Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Should Occupy be occupying government?

Posted 11 years ago on Nov. 28, 2011, 12:28 p.m. EST by TheScreamingHead (239)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Great article about the argument between focusing efforts on government or business. This is essential to the philosophy of this movement. Weigh in.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Cocreator (306) 11 years ago

Valentine's Day March on Washinton D.C.

[-] 2 points by capitalist4thepeople (2) 11 years ago

I was thinking about how much of our money has been given to banks as described on Huffington Post yesterday. Can't somebody (the ACLU???) make the case that their properties belong to us, the 99%, and that we can peacefully gather on part of. Those properties?

[-] 2 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Most people in OWS want regulation of the banks. Most people in the Tea Party want deregulation.

Other than the fact they're both upset about the economy, what do they have in common?

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

Regulations do us no good when the government is corrupt. Too much regulation and cronyism is part of the reason that the free-market is not functioning.

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

You're just repeating a mantra that doesn't actually have anything to do with the question. Sometimes it seems like you guys are in a cult. What do OWS and the Tea Party have in common, specifically?

[-] 3 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

OWS should be occupying the government, but since most of the followers are Obama voters, who refuse admit their candidate is just as corrupt as Bush. You refuse to see the truth out of your own willful ignorance, yet you call other people a cult. You are a brainless zombie, begging for bigger government to spend all of your problems away, on the taxpayer dime of coarse.

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

You still didn't answer the question, just repeating more mantras. And you wonder why I say it seems like you belong to a cult?

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

Should OWS be occupying the government, YES! Regarding the two movements, they both want reform. One movement views "big government" to be the heart of the problem, overstepping constitutional authority. The other movement seems to think we should give more power and authority to the already corrupt government so that they can look over us from cradle to the grave. The tea party fails to see the relationship between our economic woes and the undeclared wars we are in, OWS fails to admit the democrats are part of the corruption and that fiscal conservatism make sense. I'm pointing out the fact that both parties use rhetoric to control the votes, drawing a fake line on many issues (there are pro-life democrats and gay fiscal conservatives).Your the one that seems to be part of a cult, repeating your mantra about mantras. Every statement I have made is in reference to the title of this thread, perhaps you are choosing not to understand.

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Should OWS be occupying the government, YES!

Wow, just ... wow. Mantra after mantra after mantra. You still haven't answered the question: what do OWS and the Tea Party have in common besides being upset about the economy?

OWS isn't about occupying the government and ignoring Wall Street. If you don't like OWS' approach, then go back to the Tea Party, which endorses the solution you're talking about. It's dishonest to hijack a political movement just because it is more succesful and you covet its success, to infiltrate it and try to steal it for your own. These aren't democratic tactics.

Build your own movement, if you think you have better solutions. If the population likes those solutions, you'll be succesful. Simple as that. Who knows, OWS might disappear in the next few months or something, then you'll have wasted all your time being a sneak when you should've been just been honestly contributing to your own movement. It's not that bad to play fair, and there isn't anything wrong with a diversity of political opinions. The people will decide what they like, and what they don't.

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

How blind are you...I answered both of your questions. I am only educating the lost sheep who believe that "evil wallstreet" is the only issue here. The government is corrupt to the core, and by ignoring this FACT, you will never get anything accomplished because you don't understand the complexity of our financial condition. Even if government was not corrupt, redistribution through big government ALWAYS fails as an economic strategy. We can look at case study after case study and see the same results. I answered your question, but you are trapped inside of platos cave, unwilling to step outside and enlighten yourself. Wallstreet SHOULD NOT be ignored. Many of these people need to go to prison, along with people who broke rules in Washington. Government using taxpayer $$ to bail out banks is not capitalism. Its dishonest to hijack the hearts and minds of young ill informed protesters, using them as a pawns, without being totally truthful to them about your agenda. You wish to keep people in the dark because they are easier to use as a means to your end. Since when did the 99% decide to dictate free speech?

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Educating the lost sheep ... no ... you're not like a cultist at all ...

And no, you still didn't answer the question. What do OWS and the Tea Party have in common? You never answered it, you just keep repeating your ideological views like a broken record. That's not an answer to the question that was asked.

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

I answered it, but you would rather call names and pretend its not there. There is nothing cultish about spreading truth to young impressionistic youth, who are obviously following this movement, yet can't clearly define it.

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Where did you answer the question, "what do OWS and the Tea Party have in common?" Please quote where you answered that.

[-] 2 points by warrior21 (3) from Binghamton, NY 11 years ago

Okay, I'll take a crack at it... They were both originally leaderless, grassroots movements opposed to the bank bailouts of 2008. Both have a general consensus on political ideologies. Both are symptomatic of disenfranchisement with current parties. Their solutions to the problems are quite opposite however. So this is all I can list for similarities.

[-] 2 points by mookie (38) 11 years ago

"Regarding the two movements, they both want reform. One movement views "big government" to be the heart of the problem, overstepping constitutional authority. The other movement seems to think we should give more power and authority to the already corrupt government so that they can look over us from cradle to the grave."

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Ok, I missed that among all the hyperbole.

But basically you're not disagreeing with what I originally said. They're both upset (ie want change or reform). But that's about it. They are diametrically opposed in every other respect.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 11 years ago

Everybody's poor, dummy.

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

Right, they have the same question (what do we do?) ... but not the same answer. You work with other people to find answers and solutions, not questions.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 11 years ago

I have a solution. SEAPs. Check out this article and let's have a solutions talk, then, sir (or ma'am).


[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 11 years ago

That sounds great, but I can't see libertarians getting behind government-funded programs like that. I could be wrong though.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 11 years ago

There aren't enuff libertarians to stop an initiative like that.


[-] 0 points by warrior21 (3) from Binghamton, NY 11 years ago

If they're wise they'll ally with worthy Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. Otherwise change will be impossible.


[-] 0 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 11 years ago

No. This is a trap. If we were just a national movement, maybe. This is global. Occupying US Govt will not work.


[-] 0 points by occupythegreenparty (157) 11 years ago

Resource Based Economy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKX9TWRyfs

The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holistic socio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.

Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.

A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.

Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.

In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.

We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.

Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.

At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.

A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.

Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.

A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.

What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.

As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.

With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.

If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.

Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.

[-] 3 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 11 years ago

This would be all well and good in Pangaea. But the Chinese don't like us, Mexico is woefully underused, and we're at constant war with the Middle East. So we have to start this process by fixing our borders first and making sure we can compete.


[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 11 years ago

The whole rest of the planet is protesting their govenrments.

We are protesting people who have never signed a law into practive once in their lives.

The rest of the world gets it. The media still controls us over here.