Forum Post: The Occupation is NOT about Redistribution of Wealth! This Movement is About ONE thing and ONE thing ONLY and I will fight to the DEATH anyone who DISAGREES with this point Because it is CRITICAL: THIS IS ABOUT ETHICS. and Ethics Alone!
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 1, 2011, 9:09 p.m. EST by SirPoeticJustice
(628)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"Fight To The Death" = "Defeat Through Non-Violent Debate".
We Are Talking Secular Ethics On All Levels!
It doesn't matter what system you have, political or economic, if there are no ethics taught to its citizens. If Ethics are regarded as quaint or as secondary to Law, the empire begins to crumble.
The Concept of Right and Wrong... That corporations have the same legal power as flesh and blood citizens. That our government has been bought by lobbyists and campaign financiers. That a ball player makes a thousand times what an early childhood education teacher makes. That the banks are, as we speak, planning a "solution" to our grievances in the form of a new global federal reserve (central bank) to make global monetary policy (slavery). That Protestors are looting and vandalizing, seeking retribution. etc. etc. etc.
The most basic and primary ethic is honesty. The Truth.
The assumption that "there is not enough to go around" is insane, and causes man to try to snatch what resources are left before someone else does. This is self-fulfilling as it causes the principle to become fact. A true reformation of society must necessarily BEGIN in the heart, where love is the currency and grow to be reflected in our Law and Economy.
The money system we have is evil, centrally controlled, and does not hold the value of community or the word of the individual. But money COULD be designed to reflect generosity and reciprocity instead of scarcity... The citizens SHOULD OWN their bank (credit union)
While "limited resources" is an ecological fact - there simply aren't enough resources for everyone to have everything they want, if you factor in recycling, repurposing and reuse, and change both behaviors and assumptions, such as using limited NEEDS as an economic cornerstone rather then unlimited WANTS, and leverage both primitive and advanced technology, developing a true sense of community and belonging, resources could become, functionally speaking, unlimited, and man will be more fulfilled, naturally wanting less. Add to this the practice of looking within oneself for fulfillment instead of looking to "things" for fulfillment, and our problems as a species are suddenly solved.
While many causes for the financial crisis have been suggested, with varying weight assigned by experts,[9] the United States Senate issuing the Levin–Coburn Report found "that the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street."
We SHOULD take a lesson from ICELAND:
http://sacsis.org.za/site/article/728.1
GET THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS
(Public Funding & No Lobbying Groups)
GET THE BANKS OUT OF ECONOMICS
(~New United States Treasury American National Credit Union~ Only Flesh & Blood Citizens Can Have An Account There & Have Elected Reps From States Run It.)
What the world needs right now is LOVE>
It is up to all of us to manifest it from nothing.
Bathe not only in water, but also in LOVE.
Compassion, Empathy, Tough Love, Understanding, Honor, Respect, Decency, Humanity, Courage, TRUTH...
LOVE YOUR ENEMY.
Deep Listening:
Reflect back what you heard the person say, and ask "Did I hear that right?"
Then you speak, they reflect what you have said and ask, "Did I hear that right?"
ONLY BY LISTENING TO ONE ANOTHER CAN WE ALL FIND OUR HEART'S DESIRE.
COMMUNICATE. This means "Be Honest."
Hearing the other and seeking to understand does not mean you have to AGREE.
Hearing the other is NOT a sign of weakness but of strength.
Look what happened in Greece. The new prime minister is the ex-vice president of the central bank in europe. He is not even Greek.
The central banks are the real culprits, wanting to govern behind the scenes through monetary policy.
This is why we must stand with the tea party, if only temporarily, to secure victory against our common foe - the central bank.
We need a national credit union.
Ethics are lacking throughout our society
I could not have said it better.
When weren't they?
One could argue that whether or not Ethics have always been lacking - we can embrace Ethics now.
Absolutely agree.
Is evolution ethical? Chances are, ethics are so lacking that most will not even survive. No accountability to reason and facts.
cerebral
Perhaps, but a sense of irony underlies it all when considering most people cannot imagine the fact that their real life is lived by a part of them they may never know, their unconscious. So, we are safe to leave out that any would accept that most of their behaviors are created by their unconscious mind, because there will be no accountability for the fact.---
Some would say this okay, but I cannot agree, because they've left out recognition of 86% percent of themselves and cannot explain why they are doing what they are.
fix now
???
Ethics is about something bigger. it's about how we treat each other. Maybe you'd consider this & let me know your thoughts:
I'm in London, been speaking to the occupy people here. I've worked for a decade in the field of social justice/wellbeing. Seems to me that although there are many voices here, there's a common thread that links all protesters: whether it's justice, greed, the economy, jobs, pay, the future... what this is really about is how we treat each other (& the world we share).
Remember the Peace Sign, & how by capturing the zeitgeist it attracted millions of followers in the 70s? Why don't we adopt a new symbol that captures today's zeitgeist that acts like a sort of umbrella for all our views?
This would give the current amorphous, multi-celled mass enough identity to bring some cohesion and more impact. But like the symbiotic jellyfish, you can hack it into pieces and it will survive... so they can't take it down and there's an underlying purpose and methodology that they can't dispute.
What's that identity? It's summed up in the phrase "I care about mankind and the world our children will inherit." And the underlying methodology is wellbeing-focused - because we all deserve wellbeing and improving wellbeing has tremendous social, economic and political consequences.
Not trying to sell anyone anything - just seems to me the 99% lack a uniting symbol so please come back to me with your comments. The symbol I propose is called the tocamu (see tocamu.com) and you can read/copy & paste a one page sheet to your friends if you want to (click to enlarge to readable size): http://www.tocamu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Unite-Letter.png
Wouldn't it make sense if this army marched under one flag?
There are a huge number of great ethical COMPLICATED ideas that will garner GREAT OPPOSITION.
In an ideal country full of great idealistic philosophers, these would be easy to implement. We need to be realistic & pick an issue that is simple - that is popular -
that 83% of Americans agree on -
that 56% of TP agree on -
that will bring together the people in OWS with the people outside of OWS/
Everybody wins!
Our only goal should be to pass a constitutional amendment to counter Supreme Court decisions Citizens United (2010) & Buckley v. Valeo (1976), that enable unlimited amounts of anonymous money to flood into our political system.
“Corporations and organizations are not a persons & have no personhood rights”
and
“money is not free speech”.
We don’t have to explain or persuade people to accept our position – we have to persuade them to ACT based on their own position. Pursuing this goal will prove to the world that we, at OWS, are a serious realistic Movement, with serious realistic goals. Achieving this goal will make virtually every other goal – from jobs, to taxes, to infrastructure , to Medicare – much easier to achieve –
by disarming our greatest enemy – GREED.
THE SUCCESS STORY OF THE AMENDING PROCESS The Prohibition movement started as a disjointed effort by conservative teetotalers who thought the consumption of alcohol was immoral. They ransacked saloons and garnered press coverage here and there for a few years. Then they began to gain support from the liberals because many considered alcohol partially responsible for spousal and child abuse, among other social ills. This odd alliance, after many years of failing to influence change consistently across jurisdictions, decided to concentrate on one issue nationally—a constitutional amendment. They pressured all politicians on every level to sign a pledge to support the amendment. Any who did not, they defeated easily at the ballot box since they controlled a huge number of liberal, and conservative and independent swing votes in every election. By being a single-issue constituency attacking from all sides of the political spectrum, they very quickly amassed enough votes (2/3) to pass the amendment in Congress. And, using the same tactics, within just 17 months they were successful in getting ¾ of the state legislatures to ratify the constitutional amendment into law. (Other amendments were ratified even faster: Eight—the 7th, 12th, 13th, 15th, 17th, 20th, 21st and 26th—took less than a year. The 26th, granting 18-year-olds the right to vote, took just three months and eight days.)
If they could tie the left and right into a success -
WHY CAN'T WE??????????
I feel that we should stay with this simple text to overturn CU:
”corporations are not people” and “money is not free speech”
for four simple reasons and one – not so simple:
1
83% of Americans have already opposed CU in the ABC/Washington post poll and the above
IS THEIR POSITION ALREADY.
2
We don’t have to work to convince people on the validity of our position.
3
Simple is almost always better.
4
This simple Amendment is REQUIRED to overturn CU.
And all other electoral reform can be passed through the normal legislative process.
5
OWS and these pages are chock full of ( mostly ) excellent ideas to improve our country.
All of them have strong advocates – and some have strong opposition.
None of them has been “pre-approved” by 83% of Americans !
Pursuing this goal – without additional specifics is exactly what Americans want.
What do we want? Look at that almost endless list of demands – goals - aims.
Tax the rich. End the Fed. Jobs for all, Medicare for all. So easy to state! Can you imagine how hard it would be to formulate a “sales pitch” for any of these to convince your Republican friends to vote for any of them?
83% of Americans have ALREADY “voted” against CU. And 76% of the Rs did too.
All we have to do ask Americans is to pressure their representatives – by letters - emails – petitions.
Wanna take your family on vacation?
Convince the 7 year old and the 10 year old to go to Mt Rushmore.
Then try to convince them to go to Disneyland.
Prioritizing this goal will introduce us to the world – not as a bunch of hippie radical anarchist socialist commie rabblerousers – but as a responsible, mature movement that is fighting for what America wants.
I feel that using the tactics of the NRA, the AARP an the TP – who all represent a minority – who have successfully used their voting power to achieve their minority goals - plus the Prohibition Amendment tactics – bringing all sides together - is a straight path for us to success that cannot fail to enable us to create and complete one MAJORITY task.
Great Post!
And while we're on ethics, can i remind all of you one more time that under-age girls are a no-no?!
Ethics? Americans are too busy watching who is dancing with America's next top chef!
Did anyone see THAT letter from a Wall Street worker? Here's my response: http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=5665
Yes, thank you!
What makes a movement a movement as opposed to an organization is that fortunately nobody can dictate anything to it. To suggest that OWS stands for one thing and one thing only indicates a lack of understanding of what a movement is. I might want OWS to be about one thing or a lot of things. I might even want it to be about ethics and only ethics. But that won't mean that it either will be or is. I think part of what makes OWS so attractive to so many people is its very messiness, that nearly anyone can inject their own content or interpret it in a way that pleases them or makes them feel comfortable. But that doesn't mean their interpretation (or mine) is correct or the only one.
If there is any single document or body of literature that we can point to and say, "Here. This is what OWS is about" It is probably the Declaration of the Occupation which has a very long list of 22 or more grievances which it further acknowledges are not exhaustive, but a number of points do emerge. It is clearly anticorporate. It is also specifically anticolonialist, a point that is often overlooked. It is strongly for the rights of minorities and the specifically oppressed and it very specifically favors workers rights, including the right to organize in their own interest (that is, what are traditionally called labor unions). All this might be characterized as a specific kind of ethical system.
But I don't think it's especially fair to suggest that corporate leaders and corporations per se are unethical. I suspect that many, if not most, corporate leaders are kind to their spouses, children, friends, relatives and pets. I suspect that many if not most engage in business practices which they would understand as ethical.
Corporations are not per se unethical. What they are is unjust and unfair to the vast majority because of the purposes for which they are organized, that is, to make the maximum amount of money for their investors. Now they might do that unethically, or ethically based on the premises on which they are organized, but to point out that corporations, all corporations, are basically organized for unjust purposes says nothing about their ethical behavior.
A corporation is a legal entity. It is a fiction which legally designed to extract wealth and abuse society to reach it's goals.
I don't blame the 99% of the corporation. I blame us all for letting it happen.
Limited liability corporations were invented about 500 years ago, not coincidentally at roughly the same time that the European powers began to exploit the western hemisphere. And they were not organized by the 99% but rather by those who could at the time afford to do so, mostly merchant capitalists and sectors of the feudal nobility. Only in the sense that the 99% has failed to organize itself effectively in the face of corporate power can it be blamed for the injustices of that system of organization, but guilt was never a very effective organizing tool, nor is casting aspersions on the few institutions that have, however ineffectively, stood in opposition to corporate power, however ineffectively, long before OWS existed.
Run-On?
In grad school I had a prof who wrote in the corner of one of my papers "run on sentence," to which I replied "You mean, this is a run on sentence."
Thank you for making me laugh... We may disagree on some things but I think we have enough in common to enact change. I don't need everything to be my way.
LOL
FIAT money shall now be called POOF money!!!
