.

That is what libertarians (and everyone else) calls a logical error.

I love how many here are complaining that libertarians are too logical. If you can't beat logical arguments maybe that should provide some information about the position you currently hold?

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Does the 2nd amendment say "to adequately defend yourself"? No, it says to have a gun, the right to be armed to defend yourself. The right to meet force with equal force (which government had long attempted to deny people, and is doing so still)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I'm not sure what part of that is not in plain english.

Don't project what you think it means. Literally read it and see how it applies.

If you respond to this, be sure to say something dismissive like "live in the real world for a while." Since I must be living in a fake one.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 9 years ago

Sorry for the break in continuity. I was disallowed a "reply" link.
The point I'm trying to make that "rights" are subjective. If someone can take a right away without anything to hinder them, it isn't a exactly a right.
And "natural rights" is only recognized as a "theory".

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

Rights can be infringed, protected, abandoned, taken up, ignored - but they cannot be removed. Remember that rights are inherent and inalienable. Its like trying to make a hydrogen atom without having one and only one proton - it is impossible for then it would no longer by hydrogen.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Did you watch the video on natural rights?

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Watch the video. It addresses exactly what we are talking about.

[-] 1 points by Atoll (185) 9 years ago

Don't be dismissive unless you are planning on being dismissed.
And without organized, majority given rights, human rights are easily taken away. Nothing can be declared "absolute" without a consensus.
And PLENTY of people live in the world of their own design. It's based on perception.
By all means, please share your "absolutes". Biological reproduction? Oh yes, it can be taken. Speech? Oh yes, it can be taken. Providing for oneself and/or a family? Oh yes, it can be taken. There are no rights that a power cannot take away.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

A great talk on the point, if you can understand that it's not republican, nor democrat, but a talk on the issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sNWbiAMf80

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

It can be taken, but that doesn't mean it's not a right. This is exactly the point of the first amendment, which is easy to understand. We're born in the world with a mouth and a brain, speaking is something that all humans are capable of and feel compelled to do. We don't need a majority to decide that humans have a mouth and a brain, it's evidenced by our very existence. This is the whole concept of natural rights, universal and self-evident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Wait, and mind you, I don't claim to be a Libertarian - I'm happily of the unaffiliated, thinking variety and make choices based on my best understanding of the facts [edit: not saying that Libertarians aren't - I just am not affiliated, prefer to make choices without being led to them by someone else] - but this bothers me... so you're saying your major contention with this party of people is that they're too rational, that they make too much sense? /me takes a step back... Dude, I must be misreading that, right? I'll read up on Libertarianism and make my own choice, but you should really rephrase that, you know? :D

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 9 years ago

They're not saying it's too rational. When people say "pure reason", it's a term taken from Ayn Rand's pretentious notion that the most selfish decision will always be the right one. By "right", she literally meant in every way imaginable. That it is not only right in the sense that you have moral duty to make the most selfish decision but also that it is the most utilitarian decision for both you and everyone else. Any objection to this fallacy, she attributed to a failure to apply "pure reason".

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

Do they understand that Atlas Shrugged is not a history book?

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

Do you understand that Ayn Rand wasn't a Libertarian? She was an Objectivist. Don't believe me? Take it from her own Institute:


[-] 2 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

It is still a work of fiction and not something to base one's life on. It would be like me basing my life and belief system on The Stand.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Do you deny there's a storng overlap in philosophy, ideology, and proponents? Lew Rockwell, Ron & Rand Paul, the Kochs, and many others are in the club. Austrian econobots too.

[-] 0 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 9 years ago

LOL That's like saying Red, Green, and Yellow are all the same because they are colors. I would say that Ayn Rand shared a FEW ideas with Libertarians, but so do Progressives, Conservatives, and every other political group.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Seems like you don't know much about your own ideology. I think maybe Noam Chomsky could help you here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkXhF2DJ7fc

If, what you're saying is that you're not a libertarian of the American school, then this thread has nothing to do with you, and it's a terminology thing. Take it up with the folks that hijacked a perfectly valid ideology and made it about anarcho-capitalism and the morality of self-interest.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Thanks for this explanation. Exactly right.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Right, and well said.

[-] 2 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

Well, it's a whole book in pdf form, but if you want to know what really pisses them off, this is it, condensed.

And I defy anyone to contest the reasoning put forth in it.

It's not light reading. But it is one article at a time.

[-] 3 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Which seems to be exactly looselyhuman's point. There's more to rationality than pure reason. It's a balance of emotive/intuitive and reason that makes a rational mind. It is possible to be right, to know you're right, without yet being able to explain it - sometimes without ever being able to explain it. Will anyone ever trust a robot to make moral choices in difficult situations? Or a sociopath? Because that's Rand. Philosophy for the brilliant antisocial mind. IMO.

[-] 2 points by basicincome (11) from Wilmington, DE 9 years ago

Yep, an0n. From my own reformed objectivist's perspective, it's time to invest our valuable attention in "shovel ready" practical solutions that we can implement right now to improve the everyday existence of the #99percent For instance, http://j.mp/MLKOfficialDemands for http://j.mp/BasicIncome

Punishing the wrong doers might help us feel some sense of justice, but it won't improve the fate of individuals in the here and now.

I want to take care not to overpost in the forums, it's simply that so many of the concerns and debates do legitimately, logically, and rationally contine to converge upon #BasicIncome. I encourge readers to follow @BasicIncome and explore and research for themselves. It might sound wild at first, but there's already nearly 50 years of momentum behind U.S. Basic Income Guarantee http://usbig.net and now with the internet, Murdoch and his minions can't keep it off the air anymore. Onward!

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

Obviously you didn't read even one chapter of it.

[-] 1 points by TheJohnGalt (23) from Peoria, IL 9 years ago

Pretty sure this guy read and understood Rand, having hung out with her as a contemporary http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jNdJyg6tPa0#t=123s

[-] 0 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

Ad hominem

And where did he get that fake accent from, anyway?

[-] 0 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Not last night I didn't, but I am pretty damn familiar with her work.

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Not according to the dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

just sayin..

[-] 0 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Had to look up rationality (yes, I can use it in a sentence, but I wanted to know the definite meaning because it sounded misused in the above statement). Dictionary.com says it is the state or quality of being rational. So helpful. I then looked up rational: having or exercising reason. OK, so how do you reason something? to think or argue in a logical manner.

Intuition is not independent of reason, of logic. In fact, intuition is the process of deriving the same answer as step-by-step logic would, but without "doing the math out". Emotive? Emotive is not the same thing as intuitive. It is in fact nearly the opposite, as emotion is not a rational quality, and intuition is a quality of deriving rational conclusions without thinking through them step by step - there is some debate as to how the brain does that, but that's what is meant by 'intuition', unless you mean the other common use of the word - entirely psychic intuition - which I doubt you do.

Here is intuition, for reference: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition

Not trying to bury you in references, but what you said was contradictory. I think you meant to just say you think that logic and reason/rational thinking only go so far, and that we have to maintain a human, emotional perspective on this. Is that true, or did I miss your intent?

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

I was not equating them, but grouping emotive & intuitive together as non-logic/deductive-reasoning aspects of the rational mind, important especially when it comes to morality and values. This covers it nicely: http://slpinfomaniac.com/ETHICS/sources.htm

Rand's works focus on deductive logic (and compelling fictional tales of selfish heroism) in pursuit of self-interest as the sole basis for a moral and ethical framework, which is invalid for most humans.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

This is an amazing thread. Thank you.