Spread the word
bankers wearing dirty underoos
A free market is too generic... We need a 'fair' market, with honest and fair marketers. Any aspect of our living if driving by dishonesty, unfairness, exploitation, and theft harms our society, but it is also bound to quickly extinct. Why? Because we humans and our civilization as a whole are bound by innate moral values; the innate desire to do ‘good’ for the prosperity of our civilization and the prosperity of our planet. These are rules written by Nature/God and they are embedded within our essence. It is the fairness and honesty of Commerce that will result on a free market. No the other way around…
Sir Poetic Justice, I dig your enthusiasm but I'd like to help you quantify your views regarding money. Unfortunately/fortunately we no longer trade livestock for goods and services and the paper/coin money system is ingrained and is here to stay if not for reality of value than for convenience. Not to mention it's hard to sign your name to a chickens flapping wing.
We need inflation, wage inflation to pay for the promises made by generations of dead and dying politicians to the still living and yet born. The problem is that the 1% got tired of having to answer to the 99% over thirty years ago and then began a plan to upend the system by de-funding efforts to enforce rules and laws and the last stages of the plan are to remove the benefit of the education/finance equasion. If we don't act fast the next generation won't believe in sacrificing for one's education and the circle will be complete; we won't be able to stop the law breakers because we won't be able to fill the seats of the jury. It's already happening and that's why the government takes the payment of fines over jail time because of the real threat that the jury won't grasp the totality of the crime at hand and they'll all still walk, without even paying a fine.
The key is to thread the needle; convince the President that he should run America like it is a corporation and that he is the Investor-In-Chief, which we already expect him to be since we hold him responsible for our economies performance, it's just that the metrics we use are wrong. We need to convince him that he needs to make investments based on their ability to pay higher tax rates and these ideas should be funded; corporations who borrow money from the government work diligently to avoid paying taxes so if a borrower can guarantee a real rate of return to the Tax Collector in Chief, that Idea and direction for economic growth will be funded and everyone will benefit. If a CEO wants to make more money he needs to reward the government for their investment and the Taxpayer for their trust.
It is the reputation, military strength and diplomatic reach that make America great and any corporation that operates in America needs to contribute via taxes for that, if Citizens need to then so do Corporations that often are the tip of the spear in the war against Americans here and abroad, but good luck with that war on ethics when it's the unethical that are profiting by avoiding their responsibility to defend America against all comers or what we like to call, the 1%.
They don't respect each other, how will they ever respect us, their country or what any of it means.
beautifully written...
paper money is wonderful, I just think it should be backed by complementary (local) currency reserves in addition to gold.
I would also suggest temporary corporate profit caps to be imposed and removed the way the fed raises and lowers interest rates.
Your passion and proper intellectual ideas have been tried by former Prez Nixon, Ford and Carter in the 1970's. What they found by limiting price increases and the Windfall Profits tax is that supply is slashed and market forces drive prices up even higher than before, profits are masked by the PR war against limitations on taxes and executive compensation.
Remember, at the height of the Bush-policy-caused economic collapse of the Shadow Banking System those who caused the problem put a gun to their own heads and threatened to kill themselves (have you ever seen 'Blazing Saddles'?) if we tossed the bankers who actually engineered the collapse were tossed on the street. At the time they said we had to honor their dishonorable contracts; that only they could unwind the maze of stupidity they built and they wouldn't do the right thing without being paid to do it. We should have put them in Sing Sing and linked the length of their stay to the speed at which the problem was resolved. Instead we were told by Bushies that they had to honor them or they would destroy U.S.
Awesome.
Capping profits doesn't work either. The solution doesn't exist in enforcing current rules nor by creating new ones; it can only come through the embrace of something entirely new. What if I could give you ownership of your specific DNA? What if we created a system that rewarded you for the use of your gene sequence? What if there were a set of new metrics to justify not just government investment but an entirely new POV by which you could value the economy and this would give us the way out of this endless morass?
Could you get someone at the top to listen? I'll do the rest.
What we really want is to remove the political influence of corporations.
So here's what we're up against. 1) The Supreme Court ruling that a corporation, business, club, church, city, community, etc... is an organization of The People and that it is those people's rights that are being represented by the organization, thus giving the organization faux personhood.
2) The repugnant Supreme Court Ruling that says Congress cannot limiting corporate political spending without limiting the People's right to free speech.
I personally think that an individual should be able to spend all of their money any way they want. If they want to run for president, they can spend all their money to do so (like Ross Perot). If a rich person wants to fund my campaign for President, they can do so.
HOWEVER!!! ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FUND CAMPAIGNS. Organizations rarely represent their members' political beliefs when spending politically, and even more rarely give members the choice to opt out of political spending they don't agree with.
We need nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to get past the Supreme Court Rulings. A constitutional amendment that forbids organized money from being spent for political means. The regulations enacting the law would impose fines and penalties up to and including dissolving the organization. The Supreme Court can't overturn a Constitutional Amendment.
Political campaign fund raising will still exist, and individuals can donate as much as they want, and who donated how much will be public record, but corporations would not be able to donate a penny.
The Progressive movement (very similar to the Occupy movement) was all about common people against the elite, the 99% against the 1%. The elite controlled the Senate through easily purchased Local State Representatives. As a result, the 17th Amendment was passed and the power to appoint US Senators was stripped from the State Legislatures and given to the voting People.
The Occupy movement can and should strive for that Constitutional Amendment. It's been done before and should be done again!
We have the numbers, time, resolve to get it done. Taking the corporations out of politics is what we want, isn't it?
Our Constitution does not provide for a Public/National Referendum so until Congress backs us, we're just blowing hot air.
Occupy has to propose the Amendment to as many Congressmen that will listen and start focusing on getting it passed. It's the only way to make lasting change. A Congressman has to stand up in Congress and propose legislation or all of this is for nothing. It's time Occupy Wall Street became Occupy D.C.
YES YES YES YES YES YES yes yes yes Someone smart from MICHIGAN. awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree, generosity is the key, how that generosity can manifest itself nationwide, everyday is a question that is answered here;
How do we get the rest of U.S. to join in the battle that they don't want to admit exists? How can an America, so riddled with conundrums and cynicism re-emerge as a benevolent global super power that acts not as compassionate cowboy willing to put each an every one of us out of THEIR misery but as a generous, well-informed gentle giant? How can we do it before their generational wealth strips us of ours? How will those who believe only in the country club agenda they know and love, feel what we feel?
Only when Occupy grows from Wall Street to Shinnecock and Winged Foot, Lakeside to Brentwood Country Clubs. Let us lay on the 1st tee and keep them from the 19th hole. Only then will they cry as our childrens' children will if we do not convince them to trade their Callaway's for the American Way.
The first and most effective avenue for change is Jury Duty. This much maligned form of Citizenship is actually the fastest, most financially (it costs nothing) viable way to affect real change that elections used to have (circa 1960) but has become nothing more than setting for the generational transfer of cynicism. See anything regarding California's failed experiment with Term Limits.
Why wait 12 months for another serving of hope and change when we can show him the way now? Only through Jury Duty can we begin to affect real change that can happen in every corner of America, next week, next month and next year. Yes, next week. As quickly as the B of A recoiled their $5 fee, we can begin to not just take our nation back but spur forth an economy and thus jobs and tax revenues. Do this and we save health care and all without politicians, bills, laws and John Boehner.
This is the beginning of what I can offer. Unfortunately I am disabled due to an auto accident in which I was struck and am unable to attend Occupy however what I have is knowledge and experience that anger and time has transformed me into a gem of possibility.
Look at the holdings of insurance companies. They have long been the cause of many of our problems that include the tax-free internet, which is a low and medium-end job destroyer. This alone has destroyed entry-level wages as well as local and state real estate and sales tax revenues.
I know this is boring stuff but this is the type of stuff from REIT's and MLP's, just tax-free pass-throughs that insurance companies have created to avoid taxes and thus de-government funding.
These are the type of things that are the sole of the foot they have placed on our neck and only Jury Duty in Civil Courts have a chance at mathematically and financially weakening them so that we can get up and fight them.
This is just the beginning. The meek shall inherit the Earth and this is how. Human generosity towards one and other; paying it forward with other people's money. That's how they do it, it's just our money they have been using against us, now lets use theirs.
There is more, much more feasible ideas to create tens of millions of jobs and limit the liabilities we can rid ourselves of in the process.
[Deleted]
There Is a War Going On For Your Mind
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tP5yA3RwzOk
Beautifully written and you are 1000% correct. Greed does not have to be the fuel that feeds capitalism and our economic system. As mankind advances from the jungle, we need to ensure that our social and economic systems advance at the same time. We need to rise about greed and selfishness and be motivated by community.
Thank You!
I couldn't agree more. Where will we be as a planet in 100 years if all the people here have a "me first" attitude? In fact, the Earth could not support many more nations wanting to live like Americans! Sorry to say it, but that is the Earth's bottom line... It can't magically get bigger or produce twice the amount of oil. With 7 billion people now here, we NEED to start to worry about how we treat eachother and our planet that we all live and endlessly take from!
I Truly Believe It Is Time For The Ancestors to Make Themselves Heard. Tribal And Otherwise. You Know It Is A Little Know Fact The Word "Tribe" Comes From The Three Original Sections of Rome, Outside Of The Vatican.
I think redistribution of the wealth is the most ethical thing we can do now.
Define Your Terms: Re-Distribution of Wealth...
The share of social wealth that is controlled by the top 1% of income earners should appropriated to society as a whole. This should be done by means of nationalizations of the big banks and major industries. They should be made into public institutions and the wealth produced by them shoudl be distributed and invested in improving production in a safe and sustainable manner socially according to a democratically derived plan. Social service should be made free of charge to the general public: healthcare, education. Each person shoudl be guaranteed a livable income. Loans at favorable rates should be made to small businesses.
This is the only ethical way to behave in social and economic policy since the 1% steals the social surplus created by the labor of the working class.
You are missing one crucial point. THEY won't LET you just take "their" money. This is where compassion comes into play. All NEWLY created money, created by quantitative easing should be used for the purpose you are suggesting. Let the 1% keep a majority of their wealth.
Instead, TAKE THE Transnational Conglomerate CORPORATION'S Money.
This is where sanity must triumph. Do you want CIVIL WAR.
I DON'T. I just want a system that better represents and supports all citizens.
This group of people won't let you make the reforms you propose. Taxes on the rich have decreased steadily since the Reagan era under both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The 1% won't let anyone make even more modest reforms, and from their point of view, they have no choice. Capitalism is a declining system in which the ruling elite must squeeze more and more surplus out of the working class. And they will use dictatorship and civil war methods themselves to get it.
No one wants war, and no one wanted it in 1860, but in America, the slave owners couldn't live with the most minimal regulations on their property. In the end, it was not possible to abolish slavery any other way.
It would be lying to the working class not to tell it to be prepared for the most brutal assault. The top one percent is the violent class, not the rest of us.
Okay but can we still have Whole Foods Market?
We need to find ethical people that we can support.
The feminine perspective of the spontaneous arising of connections that make a community, and masculine perspective of intentionally forging a community on specified values, are BOTH IMPORTANT. Only in the reconciling of these into one is true community plausible. A community is only as good as the principles it is founded on. Membership, values, and relationships are all open to change but when a community doesn't take a stand for a particular set of principles or shared values, someone will always feel left out of the community. Including 'other' when we disagree with other isn't an act of kindness and compassion for other. It is an act of love for the community as a whole born of insight into the nature of disagreement itself. Disagreement means there is a higher truth, higher then both points of view. A true community is hungry to discover such truth "that sits in the center and knows".
Communities that have no cornerstone value system, vision, mission, plan, or overarching goal shared by all in common and communities that leave some individuals by the wayside are pseudo communities. In this kind of system the cornerstone of the community isn't shared amongst all the members of the community. If a community has no shared vision, value or guiding mission that EVERYONE agrees to without reservations, the community is an illusion and will break down at the first test of the community's integrity. These kinds of communities are usually for the sake of appearances alone. Even worse, some may be in denial about this, thinking it is a true community when it is not.
The feminine believes relationships ought to be put before guiding principles, and this is noble. But what is more fragile than human relationships? There is nothing enduring about them. In the mythical tale of Camelot, the relationships or politics were in a constant state of flux, but the founding principles kept Camelot going for a thousand years. The myth of Camelot was a lesson in truth. Avalon also had principles that held it together, principles the priestesses lived by and swore an oath to uphold.
If it wasn't for the American constitution, the United States wouldn't exist today. The constitution is the glue that holds this nation together in spite of a bitter, ongoing partisan feud and corporate banking corruption. Relationships, the politics of friendships and romantic love, and the connections between people, even the strongest connections, contain conflict. A community needs a way to move forward DURING times of conflict and in spite of conflict.
Empires rise and fall, and ecologically speaking, not even the community of Earth as a whole is permanent, as one day it will be consumed by the sun or by an asteroid, meteor, or other planet. True communities aren't necessarily permanent. A true community lasts long enough to INSPIRE other communities, which is different from individuals leaving the community because they don't belong, don't feel at home, or are included only on the condition they pretend to be someone they are not.
Communities of scholars, members of the same artistic movement, or those of the same beliefs may have never met one another, but they belong to the same community. True community is NOT merely an ideal, but an achievable and attainable reality. The purpose, scope, and values of the community are the cornerstone and most important facet of a true community. Membership may be constantly changing, but there are some things that can be made as constant and perennial as change itself. Those values are what separates a community that is going nowhere from one that is going somewhere.
For example, families that plan for the future, or in some way work toward a shared goal or vision, prosper. Families that do not plan for the future, struggle. To put it succinctly, the difference between a pseudo community and a true community is a shared mission, value system, vision, plan, or goal AND everyone feeling included. Painstakingly achieving true community can feel wrong or counter-intuitive to the mammal. It means the shadow has to be reclaimed. It means finding consensus no matter how long it takes. And having clearly defined principles or values keeps the shadow from overtaking the community. The biggest shadow is not honoring the truth of other. When those at war come together to understand one-another's position, knowing that achieving understanding may not mean finding a peaceful resolution to the conflict, options that couldn't be seen before begin to present themselves. At least then, if the war must go on, both sides can fight with peace in their hearts because they truly see each other.
better take your own inventory first!
Yes, thank you! I am.
me too
I disagree. While we can hope for some broad culture-wide changes in the human heart, the most pressing issues right now stem from the way our social institutions are organized and structured.
There will always be people who want to exploit and steal from everyone else. You can't make them go away with moral sermons. But you can enact laws and build institutions that make it harder for them to do their damage.
Thank You. I have modified above to hopefully reflect what you said. It is a simultaneous process both within and in the community, at once.
Read the rest of this thread. All organizations and institutions are corrupt without a sense of ethics. This is not a moral imperative imposed from outside. It is a discussion which allows each one to come to their own understanding within. If, as you say, there will always be people who wish to exploit, etc, HOW WILL LAWS STOP THEM? Has it worked in the past?
I agree that a more sensible code of laws and a more sensible government structure can do wonders, but how do we arrive at such a reality? We Achieve this by first coming to understand within ourselves the truth... That is an individual process.... If we do not "begin within" we risk putting in place a system every bit as insane as the one currently in place. Those who formerly were the corrupt 1% or the corrupt politicians may then well be at the bottom, but those who have taken over risk being infected by the same greed they sought to oppose.
The only way to cure this virus is forgiveness of self and forgiveness of other. Building community starting from within and then literally community with others.
I absolutely agree. All our problems boil down to one of attitude, learned conditions, and ethics (or in my case spirituality).
We're not completely ethical and won't ever be. We all lie, even if the lie is just to be polite. We have rings of caring that we build around ourselves. Go too far out and you cease to be important. The coffee shop that had to lay off 20% of it's employees because the barricades put up around OWS have resulted in a drop in business, they would seem to be just necessary collateral damage, outside the ring of concern for OWS.
It's a minority movement, hundreds of people in a city of millions, trying to force their world view on everyone else. If they represented even a large minority they could change things through the system, electing like minded representatives. I don't see it as ethical to force change it fit the view of a small minority.
You are looking at Ethics as a Law or Code. Ethics is more situational, more based in compassion and heart. Lying To Protect a Child From The Truth May Be Misguided But It's Not Unethical. We Will Become Completely Ethical. We Have NO Choice. I know there are many ways to define Ethics.
There are actually several ways to define ethics. You take a situational approach. All sorts of tyrannies of the majority can be viewed as ethical at the time they are being committed. Just depends on who you let into your majority. Personally I do tend to lean more toward a few moral absolutes, in spite of the occasional inconsistency. I don't feel harming others to push forward goal is ethical in all cases, no matter how big the majority you speak for. The goals of OWS are so vague that they are easy to accept. We won't know how ethical or moral the movement's actions,until the consequences of any change actually arrive.
Amen. That is the very reason I am seeking to influence the majority.
Okay, we should put this at the top of our list of problems. Does anyone disagree with this idea?
Thank You.
Ethics and Economics.
bad ethics brought on by GREED. Greed by the 1%
Non Violence Please!
Is it ethical to walk away from your debt obligations as many on this site promote? OWS needs a proverbial mirror if Ethics is your goal.
Banks should not be allowed to loan out nine times the amount of customer deposits they have on hand, and at exorbitant interest. That is money they have created out of thin air by quantitative easing or by typing numbers on a screen. The banks didn't work for that money - NINE TIMES the deposits they have. It's not even real money. And then because they typed numbers on a screen and created virtual money we have to "pay it back" WHILE THE FEDERAL RESERVE intentionally DEVALUES OUR CURRENCY through inflation. You can't pay back something that wasn't loaned to you in the first place. POOF does not constitute a loan. How is it in any way an equal exchange for a bank worker to type numbers on a screen creating "money" out of thin air (an hour's work at the most) and a single mother to work long hours for twenty years paying back that "loan". You can't even call it a loan. THAT IS SLAVERY. The current value of the dollar is .15 cents. Set by the FED. Are you out of your bleeding mind!!! The real criminal is the bank. ALWAYS always always. As we speak there are viral videos being created urging citizens to move their accounts to credit unions. But that is only the first step. RE-POST this message to spread it please.
Is it ethical to walk away from your debt obligations as many on this site promote? OWS needs a proverbial mirror if Ethics is your goal.
I did some more thinking about this question and I have come to a new conclusion.
The only time it would be ethical to walk away from a debt obligation is if the debt itself was found to be fraudulent.
Or if the lender sold the debt...
But the average family thinks about sound financial decisions for themselves. many decide to "walk away" because they have lost so much equity that their house is not worth anywhere near the mortgage amount. So it is a snowball effect because as they walk away the next home loses value and so on.
[Deleted]
Check mate. Game over!
Good Job With The Red Herring. You Remind Me Of John Cusack in Runaway Jury.
our country was founded on the lack of ethics you people make me sick our founding fathers would be rolling in the grave over this
???
the only way to bring corruption to its knees is get rid of money and power. global economy needs to be resourced-based to get rid of our social problems. really, think about it: most, if not all of our social problems are caused by money.
also there is no such thing as ethics in a capitalist society. the goal of a business is to grow or at least maintain its market share BUT how can it do so in a competitive environment? tell customers that the competitor's product is better than theirs? it doesn't work!
NO, most of our problems are caused by lack of sacredness in our relationship to money. The money system we have is evil, centrally controlled, and does not hold the value of community or the word of the individual. But money COULD be designed to reflect the sacred generosity of the heart of man. Just because the current monetary system is evil does not mean ALL monetary systems are evil. I am open to a resource based economy, but the reason you are not getting support is - you need to make it easier for us to understand how it would work for us the individual on a day to day basis, and put the examples in terms of daily life. Explain what a day for the average person would be like. And explain what would motivate people to do their best. People like to "win" or be found "worthy" and given "honor"
Well at least someone gets it.
Hey Mike, how are you?
Not mike, just an Anon :P
Well Said
Funny how the far right & Tea Bagger Congress, will claim to have such Christian values who are fighting for "In God We Trust", and against a woman's right to choose, Gay's in the military & Gay marriage, etc., but will lie, cheat & steal in order to support their corporate Puppet Masters!
I agree. Fucked up.
I will never again send money to United Way when their CEO makes over a million a year.
Does the guy do anything besides preside?
You lost me at it's vs. its. Go ahead and fight to the death. Everyone on here has said what OWS is about and there has yet to be a clear definitive answer. Get in line with the rest and if there is ever a common goal, maybe you can join in. It's sad but true.
I have fixed the grammar
Which ethics are you speaking of ?
Please be more specific. I think it will help get this thread headed in a positive direction and help all of us understand why ethics is the most important attribute of this movement.
Or as Peotic put it, it's solely about ethics and nothing else.
Is it clearer now?
great move with bank of america,they withdrew their debit card fee afraid this movement would cripple them.we have the power, many people will follow a well thought out target for boycott.pick a bank or corp.that has shown they care more about their bottom line and bonus money then fair and honest dealings with the american people and call for a nation wide boycott,this will work.once you have a measure of the people who are behind you the direction can change to the next election.if you start a vote out every incumbent plea until solid no loophole laws are in place to keep special interest money from paying for elections and those elected doing their biding those in office will only have one term and gone.they wont pass anything on their own when the money that got them elected is controlling their votes.it is a fast peaceful way to show our anger at what this system has become.
0 Comments
0 Comments
I would agree it is about ethics, and moreso about the question of punishment of crimes that are both "mala en se" and at the same time "mala prohibita," and should therefor be punished as such a combination. Not with violence or imprisonment, but in methods of community corrections. More specifically, the methods of communnity corrections which focus on retribution. If you're interested, message me.
I would agree it is about ethics, and moreso about the question of punishment of crimes that are both "mala en se" and at the same time "mala prohibita," and should therefor be punished as such a combination. Not with violence or imprisonment, but in methods of community corrections. More specifically, the methods of communnity corrections which focus on retribution. If you're interested, message me.
Right on! Integrity too, don't forget integrity! And morals, got to have them to have ethics in the first place. You won't have to fight to the death, because I got your back.
Thank You!!!
Is it ethical to kill?
Is it moral?
No.
I meant "Debate to the Death"
The Occupation is not focused on ethics or any other one issue. And that's why they're not getting anything accomplished.
TechJunkie,
you seem confused. Why don't you understand what this movement is about ?
Who have you been talking to ?
I've been talking to all of he other people who have wildly different ideas about that the movement is about. Some people are convinced that it's about direct democracy, for example. Others are very determined to focus on class warfare and socialism. The movement is dividing and conquering itself so that nobody else has to.
I think it is spawning many separate movements and growing and that is a good thing.
You're right, there's been a cultural shift.
The Repubs have used the media and their messaging to shift the window over to a hate-filled, morally bankrupt agenda.
And their fearless leader of hate mongering is Rush Limeballs.
So, I've heard, hmmm.
Ethics Alone!
so it is not inclusive
IT IS inclusive of all people. Thus, the points of view in conflict can be brought to a place where they are not in conflict through communication. We don't need a million opinions. We need a few well-hashed out opinions that have the support of everyone because everyone has been included fully.
Who decides what is ethical?
Can we all agree on that?
The heart decides what is ethical and we can do our best to represent that.
seems ironic that someone complaining about ethics is willing to fight to the death with anyone that disagrees with him.
(hint: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/closed-minded)
Is this Animal Farm?
LOL
Have you never heard of a metaphor? I am speaking about "debate to the death"
the ethical tone of your metaphor is what disturbed me.
Great. This is about disturbing the comfortable.
redistribution is tied to ethics and vice versa...Bottom line is equality and justice for all...Human dignity, and the right to live free from injustice.
I agree...
So glad you didnt say 'Values'... too many have no clue about the difference.. Must be because 'Ethics' Classes have been dropped from most of the Major Ivy League Universities.. and replaced with class on financial .. 'Funny Math'.
Values are a 'Familial' lesson handed down thru generations, Ethics.. are the Standard of Behavior that Society Agrees on.
TY for your thread.. it does a body good to see someone yearning for what is Good and Just.
Marlow
I could not have said it better... Wholeheartedly agree.
Do you people want serious workable solution to your problems, which would include ethics... ??? seriously???? then see... http://mosheh.org/A-New-Deal_2012.html\
debate that... you talk tough but can you walk the walk which matches the tough talk you??? SirPoeticJustice????, You dared to spew a challenge.. and I respond.. ethics are not enough. If you... cannot step up... then back down, because I am prepared to take over, unless you are too bias and blind to allow it. Step up or shut up..