[-] 0 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Intuition, from your link: "Unconscious thinking that is not emotional." Creative and non-creative conclusions alike can both be derived from intuition. For example one can, using intuition, arrive at the answer to a mathematical problem with intuition, instead of doing a problem long-hand, especially if one intimately grasps the nature of the problem and applicable axiomatic states. Intuition is not 'non-logic' (that sounds like you're saying it's counter to a logic process, which isn't true - maybe this isn't exactly what you meant, though) - it just doesn't require the standard reasoning process to arrive at the same answer. According to Meyers and Briggs, I'm extremely intuitive, and my intuition is telling me we're likely just arriving at a language mixup more than a conceptual disagreement. grin

I also wanted to add I'm not talking about her entire body of works, I'm only talking about an interview I saw in which she described her perspective on why self-serving behavior is the moral thing to do. Some parts of it were even compelling to my intuitive nature, if I am to be honest with myself and you. I have not exhaustively (or even fractionally) read all of her works, fiction and non, so I can't really make a judgment on her entire ideology, just give some of my own perspective on what little I do know of her. I would be a fool to say she's definitely this or definitely that. I did read a little on her non-fiction book about writing fiction. She says don't swear, it's not cute. Heh. Strike one for my own writing, I guess... :D I do agree that she seems to have a narrow-minded view of the application of individualism, although, in a strange way, I think she does so with the best of intentions. Sounds weird, but after watching her speak on the subject, I believe she was not trying to harm anyone (the claims of sociopath and psychopath are just sensational opposition, and demonstrate a lack of understanding of those conditions in a clinical sense), but rather felt she was truly helping enlighten mankind to the morality of self-service. I really think she believed what she was saying.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Yes, intuition is counter to the conscious, intentional logic process that Rand expects us to follow completely. Our intuitive sense of what is right does not include looking past the suffering of others and focusing only on ourselves. Intuitively we know that's exactly not right or moral, but Rand uses logic to "prove" that's precisely what we should do.

This is not helpful at all. If you think you understand what I'm saying, and my intuition says you do, why the pedantic argument? Because it seems you like her message to some extent, and this makes you uncomfortable. Please get over it.

Sociopathy is definitely a related concept. It's an inability to relate to other humans, to have concern for them, to use emotional intelligence and intuition, and is characterized by cold logic in the pursuit of personal goals without regards for the suffering of others. You don't have to like it, but there is absolutely a relationship

With regards to not focusing on her body of work, fine, but maybe that's what you should research and consider (along with her motivations, intentions, hypocrisies, and followers), as I have, before defending her.

Finally, with regards to her striking a chord intuitively, that's well-designed manipulative propaganda that twists people around, IMO. We intuitively and emotionally understand greed and selfishness are wrong from a very young age, and it takes a special kind of language to trigger overrides to that sensibility, but it is possible, and my contention is that she does just that. That's of course unsupported theorizing on my part, but I stand by it.

Thinking along those lines just now, I considered Noam Chomsky, who's a linguist as well as ideologically opposed to Rand. I wondered if he'd ever done an analysis of her works. Can't find that he's published anything of that sort, but, I think he's likely considered her linguistically as well as ideologically when he says: "Rand in my view is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history...I'll leave it at that." at http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2008/12/question-period.html

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 9 years ago

Ayn Rand is the OPPOSITE of Ron Paul! See......people are confused as hell!

Ayn Rand does not believe in altruism

Ron Paul does!!

As a political junkie that roams the entire spectrum I see..............MASS CONFUSION!

From grouping Ayn Rand with Ron Paul to grouping him with Reagonomics! Search for yourself but Ronnie Reagan never practiced anything remotely close to what Ron Paul is talking about and as far as I am concerned,,,it may have never existed as of yet!

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader agreeing on an aweful lot. Don't be discouraged as of yet!


[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

From a Ron Paul partisan and likely campaign volunteer I see.......a concerted effort to whitewash him and make him palatable to progressives. Not going to work. He "believes in altruism." Reference? He believes in a pure free market with absolutely no embedded human values, just profit and loss driving the little machinery that is humanity in neat orderly little patterns that are beautiful and perfect. That is the libertarian free-market ideal. He has toned it down over the years but I can find numerous references to him stating "there would be no regulation in a free market system," and:

WALLACE: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.

PAUL: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn’t say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that’s what we have to reverse—that very notion that you’re presenting.

WALLACE: Congressman, it’s not just a liberal view. It was the decision of the Supreme Court in 1937 when they said that Social Security was constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

PAUL: And the Constitution and the courts said slavery was legal to, and we had to reverse that.

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 9 years ago

First..do you know what altruism is? If you don't, I suggest you investigate for yourself since it appears you don't believe what I am saying.

Ayn Rand was a hardcore atheist and on top of that did NOT believe in altruism!

Ron Paul is a Christian AND believes in altruism most likeley because he is religious.

As for the Constitution, RP is correct. The Constitution is a very limited document with its main rights described in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights applies to the Govt and is to RESTRAIN the Govt from infringing upon the Individual.

Anything not described under the Bill of Rights belongs to the States.

[-] 0 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Oh I assure you I quite understand altruism, but what practical application in government does he support, if not the promotion of the general welfare? Reference? Whether he's convinced you he's personally altruistic is of little matter. He's running for President of The United States of America. What altruistic policy goals is he pushing for the federal government to implement?

[-] 0 points by Dutchess (499) 9 years ago

As for the Constitution..it also says States are only to accept silver or gold as legal tender.

And that is not happening either. We have a fiat currency not backed by anything.

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Uhm, there's no copyright on that book anymore? That would be very anti-Randian to provide it for free, wouldn't it? ;) That said, I've seen some of the interviews with her where she describes selfishness. She delights in the fact that it sounds horrible on the surface, because she uses the word, 'selfishness', hehe. She's also very egotistical, which I think is a bit of a weakness overall, though it does give her the confidence, er, did, to speak with passion and clarity of purpose on many things. She was obviously smart, although that too may become a blind side - some smart people think they're awfully smart, and they assume they have more of the total perspective than they possibly can. They completely ignore others, assuming that anyone who disagrees with them simply does so out of a lack of intelligence. This is a mistake, and makes you weaker. I'd cite the Art of War, if I had it next to me - you can almost just pick a section :D Not understanding the opposition is always a weakness, in war and in peace. She does make some honestly good points, and some I think are too lopsided. Maybe I can find a copy of the interview I watched where she was talking about the moral responsibility of being "selfish" - I saw it in a documentary about her. I personally think she took her message a little too far, kind of the way some religious groups, even when presented with scientific proof, do not at least concede the evidence for dinosaurs. Here's the thing though: science and religion aren't mutually exclusive - they're made of different stuffs, so neither disproves the other. In an even more definite and literal way, neither are self-service and self-sacrifice. You can possess and command both, and much to the greater good, as well as your own. There is an aspect of selfishness in every act of sacrifice, and likewise, in selfishness, a guarantee that you are being the most you you can be, something important to the evolution of the whole. This is my experience, anyway. This is what I see.

I appreciate the post... I think it's worth hearing every single person's perspective, as much as possible, even when we piss each other off. I think collectively we may be able to find a better way than all the dead figureheads have come up with before, but we have to actually try to see (and understand the cause of) the other positions to do so. I try not to wholly ascribe to one way or party or philosophy, so that I can see above and over those to the best aspects of each. I hope I've spoken in a way that makes sense.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

You make a compelling point about balance, and if that was her position she would be annoying to me but not objectionable and dangerous. She's an extremist that captures the imagination of young minds and skews their values away from anything recognizable in our humanist western tradition as "morality." She sends people down a path that is pathological and destructive for society - but not usually for themselves, as society, at least recently, rewards this behavior even as it's destroyed by it. No quarter here.

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Yes, extremes are really attractive and can be very dangerous if you have a large group of people willing to follow blindly. People have this notion, it seems, that everything is black and white, that there is not merit in compromise or (I prefer this, being artistically minded) a blending of the primary positions (extremes) to the genuinely best suited one. I don't think she intended to create a destructive society - I think her inner tenet was to serve the self is to keep oneself from being a burden to another, and to represent the richness of diversity that individualism can bring. I do think she felt obligated to practice this to the letter, and that appears to be where her good intentions fall - it seems circumstance and balance were not taken into consideration (and if she did that publicly, people would have immediately derided her and stated that she did not believe in her own concepts, I suspect, so I can see the allure of being so staunch and one-tracked given her public surface, but that's a trap of seclusion - cut off access to other perspectives, lose course with the reality of the whole).

People only send themselves down paths. What we really need is to teach people to think analytically, and not follow when someone (or several someones) says, "Go this way" in a loud voice. Then every voice can be represented, without the worry of "infecting" innocent, unthinking minds. No thought police, please - instead, teach people to police their own thoughts.

If you police thoughts, or don't allow access to some perspectives, you are subtly circumventing the will of those you do so to. If you teach all to think for themselves, and then say, "Here are the facts we know that are independent of ideology, decide for yourself", then they can safely exchange and be exposed to other perspectives and ideologies, and make an informed choice of their own. Cults use thought tailoring and separation from opposition, not enlightened societies.