I see your URL and I Raise You
http://alchemicalreaction.blogspot.com/2011/10/2011-occupy-america-peoples-official.html
you cannot return to sound money, unless you work to reverse the National banking act of 1933... that is when all this mess started.. it created the debt currency system... it created the fake money... glass steigel.. was created to offset this ACT... and by design 80 years later the bankers, who have been in charge for 80 years got it removed when the people forgot how it all started.... focus... the cause.. was the New DEal of 1933, when the government began to use perminant emergency war powers, and gave up constitutional law... see --> http://mosheh.org/The-Constitution.html
I agree. But is it pragmatic to assume we can pass a law that requires everyone to be ethical? First we get money out of politics, then we elect ethical Representatives and they will start passing ethical laws. Our new Ethical Representatives will listen to the 99% and also listen to the 1% but in that ratio.
I never said "pass legislation on ethics." I think Ethics is higher then law, much higher. Ethics can only come from example and must begin within oneself. MBA programs should have classes in ethics separate from law.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/nation-wide-strike-to-improve-our-communities/
Is it ethical to hate those who have more and make them pay for it?
It is not ethical to hate at all. But if the wealthy person attained riches through unethical means I suppose it is karma if they lose it the same way. A company like Patagonia, or any number of the more ethical affluent citizens out there, should get to enjoy what they earned as long as they give something back to society and help fellow man where possible.
Sir,
It's not ethical to hate at all.
We can chisel that one. That one right there gets right at the root of the problem with the world and our selves.
I agree with this statement.
But you do know ethics covers many many things. It's a biggy, and culture plays into it as well. Just thinking....
That is why they have lawyers. I do agree with you though. However, they can have all they want, but the US Dollar is going to be like German Marks in 1943. We need to worry about that first instead.
I can't prove this, but as an educator with a degree in early childhood education, I have seen that children are naturally ethical, but are trained to behave selfishly through acculturation, especially messages they receive through television. Television has been the most successful tool to brainwash the masses and telling them what to think about and what is important. People need to ask themselves how much of what they think they know they heard, read, or were told by someone, very little comes from direct experience. We are not taught to be critical thinkers, to question everything, and listen instead to our intuition. Intuition is the body's bullshit meter, but we are raised to ignore it.
People have to walk away from corporate sanctioned dis-informational systems. Public schooling is rife with inaccurate and false information. I mean we've been taught that nature is survival of the fittest, a case for competitiveness and competition for resources, but our true nature is cooperation and collaboration. Nature cooperates so that everything comes into balance and harmony.
Ethics is an interesting word that can be interpreted many ways. For myself, it is operating with integrity and compassion. The Buddhists say above all else, do no harm.
We learn to LOVE money. We are raised this way. Pure Capitalism is fueled by pure greed. Somewhere along the way we forgot about the people. We the people. We have an ethical right, it's there in our constitution, to fight a corrupt system.
Sirs, right. With a lack of ethics and good behavior. ..We got the opposite. We are living in the result, Welcome on board.
We need to learn about Truth, and find our way there.
Truth and Reason can be our guide to what is Ethical, but let's not be so dogmatic about it.
Definitely.
Thank you!
Thank you this is a really great post.
Naropa?
The problem they are having with the 1% is that they believe their wealthy was earned by buying politicians that put in place laws that increases their wealth. This is not the America way to succeed in life.
The ones that may have obtained their wealth through hard honest work, those individuals are not included in their movement.
good point
More importantly what principles, and set of values does this movement stand for?
A person that is self-centered will have completely different values from a person that is principle-centered.
I agree I think the movement is pretty scattered in terms of core values... But there is one big one: Egalitarianism or you could say "Power to the People"...
It's also about Income Inequality.
The rich are getting richer while the poor get poorer.
Here's a thread I started. It talks about how we were lied to which led to the rich plundering our capital and bring USA to the brink of disaster:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/if-the-rich-are-jobs-creators-where-are-the-jobs/
I agree (mostly) with your stance on this. My only caveat is I believe it is publicly held corporations whose stock gets traded on the exchange who are the real culprits.
Really one step further it is the law stating corporations must act ONLY in the interest of shareholders. Not the public good. not the environment. etc.
That's right, when we think of us, and care, we can have some good results.
If we're crawling or stepping all over each other to get the money, whatever it takes, we have that result. It sucks.
...this is about cosmic consciousness and not some lobbyist agenda. This is about equal rights not the comfort zone of the 1%. The pyramid is falling. This is the end of the haves and the have not's The serif system has failed because the 99% says so!
let's not throw around silly names and look at facts
http://knockknockrevolution.tumblr.com/post/11573860774/why-occupy-wall-street-flyers - help convince people to become occupiers by using these talking points!
i agree that this is what the occupation should be about. i will also disagree with you that this is what the occupation is currently about.
please let me know where our fight will take place. i must warn you tho, by doing so you are putting yourself at a distinct disadvantage. i dont fight fairly : )
LOL have it your way then, we wil wear the giant sumo suits.
i did that sumo suit shit at an event a few weeks ago. that shit feels nasty, and you basically become one with the sweat of the preceding combatants, but i kicked my little sisters ass in front of my entire family which made up for it : )
lol i was like "go" and then she was on the ground. it looks funny because its like a fuckin turtle on its back. then when they stood her up i knocked her down again and jumped on top of her.
it made up for everything.
this is the last thing i will say about it: if you are going to a place where they have the suits, bring a bottle of fabreeze with you
LOL!!!!
Tax the rich... Feed the poor... Tax the rich 'til they're rich no more
---Ten Years After
Choose your weapons and meet me atop the Empire State Bldg. Suggest a last will and testament and an address where I can send it. SASE please.
Ummm. What the hell are you talking about?
Real Direct Democracy is online at www.uponlocal.com
Vote Online Now. Propose Issue. Propose Solutions. Nominate Candidates.
Vote first, takeover second.....
Set the issues. Recall unethical officials.
People can only rule on open source direct democracy...and it is here now...Volunteers and Code checkers needed now!
Spread the Word Direct Democracy Voting UPonLocal.com
Why are you leaving?
You and I have agreed on a few points. But can't agree with you on this. Its is unethical to concentrate wealth. It's gone too far.
MIAMI (CBSMiami.com) – Florida is touting the new jobs it created Friday after a positive unemployment report. But based on numbers from all W-2’s filed in the country, the wages simply aren’t keeping up.
According to the Social Security Administration, 50 percent of U.S. workers made less than $26,364 in 2010. In addition, those making less than $200,000, or 99 percent of Americans (actually, more like 98%), saw their earnings fall by $4.5 billion collectively.
The sobering numbers were a far cry from what was going on for the richest one percent of Americans.
The incomes of the top one percent of the wage scale in the U.S. rose in 2010; and their collective wage earnings jumped by $120 billion.
In addition, those earning at least $1 million a year in wages, which is roughly 93,000 Americans, reported payroll income jumped 22 percent from 2009.
Overall, the economy has shed 5.2 million jobs since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. It’s the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression in the 1930’s.
Another word about the first Great Depression. It really was a perfect storm. Caused almost entirely by greed. First, there was unprecedented economic growth. There was a massive building spree. There was a growing sense of optimism and materialism. There was a growing obsession for celebrities. The American people became spoiled, foolish, naive, brainwashed, and love-sick. They were bombarded with ads for one product or service after another. Encouraged to spend all of their money as if it were going out of style. Obscene profits were hoarded at the top. All of this represented a MASSIVE transfer of wealth from poor to rich. Executives, entrepreneurs, developers, celebrities, and share holders. By 1929, America's wealthiest 1 percent had accumulated around 44% of all United States wealth. The upper, middle, and lower classes held the rest. When the majority finally ran low on money to spend, profits declined and the stock market crashed. Of course, the rich threw a fit and started cutting jobs. They would stop at nothing to maintain their disgusting profit margins and ill-gotten obscene levels of wealth as long as possible. The small business owners did what they felt necessary to survive. They cut more jobs. The losses were felt primarily by the little guy. This created a domino effect. The middle class shrunk drastically and the lower class expanded. With less wealth in reserve and active circulation, banks failed by the hundreds. More jobs were cut. Unemployment reached 25% in 1933. The worst year of the Great Depression. Those who were employed had to settle for much lower wages. Millions went cold and hungry. The recovery involved a massive infusion of new currency, a World War, and higher taxes on the rich. With so many men in the service, so many women on the production line, and those higher taxes to help pay for it, some United States wealth was gradually transfered back to the lower majority. This redistribution of wealth continued until the mid seventies. By 1976, the lower 99 percent held over 80 percent of America's wealth. This was the recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.
Then it began to concentrate all over again. Here we are 35 years later. The richest one percent now own 40 percent of all US wealth. The lower 99 percent are sharing the rest. This is true even after taxes, welfare, financial aid, and charity. It is the underlying cause. No redistribution. No recovery.
The government won't step in and do what's necessary. Not this time. It's up to us. Support small business more and big business less. Support the little guy more and the big guy less. It's tricky but not impossible.
No redistribution. No recovery.
Why should people not be allowed to accumulate wealth? Who should decide the maximum wealth and what one does with their wealth? Personally, I do not think that the success of others should be punished and I do not think that it is the responsibility of the federal government to take from those with substantial wealth and give to those that are lacking in wealth simply in order to create a "fair" distribution of the wealth. This will create no incentive for success and will limit economic growth.
It is also important to note that even the poor residing in America live substantially better lives that the middle and upper-middle class residing in Europe and most other nations around the world. We have redefined poverty. It is no longer living without shelter, adequate food, or proper conditions. You are now considered to be living in poverty if you do not have two televisions, two refrigerators, a gaming system, or if you have to go without your preferred choice of food regularly.
I want the ability to success without limitation, which is not possible if redistribution occurs. When you redistribute wealth, you are forced to remain on the same level as all others regardless of effort.
I've responded to these points a dozen times in the last 48 hours.
Because a heavy concentration of wealth causes economic instability. It causes widespread poverty. That's why.
I don't blame Americans for the reckless and irresponsible population growth of the third world. I don't even blame the rich for that one. I do however, blame them for their relentless concentration of wealth and resources. Greed kills.
Most nations that have less broad distributions of wealth have more instability than the United States. They also have much more poverty than the United States.
Greed is defined as the desire to possess wealth or objects/positions of value. It is inherent in all people and is the driving force behind success.
What should be the maximum amount of wealth that one can accumulate and how should individuals utilize their wealth? Why should you or anyone else be allowed to dictate how someone should spend their own money? Do you believe that I should be able to take what you have and give it to another person simply because you have something that I do not?
Those other nations you refer to don't have our relatively comfortable climate, fertile land, or the largest source of fresh water in the world.
Greed is a relative form of evil. Virtually harmless in moderation. Incredibly destructive when allowed to run wild.
I've responded to your other points a dozen times in the last 48 hours.
Because a heavy concentration of wealth causes economic instability. It causes widespread poverty. That's why.
Greed kills.
I find it fascinating how you simply attempt to shrug off the information that has been presented to you. There are other nations that have fertile land, reasonable climates, or vast amounts of untapped resources; however, they remain more unstable than the United States.
As men of law, greed will always remain in check unless we allow those that create and enforce the law to have increased amounts of power. The more power we give to the federal government, the greater possibility they have to allow their own greed to take over.
You may have responded to my points "a dozen times," but you have not responded to me. I asked simply questions and believe that you could answer them using the same amount of time and effort you use to shrug them off.
A heavy concentration of wealth is not what causes economic instability and it certainly has not caused widespread poverty. A bloated government that allows for limited success causes widespread poverty. I would rather live in a nation where some people are successful and some are not, instead of a nation where all individuals are not successful.
Stop being jealous of the success of others because greed is no killer.
Shrug this:
Top 10 richest nations:
1. United States 2. China 3. Japan 4. India 5. Germany 6. Russia 7. United Kingdom
Almost exclusively fertile and comfortable. Relatively stable socially. US has largest supply of fresh water in the world.
Bottom poorest nations:
Almost exclusively hot and dry. Very unstable socially. Ethiopia has nearly the lowest supply of fresh water in the world.
A heavy concentration of wealth does cause poverty, economic instability, and social instability. Albert Einstein knew it. Mariner Eccles knew it. I know it too. Most are unaware. However, those of you who refuse to acknowledge it are cowards. You simply shrug off the information as it is presented to you.
The people. The majority. They should be fully informed and allowed to decide who gets to keep what within their own society.
The answers to your questions are within my previous entries. Read them again. This time, don't shrug off the information as it is presented to you.
Stop making stupid assumptions.
Your points are absolutely valid. All I am saying is - if we get stuck talking about redistribution of wealth, all of the other concerns that DO have to do with ethics get lost in the shuffle. The distribution of wealth is an ethical issue as much as an economic one so it makes it a bit broader to say that MBA programs have courses in law but NONE in secular ethics. Whatever happened to right from wrong? I just think it is a bit more accurate.
I reworded my post slightly when I noticed that you created this page. You and I don't have exactly the same strategy but that's OK. We agree on some major points. You're right about ethics. The devil is often in the details.
But I am convinced that a heavy concentration of wealth not only causes economic instability but also tears at the very fabric of society. A reasonable scale of income is a good thing but I can not and will not make any excuses for the richest one percent. I've had it with every single one of them.
Mostly agreed. I have had it with the richest .01% but close enough.
If we agreed on every point, neither of us would be free thinkers.
We agree enough to get things done - and that is the important thing at this point.
Glad to be on the same team.
We have been mislead by Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, and nearly every other public figure. Economic growth, job creation, and actual prosperity are not necessarily a package deal. In fact, the first two are horribly misunderstood. Economic growth/loss (GDP) is little more than a measure of wealth changing hands. A transfer of currency from one party to another. The rate at which it is traded. This was up until mid ’07′ however, has never been a measure of actual prosperity. Neither has job creation. The phrase itself has been thrown around so often, and in such a generic politicali manner, that it has come to mean nothing. Of course, we need to have certain things done for the benefit of society as a whole. We need farmers, builders, manufacturers, transporters, teachers, cops, firefighters, soldiers, mechanics, sanitationi workers, doctors, managers, and visionaries. Their work is vital. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that we need politicians, attorneys, bankers, investors, and entertainers. In order to keep them productive, we must provide reasonable incentives. We need to compensate each by a fair measure for their actual contributions to society. We need to provide a reasonable scale of income opportunity for every independent adult, every provider, and share responsibility for those who have a legitimate need for aid. In order to achieve and sustain this, we must also address the cost of living and the distribution of wealth. Here, we have failed miserably. The majority have already lost their home equity, their financial security, and their relative buying power. The middle class have actually lost much of their ability to make ends meet, re-pay loans, pay taxes, and support their own economy. The lower class have gone nearly bankrupt. In all, its a multi-trillion dollar loss taken over about 30 years. Millions are under the impression that we need to create more jobs simply to provide more opportunity. as if that would solve the problem. It won’t. Not by a longshot. Jobs don’t necessarily create wealth. In fact, they almost never do. For the mostpart, they only transfer wealth from one party to another. A gain here. A loss there. Appreciation in one community. Depreciation in another. In order to create net wealth, you must harvest a new resource or make more efficient use of one. Either way you must have a reliable and ethical system in place to distribute that newly created wealth in order to benefit society as a whole and prevent a lagging downside. The ‘free market’ just doesn’t cut it. Its a farce. Many of the jobs created are nothing but filler. The promises empty. Sure, unemployment reached an all-time low under Bush. GDP reached an all-time high. But those are both shallow and misleading indicators. In order to gauge actual prosperity, you must consider the economy in human terms. As of ’08′ the average American was working more hours than the previous generation with far less equity to show for it. Consumer debt, forclosure, and bankruptcy were also at all-time highs. As of ’08′, every major American city was riddled with depressed communities, neglected neighborhoods, failing infrastructures, lost revenue, and gang activity. All of this has coincided with massive economic growth and job creation. Meanwhile, the rich have been getting richer and richer and richer even after taxes. Our nation’s wealth has been concentrated. Again, this represents a multi-trillion dollar loss taken by the majority. Its an absolute deal breaker. Bottom line: With or without economic growth or job creation, you must have a system in place to prevent too much wealth from being concentrated at the top. Unfortunately, we don’t. Our economy has become nothing but a giant game of Monopoly. The richest one percent already own nearly 40% of all United States wealth. More than double their share before Reagan took office. Still, they want more. They absolutely will not stop. Now, our society as a whole is in serious jeapordy. Greed kills.
What about a system that offers each individual the CHOICE between socialism and capitalism??? A system that combines both into one and allows each person to decide which one they want? It would take some working out but why not? That way everyone is happy?
A socialist economic system and a capitalistic economic system cannot coexist. Socialized economics involves state control; whereas, capitalist economics involves a free market in which the private industry and basic laws of economics apply. If people were given a choice, I am positive that they would chose the system that does not have state control because it would be easier to start new businesses and products would be substantially less expensive.
You can also compare already existing businesses. Most organizations managed by the federal government hemorrhage money and are complete failures. The only reason that they continue to remain active is simply do to funding that comes from taxes. In a truly free market, private businesses would be left to fail if they were to lose money at the same rate as the federal government.
A hybrid might work. Unfortunately, neither of us will live to see it.
Why???
I just don't think those in power will ever let it happen. If you think there is a chance by all means, run with it. You might prove me wrong.
We will never see your "hybrid" system, but it would never be able to exist anyway. I have already explained why you could not have a system in which individuals have a choice between a socialistic market system and capitalistic market system.
If you could chose between (high taxes, multiple federal regulations, forced guidelines, restricted trades, forced pricing that removes competition and inflates the cost of goods, no purchasing power, funded social programs for the purchasers, the knowledge that failing businesses would be held up by you and other businesses if you succeed) and (lower taxes, limited regulations, personally chosen guidelines dictated through negotiations between you and your employees, free/open trades, competitive pricing, the ability to have businesses fail, and limited social programs) which would you choose?
You replied to the wrong message. SirPoeticJustice suggested the choice between socialism and capitalism. Not me. I suggested a hybrid. Not necessarily a choice. In fact, we already have a hybrid. A capitalist system with functional elements of socialism.
With regard to your second paragraph, you made reference to a half dozen or more elements which do not necessarily define any one system of economics and left out the very foundation of socialism.
SirPoeticJustice was discussing a system in which capitalism and socialism were combined. You simply refered to it as a "hybrid."
We do not have a combination of capitalism and socialism when it comes to our market structure. We have a free market that is used to fund social programs, but there is a big difference between a social program and a socialized economic structure.
I am aware that I did not provide what some may be considered as the "foundation" of a socialized economic system. However, that would be very difficult to do because there are multiple theorized socialist economic structures. I provided what I believe the outcomes of a socialist system to be and what the outcomes of a capitalistic system to be.
We saw what a corrupt Communism did. "The New Class"from Djilas made that revolting development obvious. Socialism and capitalism run the same risks.
-- New York capitalism corrupted the Manhattan prosecutors office.
-- Common Law Fraud was eliminated for the 0.01 of 1%.
-- They stole $7-trillion. They are thieves.
It took utterly corrupting the Manhattan prosecutors office, first. The rest of the scam was easy.
First teething on $35-billion in the early- to mid-90s frst Dot/com scams. Then ratcheting up with the second $500-billion round of Dot.com scams 1997-2000. And finally the $2-trillion of mortgage scams and $5-trillion of pension and investment scams 2003-2011.
But it took eliminating local prosecution. The protections of the Common Law were wiped out. Barbarism reins.
Occupy Wall Street.
Indeed.
I didn't know they allowed topics this long.
Visit LetsGetTheFactsStraight.com
I find it quite interesting that of you post something here that disagrees with the movement it is taken down. I guess Joe Stalin is alive and well in OWS.
Sir this is about free government hand outs to the great unwashed that spent 4 years in college studying Sanskrit and medieval aboriginal history. Upon graduation they found that the only thing they were trained for was a job at McDonalds. If you are so concerned with ethics why are you not using the 500,000 dollars you collected in donations to provide for your fellow protesters? Why has the so called movement applied for tax exempt status with the IRS? Should you not pay your fair share?
I studied Sanskrit and I worked at an investment bank.
Stay idealistic. We've come to accept evil way too easily. Right on brother.
Yes!!!!!
SirPoeticJustice wrote: The most basic and primary ethic is honesty. The Truth.END--------
Using strategy here, http://algoxy.com/ows/strategyofamerica.html Article 5 can be the key to the future and truth.------
An 8.5x11 .jpeg flyer showing graphically the complexity involved.-------
http://algoxy.com/poly/polyims/puzzle-flyer3.1yourstate.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLUpGGmku8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SMrnx6nkRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wg1bH6-1YY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgKS4i-u0OM
http://www.reverbnation.com/Killumination
Donate!!!
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=NKRL8TGE95H2Y
OWS is creating problems and trying to upset a country founded on capitalism. in every society there are classes no matter what kind of society it is, communist, capitalist, fascist, whatever. There will always be a high, middle, and low class, you cannot change that. There is no way for a country to work the way it should with everyone on the same playing field. it just is not possible. so to all you OWS people out there, your cause might be just in your mind and sound good on paper but in the real world, it is not possible. You are just creating a stage on which you make noise and yell at the government that allows you to protest and try to destroy the country that gave you the rights to try and destroy it. be thankful you live in a country as good as this one, or go to Somalia or Iraq or North Korea and try to protest there about big business and see how it goes.....
America was founded by individuals fleeing religious repression and persecution by a monarchy. These individuals ran (by plane) to America seeking freedom from oppression from a few who treated their subjects like animals, jailed them in debtor prisons for crimes both real and imagined. That is the primary reason why our constitution says Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not for corporations, I mean people without benefit of flesh, to pursue profits and late fees so that their CEO's, I mean workers, can pursue a lower handicap and sink any putt within four feet.
Today private prisons hold inmates beyond their terms for crimes real or imagined, credit card companies charge near 30% interest on money they borrow below 2%. Who should be in prison now? I'll split the difference with you, lets repeal any financial legislation passed or repealed before 1991 or the Savings and Loan Disaster. I bet that America would be better off, better financed and just plain better, even if you still worked on Wall Street.
Oh, and are you a Veteran? Because I am and what we fight for is not so you, bullies or bullied, who hate all lower classes, you know, the class-less, (your abusive language says you're of the state-school educated, upwardly mobile variety and lack the blue-blooded lineage to be welcomed into the condo association nor the country club so you must word-slap your way to the adult table with the inbreed upper crust. You will never be welcome and will always be mocked but they will always take your money because it's blue-greenish. You should stop trying now because you will never find happiness, but you have that right, crap. Speaking of which, if your Viagara isn't working due to single party sessions of overuse, ashamed at 35, really, there are other colored pills for your little head, try Propecia). Anyway, we fight for the little guy not the guy you want to be. Only a real piss-ant would tell other people to shut up and live with your station in life and I'm sure your blue collar parents would be ashamed of your attitude. What color was your uniform? Brooks Brothers blue? I thought so. I bet your real original; probably got a picture of Gordon Gecko on your wall while the rest of us had Cheryl Tiegs and Farah on our walls.
Blue Horseshoe likes....yeah, that's what I thought.
Maybe you're younger than that and your career is being squished by Wall Street layoffs; god damned computer! Or did you work for MF Globlal? If not, well I hear they are hiring, so is Lehman Bros. In Greece. I heard it was founded on Communism.
All hail Bess Levin!
I, respectfully, disagree. I think this is new. This is about compassion, communication, understanding, having a voice...
I want to live in a nation where regardless of how much money someone makes, THERE IS STILL ONLY ONE CLASS OF PEOPLE, because it is one community.
There is a generosity being expressed from the heart of mankind.
That is what this is about to me.
He doesn't care what you care about, he's still fuming about his lack of station in life and he mocks you to his 'friends' at work who mock him for mocking his own class. I'd say stop trying to convince him you're right, he's convinced he'll climb to the top of the heap one day and no one will try to knock him off with a spit ball. Only the unlearned can believe his words will possibly work on you.
The truth is that he is fighting his own inner truth; that what he does actually injures the lives of others. He tells himself it's always been this way and he's tired of others telling him it's wrong and he should stop or he'll never be able to live with himself because as long as we all shall live there will always be someone to tell him he's a useless leech on society's rectum; you know, a rectum sucker.