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

It's not easy to be so selfless when trying to help others - we always try to convince people of our way, which is a self-serving act at it's root - but we can strive to become a more empathetic and honest society. This is the first step towards a true course to evolution beyond survival for the human species, I believe. Applying empathy towards the perspectives of others, being honest and unbiased in examining the facts (all of them to the best of our capability, not just the ones that support an idea), will lead us towards genuine, permanent advancement. We will begin to truly work together, and at the same time respect the incredible diversity and wealth of individuals.

[-] 1 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Hank, for some reason, the reply link is gone on your message, but this is to you:

How much of her actual work have you actually read, to make such generalizations?

Read above - I stated I've read very little, and so can only talk about what I have read and seen. I was specifically commenting on the documentary I saw about her, and the interview.

It is obvious you have read the ad hominem attacks and criticism that were and still are leveled at her.

I resent the implication that I just agree with people attacking her blindly (I am absolutely against this kind of dull minded following); I am stating what I've seen and perceived, and am not basing it on the egregious malign (or utter and complete adoration) from anyone else. I think for myself. I have stated that I do not agree with all of her perspective, but do see some merit. Did you read all the comments I wrote?

I'm not sure what you mean by switching the argument to personalities... most of the comments I've made have not been about her, anyway. I do think, based on what I have seen of her directly, what passages I have read of her works, that she had a blind spot. Not an offense of the highest nature, but a human trait that we all carry in some degrees, from my perspective.

Speak for yourself, I'll do the same.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

How much of her actual work have you actually read, to make such generalizations? Having read probably all of it myself, I disagree with your assessment. It is obvious you have read the ad hominem attacks and criticism that were and still are leveled at her.

Those kinds of attacks do not inform, they do not invalidate her work. They are an attempt to switch the argument to personalities rather than the points she makes.

I particularly like the article, "The Cult Of Moral Grayness".

[-] 2 points by Lork (285) 9 years ago

"I KNOW it's bullshit. HISTORY shows it's bullshit, the practical application of their free market or near-free market utopian society in the past has always been hell for all but those at the very top..."

He means the Libtards "rationalize" it...not really being "too reasonable", but making it sound all rosy when it is horrible.


Yeah...I...yeah we got hijacked. =[

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I think I'm really out this time. Just leaving this here. Ciao all.

[-] 1 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 9 years ago

"It's a total mindfuck and I feel like I'm being brainwashed."

Ha. Literally true.

[-] 1 points by ICSPOTZ (57) from Fort Carson, CO 9 years ago

A libertarian is an anarchist, who has yet to fall off the fence.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 9 years ago

Nice Post.

[-] 1 points by groobiecat2 (746) from Brattleboro, VT 9 years ago

"But I just can't deny the volumes and layers of logic they've piled on top of more pure emotionless logic. It's a total mindfuck and I feel like I'm being brainwashed."

No, dude, just use simple facts. You deconstruct too much. You have logic on your side. The RP approach is radical and unworkable, and, as I like to say:

.If you don't speak German as a native language, ach! It's the result of government intervention that took over the economy and helped save the world from fascism. If Ron Paul had been president, our national anthem would probably be "Deutschland Uber Alles.

...if you drive a car on the highway, please stop doing that! It's the result of socialist government intervention!

...If you are using the Internet, please stop now! DARPA, a federally funded entity, invented it and that's socialism that you're supporting--cease and desist!

...if your parents or grandparents get a social security check--go quickly, and take it away from them! That's socialism!! Those people are bloodsuckers!!


Peace. Hang in there. I need help with "whack-a-troll"...



[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 9 years ago

You can make the Ron Paul supporters embarrass them self by asking simple direct questions and pushing them to explain. It get's to the point where even they doubt the stuff they say. I find it rather amusing.

Next time some one says END THE FED, ask them what end the Fed means and keep pushing them... It can lead to hours of entertainment.

[-] 0 points by IlliniCornfields (71) from Elmhurst, IL 9 years ago

lol - thats right - be smart about it and push it. Ask why many times - it gets very frustrating for them....

[-] 0 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago


[-] 4 points by Gylliwynn (56) 9 years ago

Read this article to the end. This man predicted this economic demise years ago. He also articulates in an easy, educational way for the average layperson to understand how our country got into this mess AND he has a fabulous solution on how to get it back: repeal the nine things, get Obama to sign a contract to make them all happen if he is to get reelected and once elected, make sure he abides by that contract. This is how to get your government back. Please read it all; it will help you change your mind!!

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Yep, this. Unquestionably, this. It needs to get out. Gonna post. Please try to keep the thread at the top if you see it.


[-] 3 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 9 years ago

This. Right here. I don't know the first thing about Rico's politics, but I will work with him on this.

[-] 1 points by NPRrocks (7) 9 years ago

organize politically and fight back via elections. start at the lowest level and work your way up. keep the momentum abd stay true to the message. you have eveyone's attention.

[-] 1 points by astramari (57) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by daffyff (104) from Redwood City, CA 9 years ago

Well said Rico. I'm glad you're on board with us.

[-] 1 points by concernedinutah (102) 9 years ago

Campaign finance reform is where it has to start - we have to get the money out of politics if we want our representatives to truly represent us.

[-] 1 points by teamok (191) 9 years ago

This is what my post is about please come and help focus people we need to do this and fast. http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-need-one-popular-rational-demand-now/ http://www.getmoneyout.com/

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

good post

[+] -5 points by oceanweed (521) 9 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 5 points by Rico (3027) 9 years ago

Ummm... who said we can only have TWO PARTIES ?

I made a simple proposal here http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ that would fund the candidacy of ANY person who collected 1,000,000 or more signatures from registered voters. This would not ONLY get the MONEY out of the process, but EXPAND the range of options we have and ideas we hear.

Someone commented "you'll end up with a bunch of fringe candidates." To that I say, "maybe we NEED to hear some new ideas rather than the same old ideas we keep getting from the two big parties." Frankly, if 1,000,000 of my fellow citizens finds someone with some ideas they think I should hear, I'M READY TO LISTEN. Lord knows it can't be any worse than the same old tired CRAP we've been getting from the two BIG parties !

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 9 years ago

Anything is possible as long as we stay together and draw in more of the 99%. Don't listen to the cynics!

[-] -1 points by oceanweed (521) 9 years ago

good luck with that ows is democratic

[-] 3 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 9 years ago

No it isn't. It's non partisan. YOU are a Democrat, which is fine, but most of us are fed up with the two party false left/right paradigm. It isn't working!

[-] -3 points by oceanweed (521) 9 years ago

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 4 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 9 years ago

Sorry, there, party hack, but this movement is not yours to define. Adbusters didn't say, "Come Democrats". I know that frustrates you but you're going to have deal with it.

While you parrot every untrue talking point, painting your party as the champions of humanity and completely innocent of corruption, the fact is that it was the Democratic congress that passed the TARP bailout. It was the Democratic party that blocked the investigations of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. It was a Republican congress that repealed Glass-Steagal and a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who signed it. It was Bill Clinton who fast tracked NAFTA and passed it with the help of both parties. Both parties have worked to destroy the national economy in favor of globalization through trade agreements. It was and is a bi-partisan effort that keeps us in a state of non stop wars - Iraq, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and now Yemen and Libya, murdering innocents all over the world.

Now, I have told you that you appear to be comfortable in your box. You aren't the first person to be afraid to see the truth of the big picture. It's your right to stay where your delusions can keep you insulated from fear, but it is not your right to impose your will on other people and this movement is not partisan. It is going after corruption wherever it exists, which is in the unholy alliance between multinationals and government - the government run by our two party system.

I wish you the best but your divide and conquer agenda will not go unchallenged because it is the very thing that has gotten us where we are today - Americans against Americans while the ruling class of both parties continues to consolidate it's power that it uses to destroy us. Your outdated paradigm, which was designed to enslave us, is coming to an end. You can either embrace the power of the people coming together or remain paranoid, bitter and divisive. Should you choose the latter, it will only be your loss.

[-] 2 points by OldStumpy (5) from Nashville, TN 9 years ago


[-] 6 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 9 years ago

Let that fight be later. Both they and we know that our systems of government and private institutions have corrupted one another severely. Our goals here are mutual. Separate the two and clean up the government so that these arguments between the virtues of markets and those of public trusts can be addressed without undue institutional or corporate influence muddying the waters of debate.

This site is whatever it is and its rife with trolls and ideologues of all sorts. But do not give up on the movement. It is about more than the petty squabbling of partisans and ideologues.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I want that, I really do, but they keep on spouting their ideological and "vote Ron Paul" BS. This movement that they said would be hijacked by the left. Yeah right.