Good Luck, it is your right but don't tell him you have the same rights he does, he's still dreaming of what 'rights' a NetJets membership will bring if a few partners will just kick the can before they're 50. He would rather live in a country where money equals rights and he's got the money to trade children for farm animals. He laughs at us for believing in mankind, he broke his cherry the day he entered Harvard to get his MBA. His name is Andrew Hicks of Locust Offshore Partners. Look him up. That's who you're fighting; they are all like him.
well you will never succeed then because there will always be multiple classes and those classes will be: rich, poor, and middle class... you will never change that..........unless you want communism.......and you can see how that has worked for anyone who has tried it!
I hear you. With all due respect I think you may be missing my point.
I don't care about socioeconomic classes. I care about community. Where there is generosity and we are united as a nation, I will HELP a motherfucker get rich. Wealth is meaningless to me. What matters to me is community and strength as a community. And that only comes through reconciliation. I want the guy in the 20 million dollar house and the guy in the $50,000 shack to BOTH be my brothers.
if the billionaire can't understand that, we have to help him understand until he does.
They are! They are both American.....dont you get it! No matter what class you are you still are American! that s shown on every July 4 and 11 September....no matter who you are on those days, and all other days, we are all American
I added something from before because it fit here.
But the rituals of america and processes of our community no longer work because they have been reduced to a charade of pomp and circumstance. They no longer hold meaning for the individual and so there is no experience of belonging. And thus, alienation and feeling separate from the nation abounds. We all feel like strangers to each other because we are too lazy and cowardly to find common ground with those who are DIFFERENT from us. America, the melting pot, needs to find an IDENTITY.
The mammal brain existed long before the neocortex and it understands how to deal with (I will use a Jungian term here) "shadow". So, you create community, rites of passage, and a lifestyle centered on belonging rather then alienation, and have healthy outlets for shadow like self-examination. There is a reason other empires, from ancient greece to tribal societies, had formal ways of creating community and dealing with shadow through rites of passage and initiation. (secular ceremony) They did these things because it allowed for a healthier individual and group psychology and allowed everyone to feel included. Inclusion is the most important factor in creating community, If someone feels left out, the community never becomes a true community, it remains less then it could become. That is where we are right now in terms of a NATION. Solutions to conflict always arise out of finding a higher common ground. The solution exists is a realm that is inaccessible unless we are WILLING to entertain a new possibility that integrates and transcends both diverse points of view and sometimes conflicting points of view through communication about the conflict and deeper understanding of each other's needs. Just like you do in relationship counseling except on a much larger scale.
Ceremony is a way to communicate with the unconscious mind to bring about a change in consciousness, behavior, and new levels of maturity. Our society is lacking in maturity because we have forgotten that emotional maturity happens in sudden leaps and bounds rather then gradually over time. And so we do not provide the individual wit any recognition by the community as having passed a threshold in maturity or having moved to a new stage of life. This is a matter of honor and it is sad that as a community we only do this in a religious context. There is no law saying we cannot have secular ceremony.
WE ARE TOO LAZY to expend the time and effort required to form a bond with someone so different from ourselves. A word about ceremony: I am speaking more about rituals that have meaning to both the group and the individual. Modern ceremony has been reduced to a dead language of pomp and circumstance with no meaning for the individual. Here is a group that does some of this work http://mankindproject.org/ but I think we need this for younger people and teens. Rather then waiting until they are rebelling, which is their job as a teen, we ought to honor them by recognizing they are at a certain stage in a ceremony with the community, without religion involved. This could be seen as an honor rather then as a chore. The adults could offer insight and stories and people could say the positive strengths they saw in the teen. It doesn't have to be a grandiose thing. you could have a potluck afterward. No big deal. It is an opportunity for the teen's mind to recognize a threshhold and allow for a leap in maturity.
And we need to put the CROOKS in JAIL...
what do you mean different from us? like Iraq? the Arab world? we will never get on perfect terms with them. And Americans have lost the American spirit that we once had but you people will not be able to give them it....they must do it for themselves.....besides you people are not the embodiment of the "American Spirit"
I mean abolishing this bipartisan struggle. FUCK this manipulation.
The .001% want us to be divided. SO LET'S UNIFY.
the ".001%" is what funds this country....i aint saying they are good but they are necessary....and i will never "unify"with a person like you
They CONTROL this country. And that is ending. NOW.
I don't care about socioeconomic classes. I care about community. Where there is generosity and we are united as a nation, I will HELP a motherfucker get rich. Wealth is meaningless to me. What matters to me is community and strength as a community. And that only comes through reconciliation. I want the guy in the 20 million dollar house and the guy in the $50,000 shack to BOTH be my brothers. if the billionaire can't understand that, we have to help him understand until he does.
BowToYourKing 1 points 27 minutes ago It will never happen, plus it will get lonely for the 50k guy when his pal goes skiing in Aspen or scuba diving in Turks and Caicos.
SirPoeticJustice (New York, NY) 1 points 9 minutes ago I have been there. I have many friends who have that level of coin. I don't complain to them about it. I simply say, you better be doing your civic duty. Let's have a beer when you get back.
BowToYourKing
Life is too short. Plus powder awaits. Civic duty = being happy. reply permalink
SirPoeticJustice (New York, NY) 1 points 46 seconds ago That is not citizenship. Party After You Have Made sure the country is a well-tuned engine. This is NOT a negotiation.
Ethics??? Like those displayed when vandalizing businesses in Oakland? Those are the ethics you hold so dear? Spare me.
You think that is the majority? I NEVER once suggested nor do I applaud looting and vandalism. I DID NOT GIVE THE ORDER and I think these individuals are acting on their own. I desperately want a civil conversation and negotiation proceeding. NEVER VIOLENCE.
Gee, I dunno, perhaps the comment regarding "fight to the death" would leave one to believe you condoned the violence your group is responsible for in Oakland.
You Mean A Loser on a Witch Hunt Might? A Winner Would See I Have Advocated Non-Violence Since Day One. There is no "Group". There are many many individuals with their own unique opinions and beliefs who care about the massive crisis facing this nation. Just like any movement, there are some bad apples. Just like Among YOUR PEERS there are bad apples.
MY PEERS have never raped anyone, nor have MY PEERS vandalized buildings, defecated on police cars, bought or sold "Fuck the Police" gear etc etc etc... so I guess some apples are just worse than others to begin with and OWS seems to be attracting the worst of the lot.
You think your peers don't have secrets. This whole planet is one family whether we like it or not. We better learn community. We better learn forgiveness. We better learn compassion. And yes, I agree, ethical conduct.
I'm pretty comfortable in the knowledge that my peers have never behaved in that manner. The fact that you can't say the same says a lot. The fact that OWS continues to attract, accept and encourage this kind of behavior also says a lot.
You have never met me. And I am pretty confident that you have no idea, not the first clue, who you are talking to, or who my peers are. And if you did, you would be very surprised.
Did you even READ this THREAD?
We need more people like you to say what they DO want instead of complaining, with all due respect, about what they find inexcusable.
START CREATING.
You are correct, I have never met you, but have you ever heard the expression "You are judged by the company you keep"? Based on your support of what is increasingly becoming a band of thieves, thugs and rapists it certainly appears that you don't exactly keep the finest company.
It has been suggested that the vandals impersonating protestors using black bloc tactics were FBI... attempting to lessen public support for the protest.
Suggested by whom? And what were they on?
For all to see.......
The above post is clearly a smear. He picks out a few bad apples then calls them all bad. He uses generalizations and stereotypes to bolster his claim that we are just a band of thieves who rape and pillage.
It's a common tactic. You see when they really don't have valid argument or they are just plain ignorant, and their narrative in their head tells them we have to be wrong, they resort to the smear campaign.
So, there it is, be your judge. I trust you'll see the pattern. It's a common one played many forms.
The truth hurts doesn't it?
Sometimes it does but it's better to have it. In long term it's always best to have truth even if we're not ready for it.
...........: )
Neither Did Christ...
Touche' :) Gotta give you credit for that one.
Is it ethical or democratic to say that you will kill anyone that disagrees with you? (of course you also say that we must maintain non-violence; generally speaking, murdering those that disagree with you is a bit violent)
I am sorry I could not read your post all the way through since your intro was such a complete hogwash.
Killing those that disagree with you, or making the threat to do so, is actually juvenile, and shows a complete lack of understanding what ethics are all about.
Perhaps a class on the subject would help you out.
I agree 100%.
Oh and you're right. It isn't about redistribution of wealth. It's about redistribution of will. We win when we realize ethics are ours as a 99 not a 1.
Yeah!!!
I agree. 'Ethics' by nature of it's plurality is a container of many aspects of society. From ethics comes everything. Let's cultivate a viral remedy. Let's get a couple of million people to close their bank accounts. Imagine, just imagine the effect and resounding response on the air and in the air.
You mean transfer their money to a credit union? I say 279 million americans ought to transfer their accounts to a credit union.
I'm in. Take it away from the big and put back in the small. In every way. Farms, doctors and yes, BANKS. You have the right idea. Let's turn this viral.
I guess we should make a youtube video...
I hope you are young and look good on screen. Not me. I will support you in every way I can. Let's plan it.
Okay. Sounds Good. I will Ruminate and Send you some ideas if you want to do the same.
Thanks, Patriot. I will be out to scrounge up some food with almost no money. Will check back a little later. You rock!
Sorry I never got back to you. I think the transfers are happening still.
That's fan-dippy-dosie-tastic. You ok?
Uh, sorry, OP, bu the invisible "leaders" of OWS have decided that OWS is an appendage of big labor (where the original call was to address "Wall Street", aka, the Financial International).
Perhaps you will find email from Andrew Pollack to be useful information regarding what your expected role is and for whom you will be providing your warm body:
Mark, I agree with you completely. In fact just last night I was reading the section in Grieder's book on the Fed where he contrasts the class base and resulting politics of 19th vs. 20th century populists (progressive and reactionary respectively). (See bottom of page 265 for his punchline on this.) That's why I spoke of both left and right wing populists today. The kids today at OWS who are proworker, antiracist, antisexist, anti-imperialist, but who think the solution is ending the Fed, or restoring Glass-Steagall, or breaking up the big banks, or moving our money to credit unions -- isn't left populist a fair term for them? And it's meant not in an elitist or dismissive way, but as a sign of their lack of exposure to basic socialist ideas -- for which we all, of course, share some responsibility.
http://www.marxmail.org/msg96959.html
http://www.marxmail.org/threads.html#96936
unfortunately, they've been busy removing messages from the links because they don't want you to see this. You can, however, read what's left and get the picture that this is not about what YOU want or think but about what a handful of manipulators want out of you.
No matter what those assholes do or say, they won't change my 83% Libertarian and 17% Socialist stance. It isn't lack of exposure to socialist ideas. It is love of libertarian ones.
Just tone it down a little. It's not ethical to call people names.
Fair Enough.
Ok, carry on. Your on the right track. Good for you.
Good Luck!
Well, I must ask you... if ethics equates to moral attitude, how do we regulate conscience in a land where repression is not permitted to exist? Do you believe law, as but lines in the sand, is an effective tool?
Repression, censorship etc. is part of the problem because it only enables the shadow to become malignant and rebel. communication, understanding, safety, tenderness, and compassion are the only way to integrate the dark or "criminal" impulses of man in a way that heals them. Healing, rather then punishment, is the way to a ethical (enlightened) society.
Would you say then that there is an element of the spiritual here?
I don't like to use that word because it complicates something that is very simple. Love.
Forgive Oneself. Accept Oneself. Give oneself Tough Love. Judge Only Behaviors Not People. Overcome The Ego And Transform It Into A Force Of Compassion.
Know The Difference Between Self-love And Narcissism.
Self-Love naturally gives rise to Love Of Other.
Yea but a universal love is spiritual.
Fair Enough. I just don't want the media to latch onto "spiritual" and then everything is seen as more of a circus. This is something simple.
You're asking people to come together and ascribe to some higher level of consciousness... it is spiritual.
Okay. I'm not going to argue the point. I just don't think the word spiritual is necessary to describe it. I think of spirits, like ghosts flying around. To me that is spiritual.
Consciousness is consciousness.
But I completely see how everyone is going to have a different view of this.
Spiritual - - "of the spirit." You are not asking for something tangible, but merely an enlightened perspective, reliant on an increased awareness, sensitivity... to be incorporated into cultural consciousness... you are asking people to place community good above personal desire, and adopt a new faith. This is a definitely a spiritual movement.
I relent. Unfortunately I am not yet certain that everyone at OWS shares my view. And I suspect many don't.
Law is probably the most ineffective tool. Consciously and compassionately integrating the shadow is the most effective tool.