[-] 4 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 9 years ago

Both you and the Ron Paulogists believe in cleaning up the corruption on Wall Street and in government. This movement is rife with ideological opposites uniting for this common cause. Should you need to debate them, do so, but remember that the strength of this movement is rooted in the numbers of this coalition and the common demands which stretch across ideological lines.

Don't let your partisanship get the better of you. I know "free market" Milton Friedman, Leo Strauss bullshit caused this mess and I know they love it, but they are not a true majority and if the corporatocracy is cracked under the pressure of our mass collective will, their ideas will have to carry their own water in government and those with the better argument and more sound reasoning will have the upper hand.

If you trust that you are right and they are wrong, then work with them to make a future in which you can really prove it.

[-] 4 points by MuadDib (154) 9 years ago

Good post! Don't leave looselyhuman.

You are a strong voice of reason on this forum and the movement needs you. For now let's crush the relationship between wall street and washington, and then worry about ideological differences later.

I too am frustrated by this seemingly strong presence of libtards, but people like us are more valuable here in the struggle debating than outside being salty.

Viva la revolucion!

[-] 1 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

fada beo ar an réabhlóid!

oh wait, that might make you think I'm going to bomb something... well, based on stereotyping, anyway...

Živjela revolucija!

Heh. Had to. Needed a change.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Wow. Thanks, Usul. ;)

We'll see what tomorrow brings.

[-] 4 points by MuadDib (154) 9 years ago

Just remember that this forum is not necessarily representative of the kids on the street. Remember also that we can more effectively fight this degrading, dangerous philosophy of objectivism/libertarianism/free market capitalism once the government is truly representative of the people. I want to fight in the public sphere. I don't want to be relegated to some internet forum to express my beliefs; I want people like us on the national stage defending human dignity and the inherent value of all beings.

[-] 2 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Fear is the mind killer... grin

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

"Degrading" is so absolutely spot on. I'm with you. I agree it's a fight we can win in the public sphere, if we're as clear-minded as some of the responses I've seen in here. But first things first...

[-] 2 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

It's easier to make your points to people that don't read?

[-] 2 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

The "free market" caused this mess? If you think that, you don't know what a free market is.

[-] 1 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 9 years ago

Not the place for those arguments. If thats all you read in that, you are missing the point.

[-] 1 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Thank you for pointing out that knowledge has no place here. I'll show myself the door.

[-] 2 points by WorkingClassAntiHero (352) from Manchester, NH 9 years ago

You're an opinionated ideologue. This isn't meant for ideological banter. This is a place to discuss messaging and planning in support of the Occupation Movement.

[-] 2 points by thoreau42 (595) 9 years ago

Sorry bro. Didn't mean to be the one person to bring opinions and philosophy to the message boards. Now that you mention that, I see that everyone is, in fact, discussing only planning and support of the movement. I apologize.

[-] 1 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

I completely disagree. Without open, honest discussion of what we, the people, want, this will end up a lopsided, biased mess once again, with a different face and name. No, this is the place to discuss what our ideals are, person by person - this is how we choose on what we want collectively. Enough censorship - when someone doesn't agree with you, let them know your reasons, but don't bar them from stating theirs. That's hypocritical to what "true democracy" - one of the few continuous messages from the OWS - is all about.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 9 years ago

We dont need "isms" from someone. We all agree corruption has to go. Without resorting to any system we can agree that we need an environment in which honest businesses can thrive, people have access to basic things like healthcare and education. We dont need socialism or communism or libertarianism. It is just common sense, really. These economic isms are just as detrimental as religions. Ideologies that lead to conflict.

[-] 0 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I'll check back in now and again, see how it's progressing. Good luck, everyone.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23395) 9 years ago

Libertarians and liberals are not all that far apart. They simply approach their distrust of government in different ways. Libertarians to seek to abolish the government while liberals seek ways to control it.

[-] 3 points by Marchelo (67) 9 years ago

looselyhuman- I don't know you, but you CAN NOT go.

This post, and an0n's top comment, opened my eyes. Fucking seriously opened my eyes. I proudly towed the "a truly free-market will end our ails" with the best reasonable, logical arguments I could assemble to somehow prove that an impossible perfection is achievable. There is no free-market the way Libertarians imagine it in much the same way there is no utopia the way Communists imagine it. I would argue that the very notion of Utopia was a fantasy, crushed by the reality that people want different things from life, not knowing that this same logic undermined the notion of a "truly" free-market I held to be attainable.

"There's more to rationality than pure reason. It's a balance of emotive/intuitive and reason that makes a rational mind." This is what did it right there. I had been thinking about how the 1% has become so far removed from reality, and that it is this desired separation from the "unwashed masses" will ultimately be their undoing. They defend their unsustainable ideology with delusions of superiority, as if that was somehow enough to justify their inhumanity. It is worse then a lack of empathy, it is the cool logic of a sociopath.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Wow, I'm honored to have made even the smallest difference in your life and your worldview. This has been a long journey for me; almost ten years since reading The Fountainhead and coming away energized but, at the same time, profoundly disturbed. I've had a long philosophical journey and questioned just about everything I believed and (thought I) understood in the process. From Kant to Rousseau, Locke, Mill, Rawls and Nietzsche (terrifying), to Sartre (my favorite - "we are condemned to be free"), and a thousand uncharted points in between... I feel almost vindicated in that this might have helped somebody else. Thank you so much for your post Marchelo. Let's fight the good fight together.

And thanks to looselyhuman for bringing this all to the surface at such a critical point in the history of our American experiment.

"They defend their unsustainable ideology with delusions of superiority, as if that was somehow enough to justify their inhumanity. It is worse then a lack of empathy, it is the cool logic of a sociopath." Well said.

[-] 1 points by Marchelo (67) 9 years ago

You have gained a strong ally, friend. We are indeed "left alone, without excuse". We have been called here, not by coincidence, but drawn to a faceless power greater then our own as individuals. A power that needn't be wielded violently, as the stalwart Occupiers have shown through their determined peace, but rather brilliantly deployed to raise the most important question possible to the American public: Why Wall Street?

This question has sparked a dialog in our country that has been postponed for far too long. People have been aware that our Government is dysfunctional, but the cause had been routinely overlooked in favor of political brinksmanship to appease unsustainable ideologies. Well the game has finally run its course and the Party lines are falling in Zuccotti Park over the realization of our common grievance: the excess of money thrust upon our Government for favors. It has distorted the will of the people into the will of the 1% and it will not stand.

Every mind that sees this simple truth is a valuable thing indeed, and I wish you the greatest joy in this small victory on the road to revolution!

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Right on! Why Wall Street, indeed. Welcome, I think, to the radical center. :-)

[-] 1 points by e000 (371) 9 years ago

Hehe, nice, radical center.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I just don't know what to say. Profoundly happy to be of service. Thank you, and welcome. Agreed 100% about the dual poles of utopian thinking in the current state v. market paradigm.

[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 9 years ago

I've always liked a lot of what Ron Paul has had to say about governmental abuses, but Libertarianism (like its hero, Ayn Rand) is just embarrassing, third-grade nonsense. It's never worked, and it never will, for the simple reason that human beings don't operate the way Libertarians want them to. A truly "free" market in the Libertarian sense of the word would be a great idea if Earth were populated by robots, but alas, it's not. It's populated by beings who do things for seemingly irrational reasons, who like to hurt other people and amass great wealth and power simply because it's FUN. These people don't want to live "free" and prosper in some well-oiled utopian fantasy world. They simply want everything for themselves, and they actively want to hurt as many people as they can as they get it. Unfortunately, many of the other non-robots on the planet don't appreciate this, and they understandably want to eliminate the sociopathic non-robots from their midst. So GOOD LUCK with your Libertarianism...LOL...

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

Please explain to me how in a free market it is more apt for some to be able to hurt others than in any other type of economic system.

[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

You want an answer? Read The Shock Doctrine. by Naomi Klein and you will finally understand.

[-] 0 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

You want some answers read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek and you will understand.

[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

I already know about friedric Von Hayek. All I needed to hear after discussing him in my philosophy class was that he was most popular with the Chicago school of economics headed by Milton Friedman : proponent of Shock doctrine /Free trade trickle down economics. YOu can keep this vomit if you choose. 'what do you think all the global protests are about? Austerity programs, privatization of previously nationalized energy or banks or public education. I will not enter this argument any further since it is clear what side of the fence you are on. Why are you even on this post ?