Well, for starters, reintroduce the idea of rites of passage and thresholds... The mammal brain existed long before the neocortex and it understands how to deal with (I will use a Jungian term here) "shadow". So, you create community, rites of passage, and a lifestyle centered on belonging rather then alienation, and have healthy outlets for shadow like self-examination. There is a reason other empires, from ancient greece to tribal societies, had formal ways of creating community and dealing with shadow through rites of passage and initiation. (secular ceremony) They did these things because it allowed for a healthier individual and group psychology and allowed everyone to feel included. Inclusion is the most important factor in creating community, If someone feels left out, the community never becomes a true community, it remains less then it could become. That is where we are right now in terms of a NATION. Solutions to conflict always arise out of finding a higher common ground. The solution exists is a realm that is inaccessible unless we are WILLING to entertain a new possibility that integrates and transcends both needs.
I actually believe in the presence of a "reptilian core" and that the brain likely developed in layered leaps and bounds... and that all manner of desire originates here in the form of base emotion. I'm not completely grasping your concept of shadow because I think there is far more, in the gradual development of a complex blend of reciprocal emotion and the neural explosion of networks necessary to sustain it. We are the most emotional creature to have ever walked the planet and contrary to all current and rather shallow philosophical science, this is the precise reason not only for the brain's neural development but also the simultaneous development of cognitive ability and language as means of communicating not only with those others that serve the communal organism which is us, but also ourselves. It's all about emotional sorting. I tend to think of emotion as color, and the colorful blend of various hues as a process of emotional sorting. And I think most people do, for evolutionary reason.
You are right about fulfillment and community. The problem is that we are too diverse to entertain the necessary cohesive bond. And that is why we move in this direction of tolerance; it is self serving, intended as balance in the desire of all for happiness.
Multicultural migration - multiculturalism - has not served us very well. But oh what to do, what to do?
Would you say that ceremony is but a symbolic public declaration? Why does it exist?
The brain can be divided many ways, but the model I like the most is left-right, then as you said, brain stem up to mammal limbic system, up to neocortex. the limbic brain and reptilian brain is where our unconscious mind resides. Ceremony is a way to communicate with the unconscious mind to bring about a change in consciousness, behavior, and new levels of maturity. Our society is lacking in maturity because we have forgotten that emotional maturity happens in sudden leaps and bounds rather then gradually over time. And so we do not provide the individual wit any recognition by the community as having passed a threshold in maturity or having moved to a new stage of life. This is a matter of honor and it is sad that as a community we only do this in a religious context. There is no law saying we cannot have secular ceremony.
I do not think of emotion as color, at all, but I know what you mean. This can be taken to a an extreme and then you have synaesthesia, seeing sound, and hearing color. Many of these genetic variances are treasure troves of data that explain how human beings are different and how we are similar. But I like to find common ground or at least try to.
As far as your comment about being too diverse, I think it is that WE ARE TOO LAZY to expend the time and effort required to form a bond with someone so different from ourselves.
A word about ceremony: I am speaking more about rituals that have meaning to both the group and the individual.
Modern ceremony has been reduced to a dead language of pomp and circumstance with no meaning for the individual.
Here is a group that does some of this work http://mankindproject.org/ but I think we need this for younger people and teens. Rather then waiting until they are rebelling, which is their job as a teen, we ought to honor them by recognizing they are at a certain stage in a ceremony with the community, without religion involved. This could be seen as an honor rather then as a chore.
The adults could offer insight and stories and people could say the positive strengths they saw in the teen. It doesn't have to be a grandiose thing. you could have a potluck afterward. No big deal. It is an opportunity for the teen's mind to recognize a threshhold and allow for a leap in maturity.
I think in reference to such things as ceremony and cohesive bond your analysis is relatively superficial. And this is precisely the reason so many of our suggestions here are doomed to failure.
you thinking it is superficial is part of the problem. Maybe you have never experienced true community, maybe you have.
Not only is it superficial, but the effect of improper evaluation is the generation of an untruth labeled as the perfect solution.
I'm not advocating socialism. I am only advocating a calibration of the nation.
We can't survive without some level of socialism because we are a communal species. I'm just suggesting you examine these two items - ceremony and cohesive bond - a little further.
I will listen to anything you have to share or teach.
Ethics? How ethical is it to propose intentional default on financial obligations? Or forced taxation of rich people at exorbitant rates? How ethical is rape, and covering up rape? How ethical is assault on law enforcement officers? As unethical as some Wall Street scumbags are, you commies aren't much better!
I believe wholeheartedly you need a mindfulness retreat. You are brainwashed. I am the furthest thing from a communist. I just want a system that is more equitable and fair for everyone and a system that creates happier people. We might disagree about how to solve the problems, but you can't tell me this nation is not in a DEEP crisis. The system IS NOT WORKING. PERIOD.
A free market is fair; however, over-regulating businesses and forcing one group of individuals to pay a substantially higher rate in taxes is not fair. I agree that our current system is not working, but my solution to this problem is to reduce the cause, not allow it to expand. Federal regulations and over spending is crippling our economy, and yet people attempt to blame the top 1% simply because they have been successful.
It is also important to note that happiness is not a guarantee and is not the responsibility of the federal government. No amount of government intervention will ensure the happiness of the people. We need to stop being jealous of what others have and start using the success of others as motivation for ourselves to attempt to achieve success.
As long as corporate personhood is overturned and corporations are no longer allowed to make campaign contributions I agree to a point. But you know, in Bhutan their economic indicator is gross national happiness, just a fun fact. What I DO NOT want, is corporations bullying natural persons who are also citizens. But I am all for the constitution.
Clarification: Natural persons are inhabitants, Citizens are legal fictions like the one listed on your bank statements or social security card.
And there are those of us who do not want unions and their contributions to bully natural citizens either. I do understand what you're saying though.
I dislike every union except the actor's union.
Bhutan may use national happiness as an economic indicator, but I would not use them as a leading example to use happiness as an economic indicator. The nation is smaller than 40 of the 50 states and has a GDP of only $1.4 billion. Their population isn't even 1 million and they reside under a monarchy. They have spent recent years attempting to become modernized and simply experienced economic growth through the production of a dam.
I know. Theirs is a very different situation. I do think we have more ability to create what we want then many of us realize though. We CAN make this into a nation we feel proud of again.
I would be proud of this nation if we returned to our Constitution and a true free market system.
A free market is too generic... We need a 'fair' market, with honest and fair marketers. Any aspect of our living if driving by dishonesty, unfairness, exploitation, and theft harms our society, but it is also bound to quickly extinct. Why? Because we humans and our civilization as a whole are bound by innate moral values; the innate desire to do ‘good’ for the prosperity of our civilization and the prosperity of our planet. These are rules written by Nature/God and they are embedded within our essence. It is the fairness and honesty of Commerce that will result on a free market. No the other way around…
Life is not fair, politicians should not be trusted to produce a "fair" system, and the only result of a "fair" system would be a government managed market. You only get a "fair" system through force because most individuals do not want to remain stagnant with the rest of society.
No brother. A fair system comes into place without effort by educating our people on understanding that they must conduct themselves humanly on every aspect of life. It is on the education and proper guidance of our generations what it will result on a fair commerce as well as a fair society. Fairness can not be enforced; it can only be tough by example... To say that humans will always take the shortcut; that they will always be greedy; that in their nature is to do wrong. Is to say that our humankind is spiritually and morally stagnated... and that is metaphysically impossible. We humans are here to spiritually and morally evolve. That is the basic essence of ourselves. That essence that many of us believe it comes directly from the creator/creation. We don't need to force people to do the right things, we just have to get enough of us doing them and people will follow...
As much as you would like to see it, greed and poor behaviors will always be present in society, regardless of what educational system is in place.
The majority of Americans already do the right thing, and even the majority of the wealthiest do the right thing. Having greed is not necessarily a bad thing because it causes people to strive for success. That success generally enriches the lives of others.
I feel that it is also important to note that the entire 'Occupy' movement is centered around greed. The individuals are against the top 1% and wish to indirectly redistribute the wealth that they have accumulated. The ultimate end goal of the movement is to provide an increased amount of wealth to the bottom 99% and gain access to multiple social programs.
My initial comment remains valid. You cannot have a "fair" system in the way that you mention without force. Even with force, you will still have unlawful behavior. If your claims were true, then you would see no greed or crime because the majority already acts in a lawful fashion.
No brother, greed inhibits true success. The apparent 'success' yielded by greed that you talk about is short-term and very unfruitful from the humanity perspective. Perhaps back in the 80s this greedy success was less apparent on its destructive actions against true success and humankind, but today is very clear that 'success' driving by greed is not just selfish and immoral but also very detrimental to humankind and its survival. True prosperous, long-term, and sustainable success does not have room neither for apathy nor for greed. I have mention this on several post…our society have confused and misguided our human beings to believe that competitiveness, and aggressiveness are okay on the business arena regardless of its founded motivation. And it is on that slender interpretation of competitiveness and aggressiveness for the purpose of greedy success, versus competitiveness and aggressiveness for the purpose of sustainable and fair success where the different resides. Yes, our society and its way of life must remain competitive and dynamic so we can evolve into a more prosperous civilization. But to drop, ignore and dismiss our moral and human values to achieve that so call ‘prosperity’ by any means is an illusion of success from the perspective of the preservation of humanity. Let me give you an example: ‘If we compete on a challenge and I cheat my way into winning, have I really won?’ By the same principle we cannot cheat our way into a better humanity…
You provided many words but have said very little. For starters, your "example" was poor, at best. Secondly, I think that it would benefit you greatly to get a better understanding of what greed is. No person lives free from greed. In fact, this entire movement is founded on greed. The main arguing point of this movement is that the top 1% holds more wealth than other income brackets. Why is it so problematic to you if another person has more wealth than yourself?
Similarly, the common solution to wealth inequality is the formation of a socialist or communist style of governing, both of which, as seen throughout history, have produced less wealth inequality but more poverty overall. Personally, I would rather have a broader wealth gap and less poverty than a smaller wealth gap and more poverty.
As for your "fair" economy, it cannot exist with an expansion of the federal government. True Capitalism is the closest thing that you can have to a fully fair system. The only problem is that the system does not guarantee equal results. Our system is actually quite fair when compared to what is proposed by you and others supporting this movement.
I agree with you. Education is the key but not the way we are currently educating our children. The system we have is teaching kids how to be taught. We need a system that fosters learning about how it is to human. It doesn't matter if we change the constitution, kick out the lobbyists, make the banks pay, or whatever other ideas are floating around these forums. The initial post said, "A true reformation of society must necessarily BEGIN in the heart, where love is the currency and grow to be reflected in our Law and Economy." People have to change, and the only one anybody can change is themselves. I agree we can't force anybody or change anybody's mind. They will follow when enough of us lead by example. All the systems that we have grown accustomed to are failing us. Educating our youngest members of society in the ways of a new globally interconnected society will help prepare them to deal with the challenges that lie ahead. When they are learning about relationships, instead of how to be a good consumer, things will change. Until then, occupy your mind, change begins within.
We need more then that at this point. We need an updated constitution.
What would you propose our updated constitution to be?
I would like us to start with the one we have now, and have it online, and have proposed changes. anyone can propose a change. And any citizen can vote on proposed changes. The ones with the most votes over say, a year, go through a final vote. something like that. fixing the kinks.
Amendments to our current constitution can already be proposed and voted on. However, we are fortunate enough to live in a Republic where it takes more than a simple majority to govern all people.
Lets END THE FEDERAL RESERVE
http://knockknockrevolution.tumblr.com/post/11573860774/why-occupy-wall-street-flyers - help convince people to become occupiers by using these talking points!
almost 100,000 people have already moved their money into small local banks and credit unions -
When that number increases to millions, and a team of OWS candidates win the 2012 elections, then we can really occupy the White House and Congress and start dismantling the Fed as it is now, first by repealing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and its subsequent amendments consisting of some 200 subsequent laws of Congress that allow the corrupt Fed to set the principal banking laws of the United States
Since the Fed has never paid taxes like any other private corporation in the US, it's time to audit it s books and collect the trillions it owes us. And just as the Fed banks took over the properties that were forclosed for non-payment of taxes and bank mortgages, so can their properties be taken , as part of the payment for their huge tax debt, and be recycled for use by our restored, legitimate gov't by the people and for the people.