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Seems like it would be a good idea to somewhere have a list of all the nutjob free-market-and-individual-liberty-at-the-cost-of-EVERYTHING-else philosophers, economists, and pols. I'll start.

  • Ayn Rand
  • Milton Friedman
  • Frierich Hayek
  • Ludwig von Mises
  • Lew Rockwell
  • Ron Paul
[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

Thankyou Anon!!!!

[-] 3 points by kathieb (65) 9 years ago

Loosely Human - You have a right to make your own decisions. I just want to tell you I have been to Zuccotti Park many times. The big message there is NO party preference, NO political campaigning, just a peaceful and lawful movement to make corporations who pay little or no taxes and continue to ship our jobs overseas and politicians who allow and assist in it accountable. Unfortunately, with an open forum you will get all sorts of people posting with their own agenda (and craziness! LOL). Once the media showed up in force on the 5th, all the clowns started pouring out of the circus car at the park!

[-] 3 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 9 years ago

Get with it. There is no organization - anywhere, ever - whose members will all agree on all things for all time. The question is whether or not you agree with them on the one thing the organization is working towards.

Occupy is not working to elect Ron Paul. If that day ever comes, you will see people drop out so fast the internet would lose weight.

[-] 3 points by SanityScribe (452) 9 years ago

"Occupy is not working to elect Ron Paul. If that day ever comes, you will see people drop out so fast the internet would lose weight." --I think that is correct.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't think that one thing is agreed upon. I see "end the fed" more often than I see "end corporate personhood" or "public election financing." If it's end the fed, we play into their hands, because that's how you defund medicare and everything else.

[-] 4 points by hairlessOrphan (522) 9 years ago

No, there has been no one thing that has been agreed upon.

That's why we need everyone here.

There is momentum behind the call to divorce money from politics. If you support that as the goal, help build it as the goal. The work is dirty, and you're sharing the shovel with some smelly people. But it is worth doing.

[-] 3 points by CorporationNotPerson (129) 9 years ago

What do you think the result of the following Amendment to the Constitution would bring:

A corporate entity, in and of itself, is not a person and, therefore, is not entitled to the rights and protections set forth for a person in this Constitution of the United States of America.

Reduce the influence of corporations in the political process?

[-] 1 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 9 years ago

Oh, ffs, the Fed is THE lynch pin of the entire bankster issue. There is no cleaning up the corruption with Wall St without ending the Fed. With your comment you've just demonstrated that you don't even know what the Fed does.

Audit: Fed gave $16 trillion in emergency loans


The reason Ron Paul keeps coming up is because he is the author of the legislation that brought about the audit. He's introduced that legislation in many sessions of congress, only to have it die. It was the TARP bailout that got him support, finally, and the house passed it. In the senate, Frank, Dodd, and Sanders torpedoed it, to protect the banks, by watering it down through amendment to only allow this special audit of TARP - instead of Ron Paul's ongoing audits and demanding TOTAL transparency.

The lack of education on this issue among OWS is nothing short of appalling. Just as one cannot take on the nuclear power industry without knowing what it does, the same is true for taking on Wall Street. It's a complete joke to talk about reining in Wall Street when you don't even understand the fundamentals!

I agree that OWS should not be a platform for ANY politician, but Ron Paul's work to expose the banksters cannot be ignored. He's the ONLY person in congress who's been banging this drum for 20 years. Nobody would know jack shit about how that TARP money was spent without his legislation to expose them!

Edit to add:

H.R.459 - Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011

To require a full audit of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal reserve banks by the Comptroller General of the United States before the end of 2012


You want to rein in Wall Street, then you want this legislation PASSED.

[-] 1 points by jeremycf5f (6) 9 years ago

well said and thanks for the link.

[-] 2 points by EndTheFedNow (692) 9 years ago

My pleasure :-)

[-] 2 points by rainmud (3) 9 years ago

And yet Ron Paul has no problem telling women not to get abortions or gays not to get married. The man is a hypocrite.

[-] 2 points by Macrocosm (7) from Santa Maria, CA 9 years ago

i have only been here a few minutes, but i certainly have yet to experience the OWS as a Libertarian Ayn Rand one. who here is promoting free market fundamentalism? you might like the forum on occupytogether.org, it so far seems better organized and topics are more clear. i am not sure if this is the one announced this AM where demands forum was setup

[-] 2 points by michaelbravo (222) 9 years ago

even in 1776 they were fighting the banks this is not new its just worse than ever before we can do this..ron paul jesus obama ufos? noone is going to save us but ourselves.....new occupy video called HOPE Humans On Planet Earth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QrDLwSgg24

[-] 2 points by randallburns (211) from Washougal, WA 9 years ago


Henry George was one of the biggest critics of the US economic system during the gilded age. The point he made: that in this libertarian paradise, property in land and monopoly capital were becoming increasingly important.

If the US had no restrictions on trade and immigration day, wages would be less than 20% current US levels. Why? Because that is what you could pay someone to get on a plane in China or India to come here for.

Anarcho capitalism was working as well as it did in the 1800's because during much of that period the US was a frontier nation. That limited the extent to which wages could be reduced and property values could rise. Those limits are gone today.

That is why during the Reagan tax cut years, virtually all of those tax cuts either got capitalized into higher property values-or trickled up into the hands of the top 1%(families with more than $5 Million in assets).

What George wanted to do is remove low end taxes/excises taxes etc-and focus on taxing either land values or monopoly capital. The fact that reagan tax cuts trickled up so much indicates that may still be a practical program today.

[-] 2 points by SisterRay (554) 9 years ago

OWS is not a libertarian movement. We support a strong federal government, since it's the only means of checking the power of the unfettered market. We demand more regulation of the market and more prosecution of white-collar crime. This is how we shall accomplish our goal of holding Wall Street accountable.

[-] 2 points by Dutchess (499) 9 years ago



Don't be discouraged as of yet!

[-] 2 points by Chimptastic (67) 9 years ago

Stay and fight the reaction with us looselyhuman. A lot of the libertarian philosophy crumbles when you abandon the chicken/egg regression involved in individual vs. social interest whirlpool. But don't give up and allow them free rein to turn the clock back on social progress.

[-] 2 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 9 years ago

You'll be missed

[-] 2 points by Dost (315) 9 years ago

It's all right. You know your stuff. Keep it cool. There are a lot of like-minded souls here. You might be bumping into Libertarians. That's okay. Just ignore them. They may not understand the nature of the Plutocracy for the last 160 or so years, but a lot of people don't know their history and want to believe in the fantasy of how they think the country is run: The Constitution. Yeah, can't blame them, This was the dogma repeated by history teachers, reporters, and reinforced with parades, patriotic songs, blended in with solid entertainment of football and baseball and car racing (Go Green Bay!). Don't Expect Much, But Fight the Bastards That's my new motto. Great time for discussions, and fantasies of overthrowing the Bastards-the Plutocrats that is. Sort of like David and Goliath. Wow, nice metaphor, I like it. Probably should use it. We are David to the Corporations' Goliath.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

"No Federal Reserve." Seems like that says it all.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Meaning that ending it gets us nowhere right?

[-] 3 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Yeah, something like that. The Fed definitely can't be blamed for the robber barons.

[-] 1 points by jeremycf5f (6) 9 years ago


[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Because there was no Fed during the gilded age.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

You really left this time?

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 9 years ago

There is no such thing as a free market. A market is defined by it's rules.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

No argument here.

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

If libertarianism would be good for mega corporations then why don't mega corporations support libertarianism?

Why wouldn't there be unions? Where in libertarianism do the rights of free association and contract suddenly vanish?

You seem to have an extremely simplistic and un-investigated opinion of what libertarianism is.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Koch Industries.

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

That isn't an answer. With the lack of force how would they stop the ability of free association?

[-] 1 points by lifesprizes (298) 9 years ago

adios amigo - watch out for the dark side

[-] 1 points by daverao (124) 9 years ago

I was also out this week along with my friends. I saw it has been hijacked by move.org and unions. I thought it was independent but no we were pawns.

[-] 1 points by NYprotester (80) 9 years ago

Come to the park and talk with the Dirt Baggers. You won't be disappointed. Dirt Bagger Party

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 9 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street


United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 9 years ago

You don't have to associate with anyone. OWS is not partisan. Libertarians can join, same as liberals. Quitting accomplishes nothing.

[-] 1 points by kilroy (58) from Orlando, FL 9 years ago

There are many things at play here. People are confused and they are angry. There is no such thing as the free market because everyone has to pay. Social and Personal Liberty needs to be a tent pole. Corporate and Business interests should be held accountable to the people. Society should allow great profits to those who profit society but should deny those who seek to diminish its resources.

[-] 1 points by steve005 (256) from Cincinnati, OH 9 years ago

You are an idiot and a moron

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 9 years ago

DEAR INDIVIDUAL READING THIS, What must we as people do to fight this grave injustice inflicted upon us, by the ones who lust for power? How can we end the reign of the wicked and immoral and mete JUSTICE upon the oppressors as we have suffered from their hands-their blood stained hands... An idea of REVOLUTION-no, the act of revolution enacted by the proletarians! Must we as individuals ,as is always done, remain pawns to these people, these monoliths that we alone as individuals cannot surmounted...I surmise that we are not ignorant to the woes inflicted upon us by their enormities? We must UNIFY! Unity will be the way in which we assert ourselves!...While I realize all are not are not without income or funds and many cannot unify with this growing movement do to reasons of possible opposition and they being the people I'm question who we oppose (Wall Street), and many have responsibility they must tend to that take precedence. We must rise and vanquish this behemothto restore the equilibrium, for when disturbed it causes much chaos and strife in the hearts of man( man being neutral to represent all genders) in his mind and when mans mind and soul are in chaos as many are they rise to vanquish the pestiferous wealthy. However we should not just target these individuals, each of us individually must confront the corruption in our hearts, how can we judge the corrupt and deem them so when we cannot be amenable for ourselves we will surely be deemed hypocrites as we will be.....I am not meaning to say that this protest is in any way unjust, for far too long have we suffered, I mean that we are expected to expiate our sins -assume our parts in the problems we face and how we may have caused it. Yes, the Bankers on Wall Street are corrupt in ways we don't have evidence of without an investigation. But as we suffer soshall they, for we will make it so. But what of our government I say, my fellow citizens do not neglect to Confront the complicit in this affair for the roots of corruption are deeply seated, we have silent enemies amongst us-be warned that although succession in our goals will happen we may face a greater threat to our rights granted unto us from birth be prudent and circumspect. Another issue I wish to address is the idea of mans continual corruption as all things will be permeated with this darkness Inside our hearts.......when a system is created it always deviates from the righteous path, for nations we have learnt of in our education are littered with tales of nations that became corrupt and faded Into the ruin of collapse, we know that a society without corruption is utterly inconceivable, impossible in ways each and everyone of us know...for as long as men exist so shall our inner evil....but I digress from my original Intent of this passage and I ask forgiveness as we must forgive all in all eventual....the rising potentiality of this movement is quite an astonishment, I thought we were not capable of such things and thus I admit I had less faith in my fellow man. I see that we have all come to the realization of the need to bring the greedy to justice, although the reasons for your protesting may be unique to you, you share many goal, I had prognostications, inklings seems more appropriate of a term, that one day man would wake to realize the greater truth outside of his/her reality, and break the cycles of obsession with superficial base needs and trite motives, a dull and predictable lot we were but we've surpassed that I hope....for if not we will founder and fall Into the patterns we had grown so accustomed to, living such prosaic pedestrian lives stultified by the elite and of our own ignorance we always have the means to educate ourselves in this age, we have no limits to what we may learn based on our status in society, the powerful can no longer succeed in keeping us stupefied we have freewill to reason and learn and form our own ideas, ideas that would otherwise have died by the hands of the bigots! Our endeavours shall be crowned with fruition of our goals for our will allows it, we have broken free from the will of the oppressors.... part...now it is your turn...as Desmond Tutu stated "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." YOURS TRULY- Aaron Thomas Bridge

[-] 1 points by Dontbedaft (155) 9 years ago

Boring and uneducated post

[-] 1 points by paulscottwright (17) 9 years ago

separation is an illusion. one love people. self is all and all are one so how can we not be selfish? if i help you then i am helping myself because i am you. if i help myself then i am helping you because you are me. much love and peace from the isle of man, namaste x x x

[-] 1 points by jeremycf5f (6) 9 years ago

Gov't programs don't go away with libertarianism. I believe the concept is to not have politicians acting like doctors and teachers, meaning the federal gov't shouldn't be responsible for healthcare, education, jobs and blah blah blah. their job is to create, pass, and protect laws for private business to provide 'welfare' services. We can still get quality universal healthcare, education, and blah blah blah from the private sector cheap, fair, and unbiased with democratic policy overseeing a republican gov't and private enterprise. and when i say private i'm not talking about corporations, i mean local communities. It is up to the communities we build to provide us with the quality of life we deserve, not corporations and not federal govt. Don't forget we gave these corporations power by voting for them with our dollar. invest in your community, get local.

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

The libertarians are welcome....just like anyone else. True, they are boat people from the Tea Party but if they are down with taking the corporate influence out of government, I am cool with that. I dont like most of the libertarian positions and feel that it is, in its pure form, essentially a utopian mirror image of communism. I dont think either system really works. Of course, there are anarchists pretending to be libertarian. And then there are guys who just want to get high and figure being a libertarian is the best way to do that. Trust me, if you are in that group, weed does not really make you think better. So its all good but remember the common purpose is to get some things changed for all the people. Also remember, business will only do what is in its own best self interest so dont think giving them free reign will help you and I. They are not that charitable.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

How does business do anything unless we support them. That is unless government is helping them do it. In which case the libertarian philosophy takes that option away as well. That's the point of it why can't people see?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

See government is important when it is working for the people. One should not get confused. There are three different kinds of government. One works for itself. The other (the one we currently have) works for business interests and the other for the people. A libertarian government is that government which works best by not really working at all. That is, it has a minimal view. This works so long as all the other interests, public and private operate with the best interests of the whole in mind. But big business has shown over and over that unregulated capitalism is lawless capitalism with no concern about broader issues of equality and justice. So applying libertarian theory to business is a mistake, in my opinion.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

What evidence do you have to support your argument? In my lifetime I have never seen unregulated capitalism anywhere in the world.

[-] 2 points by Flsupport (578) 9 years ago

Correct. But it would seem that the troubles we have been having over the past 30 years coincide with a period of lower taxation on top of lower regulation. This was not a large issue in the 1950's and I would say that there are things like Glass-Steagle that were there that do not exist now. Also, while ther was profit taking and executive bonuses, they were not egregious as they are now.

As for evidence....it is human nature. Why do you think we have stoplights? It isnt because there is just a desire to put them in....there is a purpose behind them and we would do well to think about what the consequences are if we didnt have them.

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

I don't think it's a matter of lower regulation as much as it is a matter of more corrupt and pro-corporate regulation. The difference between the market and traffic is that the consumer controls the market. Without consumerism there is no market. The consumer controls every aspect of the market minus government regulation. What comes to market is driven by consumer demand what stays is also driven by demand and prices are driven by demand as well when there are alternatives but regulation seems to be focused on diminishing consumer alternatives or competition for the larger corporations. This is what I see as the biggest problem. The small business cannot become the big business and compete anymore due to regulatory demands made on small businesses. it's almost as if government has allowed corporations to engineer legislation that will allow small business to grow large enough to make the little guy happy enough to not close his doors but never get large enough to really compete or create jobs and take business or talent (employees) away from the big guys.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Based on your comments, I really think you have the best intentions. Hope I'm not wrong and about to get flamed for being a liberal. I do not generally give that benefit of the doubt to free market people, because in my experience, the direction/orientation/motivation of their position is that of economics & money first, and matters of values and justice second.

Civil libertarians (i.e. ACLU) are often an exception but the US libertarian movement is dominated by market-oriented, business-oriented people - Kochs come to mind but are just one obvious example. This mindset is not known for placing a high value on the environment, the working class struggle, etc... Most arguments about how free market ideology addresses such concerns feel like an afterthought or a sales pitch.

For most whose primary concern is civil rights, poverty, environment, etc, we come at it from the left and see the market as the problem - because it has been. The market destroys the environment. The market creates sweatshops. The market off-shores jobs, etc, etc. It is the thing that needs to be regulated to keep it from cutting the last redwood, putting 6-year-olds to work, forcing unpaid overtime, buying politicians, speculating, and all sorts of other things that are profitable but not right.

Nice theories about how the market can also solve such problems are mostly just that, at least from what we've seen. As the markets have become the truly dominant force (i.e. privatization of everything, deregulation, etc) things have seemed to get worse. We see the correlation. So that's where the distrust comes from.

I know other libertarians are just concerned with true, basic liberty, not necessarily from an economics/business perspective. I'm in that camp. I am a strong advocate for civil liberties, for example..

Regarding your point about (not) supporting business(es) based on values; Consumers do not generally make ethical buying decisions unless the choice is extremely obvious, and even then. Desire and/or basic necessity drives consumption, so it is generally divorced from values which might be applied in other areas of life like voting, etc. Further, it takes a lot of education on every single issue for a consumer to even have the information they need to make ethical choices and then whether they do is dependent on all sorts of factors like time, budget, available alternatives and other constraints.

In short, I think that we have big-picture shared values that we agree on as a body politic, but that as individuals we don't necessarily apply in all our daily choices. Government can help us make sure those values are reflected in the public sphere and with regards to our shared resources and society at large, applying the necessary restrictions on the market (i.e. don't cut down the last redwood even though there's a profitable market for redwood furniture).

I really just hope this answers your questions on why we don't "see."

[-] 2 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

Kind of like the philosophical argument about not killing the last wooly mammoth. I love critical thinkers. TY!

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

Ok, I understand what you are saying and completely agree that the issues you pointed out have been caused by the current market. It's all true. You hit the nail on the head when you said that what it would take in order for a true and I mean true free market system to work properly is an educated populace making educated decisions on purchases but not only that we need more entrepreneurs that can be responsible businesspeople.

Now with that being said the reason libertarians call for free markets is because without government involvement in the markets the availability of politicians to the malevolent forces in the market there is not way they can tip the scales in their favor using government thus allowing the small and responsible business market to be a player or allowing for someone who wants to start in business more easily achieve their goals or become a responsible businessperson.

I think we agree that freedom is hardly ever a bad thing overall. I can tell you that most libertarians I have spoken to do not advocate free markets or liberty in order to be a detriment to anyone. We simply believe that letting people make their own choices is a much bigger benefit to society than having a central power make decisions for us. This does not mean we are anarchists but instead we are local government advocates where the people have control over the decision making process instead of a central power far from home that is detached from local issues and sentiments.

Please don't mistake the corporate owners of the Tea Party express for libertarians they are a far cry from what we are.

[-] 0 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

"because without government involvement in the markets the availability of politicians to the malevolent forces in the market there is not way they can tip the scales in their favor"

This is the basic libertarian article of faith for which there's absolutely no evidence. Government is not the cause of monopoly. They form naturally. Government can certainly be made to exacerbate the problem, but that's a choice. Please do not directly compare businesses to organisms filling niches and being regulated by the ecosystem. The market is an artificial ecosystem. Business acumen and wealth are extremely simplified representations of the elements of survivability involved in species evolution, distribution, and extinction. Money accumulates in the hands of those, not only with the best ideas, but with the cruelest disposition, the poorest ethics, often those with the most weapons, or the best skills at manipulating others into doing their dirty work for them.

Once it starts accumulating there's no reason for it to stop. If the local population (while things are still small) has a problem with the behavior (they usually are blind to it or even cheer it on, see robber barons) the oligarch can keep exploiting the locals, but do business out of state, or overseas, or crowd out the competition, or buy them out, and leave people with no choice. The consumer is not in charge. The consumer is a peasant. Our power is as a body politic.

There are myriad ways an advantage can snowball into success and success into monopoly and monopoly into feudalism. Those in your simple law & order, local government will be just as prone to corruption as in any state, and there will be no collective instrument for standing up to the will of the oligarchs/corporations. No Teddy Roosevelt to hear the will of the people and bust the trusts - and no constitutional ability to do so, because it would infringe on the freedom of the market and the liberty of the oligarch.

This is what we see, because this is what history has shown, and what the present deregulation has shown. You'll say again that it's not the pure and perfect free market model we're seeing. I will say that's utopia (for you) and that all you'll achieve is something more like the gilded age, which is where we're headed.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss. Sorry if I seem a little frustrated. Because I am. I was hoping you wouldn't fall back on dogma.

[-] 2 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

excellent points. Have you read Shock Doctrine by Naomi klein? Tears apart Milton Friedman free trade economics. Great arguments. Thanks

[-] 1 points by Misguided (373) 9 years ago

I appreciate that you can discuss this rationally without doing what I have encountered all too many times already on these forums. None the less I believe you left one very important point out of your reply. That is new people entering the market on the supply side. Those people have as big a role in keeping the market honest as do the consumers. Competition for consumer business is the point not so much morality. If we count on morality or government legislation thereof we're doomed to fail. It's more logic than dogma.

[-] 1 points by Patron32 (79) 9 years ago

You are a passionate person, and I for one am glad you are an American. The country is better with you in it. Keep posting, keep sharing, and keep people interested in what is going on with our union. Cheers


[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Thank you.

[-] 1 points by betsydoula (143) from Beverly Hills, FL 9 years ago

If we all leave our egos at the door, and think about the fate of humanity, and the power to change from within, we won't have to bicker. The money has become the driving force for most,and it really isn't about money at all. Human beings are the only species that don't follow the laws of nature, beginning with feeding our babies another species' milk. When the power of love replaces the love of power it will be a different world. Until then, we can all agree that we can' t possibly be represented by our Congress when they make decisions on what is good for their bank accounts and not for the human beings on this earth.

[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

I am one mama who never fed her babies anything but breast milk. I am with you

[-] 1 points by atki4564 (1259) from Lake Placid, FL 9 years ago

Many more people will come to your side when you are proactive (for “new” Business & Government solutions), instead of reactive (against “old” Business & Government solutions), which is why what we most immediately need is a comprehensive “new” strategy that implements all our various socioeconomic demands at the same time, regardless of party, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management System of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves; that is, using a Focused Direct Democracy organized according to our current Occupations & Generations. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategically Weighted Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:




because we need 100,000 “support clicks” at AmericansElect.org to support a Presidential Candidate -- such as any given political opportunist you'd like to draft -- in support of the above bank-focused platform.

Most importantly, remember, as cited in the first link above, that as Bank Owner-Voters in your 1 of 48 "new" Business Investment Groups (or "new" Congressional Committees) you become the "new" Congress replacing the "old" Congress according to your current Occupation & Generation, called a Focused Direct Democracy.

Therefore, any Candidate (or Leader) therein, regardless of party, is a straw man, a puppet; it's the STRATEGY – the sequence of steps – that the people organize themselves under, in Military Internet Formation of their Individual Purchasing & Group Investment Power, that's important. In this, sequence is key.

Why? Because there are Natural Social Laws – in mathematical sequence – that are just like Natural Physical Laws, such as the Law of Gravity. You must follow those Natural Social Laws or the result will be Injustice, War, etc.

The FIRST step in Natural Social Law is to CONTROL the Banks as Bank Owner-Voters. If you do not, you will inevitably be UNJUSTLY EXPLOITED by the Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government who have a Legitimate Profit Motive, just like you, to do so.

Consequently, you have no choice but to become Candidates (or Leaders) yourselves as Bank Owner-Voters according to your current Occupation & Generation.

So please JOIN the 2nd link, so we can make our support clicks at AmericansElect.org when called for by e-mail from the group in the 2nd link, and then you will see and feel how your goals can be accomplished within the strategy of the 1st link as a “new” Candidate (or Leader) of your Occupation & Generation.

[-] 1 points by IlliniCornfields (71) from Elmhurst, IL 9 years ago

I am willing to lose my special interest lobbyists or those who would advocate and am willing to place my trust in our elected officials too - once the money and lobbyists are gone...

[-] 1 points by Cas76 (4) 9 years ago

Take a look at the post "These Beliefs Occupy Us".

[-] 1 points by takeTsquare (77) 9 years ago

If you quit we all Lose, I am begging you all the way from Spain to stick around PLEASE don't give up and away, PLS!

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 9 years ago

from publicus1

At the NYC General Assembly, on October 15, 2011 our group will move to elect an Executive Committee of the General Assembly. The purpose of this committee will be to organize a nationwide election of 870 delegates (two from each of the 435 congressional districts) to a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY to convene on July 4, 2012 in Philadelphia.

The National General Assembly will debate, propose and vote on a Petition for the Redress of Grievances to be presented to the United States Government before the 2012 elections in November.

This petition is authorized by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Please read our sample declaration and action plan at the webpages below. See you on October 15th!



[-] 1 points by mantaseed (36) 9 years ago

Lets not forget to mention other fine Libertarian ideals, no heatlh care for anyone, repeal of the civil rights act of 1964, dismantle workers rights and unions, abolish the EPA so we can all be poisioned, no rights as a consumer, and it goes on and on, the long and short of all of this is a full corporate take over and you will never be able to do anything about it because the laws will be abolished. "IM OUT" right behind you and I will fight with you!

[-] 1 points by anotherone773 (734) from Carlyle, IL 9 years ago

So i think your saying we are Libertarians and that you dont like libertarians and you are going to fight us.....

So i will assume you are not just trolling.

We are Americans, if you want to label us. We do not care what politicians have what views as a group. We are neutral. Some of us may have preferences. That is ok. Here everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That is what happens in a free democracy which the OWS is.

As a collective we are politically neutral. We all have the same goal. That is to fix our country. We all have different ideas on how to do that and the road to get there.

For this to work everyone has to give some to get some. This is not the United States of Me. Hell this about as united as the United States has been in nearly a decade.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

Why do all these people keep insisting on calling government in collusion with corporations the free market?

It's not the free market. It's fascism. FASCISM.

Stop blaming fascism on freedom and using it as an argument to kill freedom!

The freedom you kill will be your own. And mine too. Thanks a lot!

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

So the gilded age was fascism? All those points about lack of state anything, not remotely more libertarian than now?

[-] 2 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

What we have now is a fascist system peddled with communist slogans.

If you ask for your government to trash your freedom, they will gladly give you what you ask for.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

You didn't answer my question.

[-] 2 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

I don't know enough about the gilded age to answer with authority. Where there are corporations in bed with government getting special privileges and protection, that is fascism, technically.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

But they got there with a state that looks like the one you're (apparently) advocating for. Just read the post again - first big paragraph section "Here was the society.."

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

I can't argue the history, we would just have competing straw men. I've read contrary versions, though.

Since I'm unarmed on that front, can you watch this video and tell me if the analogy fits what happened then?



[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

Yeah, OK, that's one angle. I think you now owe me some reading on the gilded age.

[-] 1 points by HankRearden (476) 9 years ago

OK, will do. Hope to see you 'round here sometime again.

[-] 1 points by an0n (764) 9 years ago

I think it's incredibly apt, and I'm sorry to see you go.

[-] 1 points by cheeseus (109) 9 years ago

Every human is born a libertarian. The weak ones get brainwashed by fundamentalism.

The biggest corporation in the world is our government. Why would you want to give them more power? The economy is fucked because government created the imbalances...

[-] 1 points by Lork (285) 9 years ago

Fuck this shit! I just talked to a bunch of fucking overgrown idiots who went all "What do we need government for DURR", "What if I become rich someday DURR", "We should ONLY have a flat consumption tax that is TOTALLY unenforceable DURR", "Lower corporate taxes DURR", "We NEED outsourcing DURR", "999 DURR" and best of all - "Eliminate the capital gains tax DURR!"

I always told myself that I'd stick this through until the Fat Lady sang. But the fucking Tea Party bought them too! Fuck! It's...just...FUCK!



EDIT - I would also like to add... "Ron Paul will protect us from the globalists DURR"


Do yo research foo.

[-] 2 points by goeib1 (163) 9 years ago

I rest my case.... "Glittering jewel of colossal ignorance" = lork

[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

are you really serious? Half of what you said is ridiculous . YOu have a very different meaning system. Sorry but most of us can't enter into it with you

[-] 0 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 9 years ago

Forum Post: I'm out. ///////////////////////////////////////////////// I do not blame you for getting out, folks are bailing out of OWS by the groves

[-] 0 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 9 years ago

No wonder you're fleeing debate - you're bad at it.

Strawman, emotional appeals, bare assertions, logical fallacies aplenty, and a tiny splash of misinformed history.

If this is how you fight - you will lose.

[-] 0 points by apell1992 (51) 9 years ago

This is the most biased article I've ever read. Why can't any of you anti-Libertarians understand that WE WANT FREEDOM. WE WANT PROFIT FOR ALL from a leveled playing field in which the ONLY way to gain more than another is through hard work. Some people lack that concept.

[-] 0 points by HeymanSmokeWeed (24) from Brooklyn, NY 9 years ago

DUDE. All us protesters are so F'ing high right now. we smell like rotten puke and we all have scabies. SMOEK MORE WEED. we protesters are only trying to make it in the man's world, dude. Weed is the only answer. We're all high.

[-] 1 points by hs4265 (107) 9 years ago

please stop posting anymore. Most of us are trying to be serious. Why don't you go smoke your pot and go away. Plus I think you are a Troll or a plant

[-] 0 points by dankpoet (425) 9 years ago

If you're tired of trolls, please help get the new forum rolling at http://www.TheMultitude.org & www.occupyR.com.

Known Trolls include: oceanweed, MikeyD

[-] 0 points by NoMatter (45) 9 years ago

You folks keep talking about government and oligarchs as if they are different.

[-] 1 points by JonDoe (1) 9 years ago

This is exactly what I was thinking as I was scrolling trough theses posts. Your government (just as mine, I’m Canadian) is basically just a tool used by a mafia to rob you all. I see it every day here in my country (which is 10 times more socialist than anything the US Democratic Party has ever proposed) and at every level; municipal, provincial and federal. Every week some scandal links politicians to corrupt activities, all they do is work in the interest of their own companies or the companies of their buddies. All “elected” officials are corrupt; in my mind it’s almost a prerequisite to be a politician. I don’t believe in everything RP puts forward, however it seems to me that if you reduce the size of the government you reduce the size of this tool for enslavement. I don’t believe in the political grid, right vs. left, authoritarian vs. libertarian; ideological rigidity fogs clear sight. All that is important is to reverse the status quo, to bring down this corrupt system that protects the rights of the 1% and dismisses the rights of the 99%. This system has been erect by the conservatives and democrats alike. RP is probably not the perfect candidate and a completely free market might not be the best way to go, but it’s better than the status quo. Basically, no matter if you believe in a pure free market of a state-directed economy, the important thing NOW is to tare down the establishment and RP gives you guys exactly that opportunity, without the necessity of bloodshed. What will happen when all the fat cats are put away will be yours to decide, FREELY!

[-] -1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 9 years ago

Thanks to everyone for your support and ideas. I'm still around and 100% in support of OWS. I maintain some reservations, but if we can stay focused on the limited areas where we agree, then I think we can be successful as a transideological force for change - something new to this world, perhaps?

I would like to thank everyone individually but, considering the enforced delay between posts, it might take me all day. Hopefully this will get voted up so it's near the top (obviously won't be above Rico's amazing comment).

[-] -1 points by FuManchu (619) 9 years ago

We dont need any isms from some book. Common sense is enough to provide a decent life for all. Healthcare, education, basic needs. No corruption. Responsible spending. Individual freedom. No messing with other countries. Its really simple if the will is there.

[-] -2 points by unended (294) 9 years ago

Libertarianism is not taking anything over. It is the ideology of the top 1%.

[-] 2 points by randallburns (211) from Washougal, WA 9 years ago

I have to disagree. I've seen a lot of libertarians. Few are really wealthy-but i will admit they have more upper middle class folks(particularly large landowners) than their numbers would indicate. Libertarians also attract some really ruthless folks like Clarance Thomas and Alan Greenspan that aren't necessarily focused on personal wealth.

Pew classed about 9% of the voters in the US as "Libertarian"-basically a young, secular voting group. There are also a lot of very wealthy folks that are more conventional republicans-and liberal democrats.

I think folks like Ayn Rand worked really hard to make rich folks feel really good-but really only a minority of the top 1% ever took her seriously-and a lot more are tied up with ideologies she would hate. A lot of the wisest of the top 1% know they just can't be excessive in their personal wealth accumulation-Gates and Buffet fall into that category. The thing is, even those folks can be rather ruthless towards folks they might perceive as would be competitors. The only member of the very wealthy I've ever heard endorse asset taxation was Sol Price-the founder of one of the businesses that got folded into Costco.

The cousin of Libertarianism that was truly populist was Georgism-which also had a heavy tendency towards redistribution of wealth. George wanted a libertarian economy for the bottom 99%-but wanted to tax land values, natural monopolies and concentrations of wealth.