We don't have to storm the FED’s property to take it over, we just have to occupy it legally, with the consent of the American people, a truly representative Congress, and signed by a President who works for the people – and not the Fed banksters.
its going to be hard considering they are funding congress, there is also a recent article on how the FED is actually smuggling money out and funding wars privately on CNBC - the link is on the site:
www.knockknockrevolution.tumblr.com
thank you rin yes, it's going to be hard - I wonder if it's too late. Do you?
I think the word 'funding' is an understatement. The Zionist Rothchild's, who own and control the Fed, own and control certain congressman and Presidents.
They have not only 'funded' the Iraq war, they, the Rothschild owned Fed has funded both sides of every war
yehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRFR-hvo3XM
Rothchilds – timeline 1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply gold to both Wellington’s army (through Nathan in England) and Napoleon’s army (through Jacob in France), and begin their policy of funding both sides in wars.
1934: Swiss banking secrecy laws are reformed and it becomes an offence resulting in imprisonment for any bank employee to violate bank secrecy. This is all in preparation for the Rothschild engineered Second World War in which as usual they will fund both sides. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24489
The Rothschilds Exposed 1/3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F4IGwuKdUQ&feature=related
The Rothchilds P1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9e3tb_3YVk&feature=related
The Rothchilds The Bloody family
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_2ESPCV-FE&feature=related
SirPoeticJustice wrote: As long as corporate personhood is overturned and corporations are no longer allowed to make campaign contributions I agree to a point.END-----
Would you identify what level of authority is needed to do that? Define the officials and the laws that the people need to confront to invoke that authority?
I think you were right about a constitutional convention.
Thank you Sir, accountability to reason and facts under law really has great value. It's repeatable and available for all equally, as an ideal I'm not giving up on:) -
Accordingly, in my evaluation, OWS supporters, protestors must take leadership and cognitively recognize that a convention to propose amendments, and serious involvement with their states to be sure states are ratifying at 3/4 of their number, is how it must go forward to succeed, and it cannot fail, or we fall.----
Therein is an implied process. OWS regroups using a limited number of available methods. This forum would suffice but has a large flow of distraction being pushed through it and those that are sincere here have not developed a mthodology to disinguish their amorphous group, with unified intent and perceptions, as the only cogent and factually based proposal for gaining the authority to do more than complain.
Right on, right on, right on!
It's not the system that's not working, it's the gov't involvement and manipulation of the formerly free market that's not working. You are right there! Where this movement is off track is the apparent socialist "solution" proposed by many who are involved!
I would be absolutely stoked with Libertarianism IF and only IF, Corporate Personhood is Repealed and Citizens United is overturned so that coporations cannot make campaign contributions. one more thing, AND if we had a new national credit union instead of a federal reserve bank. Give me those three things and I step into a phone booth a confused citizen and step out a libertarian.
we don't need a national credit union we have a treasury.
the treasury is not empowered to create monetary policy... If the credit union was part of the treasury that would be great.
Congress is the body that has the power to create and regulate the money supply and the treasury is where the wealth of the nation should be stored and administered from. But unfortunately Congress gave America A Christmas gift back in 1913. and gave away its money powers. then 20 years later the USA was bankrupt. But that's a story for another thread
I hear you. All I am saying is if we had a national credit union, we could make it law that ONLY natural citizens can be members and have an account... Thus it is owned by the people.
The credit union isn't a bad idea! However, if corporations aren't allowed to donate politically, then unions shouldn't be allowed to either.
The only union I like is the Actor's union... The rest SUCK.
I don't mind unions in private industry. I just despise unions in the public sector who gouge the taxpayer and then use that money to fund political campaigns of their future bosses who then give them raises from the taxpayer. Not a good system and just as corrupt as many of these Wall St types!
Depending on the nature of those "financial obligations" it may well be ethical to not pay them, and is not all taxation forced? Has every rich person earned his fortune in an ethical manner - I will remind you that the very nature of capitalism is dependent upon exploitation. Plenty of Republicans and rich people rape and even murder, so who are you to talk about ethics? Just another loud-mouthed shill venting because a real populace movement has come along to eclipse your pathetic Tea Party.
Of course you can "remind" me of anything you want but it doesn't make it so. The same way you can tell yourself that it's ethical to not repay money that you borrowed and agreed to repay. I don't enjoy paying my mortgage but I do it because I agreed to do so and my word and my honor means something to me. As far as the evil raping and murdering rich, many rich people have become so by providing products and services to consumers who can choose not to buy them. I take issue with those rich who use their influence to abscond with my hard earned tax money to subsidize their own irresponsibility. If you are unhappy with the actions of certain companies, then don't shop there. I have an extensive list of companies that I perpetually boycott, and some of them have gone out of business because they suck. That's the beauty of real capitalism, the consumer (you) are the soveriegn power (the boss)! The issue is the government which we cannot choose to boycott, but we can choose to vote for who we believe in. Frankly I would prefer better choices but that's the way it is for now. Take it or leave it, but it shows how cannibalistic some people become when they encounter differing viewpoints and immediately assume that you're a Tea Party member. If this movement is going to expand, it needs to cut back on the thought police! It is
You have a very good point. The value of money, beyond gold, is one's word. Prior to gold and silver being attributed value all there were - were tokens representing an IOU. Back then the token only meant something as a means of exchange if you were true to your word. So I agree that one's honor is the true holder of value. I think the point that may be getting lost here, is that there is inherently very little honor in usury, or charging exhorbitant interest for a loan, for taking advantage of the customer every chance a corporation gets. Because of the law that says "corporations must act SOLELY in the interest of shareholders." the customer is considered a commodity. That is where "consumer" comes from. So customers end up feeling "used" and "taken advantage of" a great majority of the time. You might say that we have a choice to spend money elsewhere. Yes I agree, to an extent we could only shop at sole proprietorships. But corporations dominate the world. Show me a sole proprietorship that makes and sells it's own underwear, or gives out loans, or has a grocery store? These are rare. But the truth remains, stop supporting publicly held corporations and some of the problems will disappear. How many corporations have had big scandals for dubious accounting over the years? Thousands, they had to show growth for their shareholders because the law says so. And those ones are ONLY the ones that were caught. Corporations have ZERO honor. Their word means nothing to anyone EXCEPT the shareholder. PERIOD. The film "the corporation" makes a great case for corporations as psychopathic. And that is part of what this boils down to. They are viruses. Because of subsidiaries and conglomerates, YOU COULD BE SHOPPING THERE AND NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF IT. Good luck boycotting them then. It used to be that marketing and sales were considered separate disciplines. Then some companies began to mix the two. Marketing has much more to do with market forecasting, and research and development then just sales. Take Apple for example. There is no one selling their products(besides perhaps the happy customer). You go to an apple store, and there are people there to answer your questions. That is it. The computers sells themselves. You go to a car dealership, it is a very different experience isn't it? They push the product on you. That is the difference between marketing and sales. Apple is a great company because THEY CARE ABOUT THEIR CUSTOMERS AS MUCH AS THE SHAREHOLDER. That is ETHICAL. Problem is there are very few ethical people and far fewer ethical companies out there. The fact is, customers do not have the power anymore in this country because "the customer is always right" is no longer a maxim companies live by. They only care about draining the customers money any way they can. And if the only way everyone will wake up and do something IS TO STOP PAYING A MORTGAGE, SO BE IT!
So maybe you're not a tea party cretin. Instead, you are another one of those free-market cultists that thinks all our problems are resolved if only we bow down in abject obeisance to the free market. Get your head out of the cotton candy clouds you're so fond of. This movement is about how all the wealth is sucked from the middle class and funneled to the 1% and you seem to be just fine with that (or oblivious). So I don't care for either your ethics or your false free-market philosophies.
And how is the money "funneled" from the middle class? One of two ways; either the middle class freely pays for products and services offered to them by companies owned or controlled by the rich, or the government steals the money from the middles class and gives it to the wealthy because of their political connections and influence. I have no issue with the first method, because ultimately it's up to the individual whether or not to spend their money in a truly free market. The second is an illegitimate and immoral use of Govt coercion to support their political corruption, not the free market. In a free market you have authority over and are responsible for what happens to your money and have noone to blame when you go broke and busted. Perhaps that's why you don't like the freedom that the free market offers. This movement would be much better served by embracing the market as is and working within it to effect change through boycotts. It's much more feasible that demanding the total collapse of capitalism overnight. Who really has their head in the cotton candy clouds? Get real!
OWS will bring about a government of, by, and for We the People. Your free market is a tool of the 1% just like you.
What kind of government will it be? We already have a government "of, by, and for We the People." However, "We the People" have allowed our governing body to grow to a ridiculous size. The government is no longer for the people. It is now for the personal interest of the elected politicians. Increasing the power of the federal government will only increase the problems that we face with lobbying, corruption, and damaging legislation.
Quick question, How do you believe wealth is funneled from the 99% to the 1%. because I am with you on that point.
Since the wealthy have the advantage of owning the means of production, the banks, the oil, the grocery chains, they need only raise prices and keep wages flat to funnel more wealth to themselves. What slugs like EMunny don't understand is that Society does not exist for the sake of the wealthy. Any money they have was created by the government of We the People to be used as a medium of exchange, a tool of society. And while it serves to reward hard work, it also acts as a corrupting influence. Having the equivalent of a life-time of wages makes you a free man. Imagine having the equivalent of several life-times. Now you can own the time of other men. They will labor for you but the products and the profits will be yours! With some the urge for profit is so great that the need to accumulate wealth at the expense of their fellow man rises above all ethical considerations. This is America's problem in summary.
well put. Do you have any understanding of the money side of the problem? Specifically the difference between money and legal tender or how banks create funds using signatures of living breathing men and women?? Because I think that is a tool we could use to beat them at their own game.
Maybe you should personal message me instead of using the comments here. I'm no OWS insider but I'd be interested in your opinions. You seem to be saying that debt can be used to create funds, but doesn't that depend on how the debt is payed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAdsdlq42nE
And what is your political affiliation, ethical Sir?
A healthy blend of Left Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Socialist.
Scum?? Why you gotta go there? Jerk!
I didn't say, nor would I ever say, "scum".
Okay.
Cry me a river, EMunny.
Funny how people always cry when rich people have to pay a little more, but don't give a shit when normal people lose their houses.
A little more, then a little more, a little more, then a little more...I'm no mathematician but eventually there will be nothing left to pay salaries. And of course we feel bad about people losing their houses but realistically what is anyone able to do about it. Eventually everyone has to take responsibility for their actions, face the music, and pay the piper. If someone borrows money, they need to pay it back. First and foremost these banks and companies that borrowed off the taxpayer and/or received bailouts!
We all know what a profit margin is, how much some people think they need to be, which is always more. Not at all necessary, and on the topic of ethics when exactly did it become a-ok to be an absolute Asshole as long as the profit margin is growing? When did it become acceptable to waste taxpayers money like they have been?
Hey, if your beef is with the misuse of taxpayer money, then this show is in the wrong town. However, you occupiers won't head to the white house because as the rest of us are finding out, these protests are being organized and directed by the liberal elite who support Obama.
I never wanted these banks to get bailouts I thought they should have let them go out of business. Fuck Them. One thing that always bothered me is the idea that debt in good standing can be sold. I didn't get into a contractual relationship with just any company. I chose well because I care. So when they sell my debt it feels like I should not have to continue paying because I had no say in the matter...
The problem with socialism is that, eventually, you run out of other people's money.
Exactly! That's why we are in the financial mess that we are in today, $15T in debt. Thanks Karl Marx.
Tell that to the banks who got the bailouts! White-collar socialism.
One shouldn't take a loan one cannot pay.
Banks should not be allowed to loan out nine times the amount of customer deposits they have on hand, and at exorbitant interest. That is money they don't even have. It's not even real money. The real criminal is the bank. ALWAYS always always.
everyone feels bad when someone loses their house. who's obligation is it to pay for it? Who signed the mortgage obligation to repay the loan? Please - how about some accountablility
I would never mortgage or finance anything over $30,000. unless I was renting it out for equity. I would just pay cash or not buy it at all. But that is me. Not everyone has my sensibility.
I DO KNOW we need a national credit union.
right - so who's responsibility is it to repay a loan?
the crisis was not a natural disaster, but the result of high risk, complex financial products; undisclosed conflicts of interest; and the failure of regulators, the credit rating agencies, and the market itself to rein in the excesses of Wall Street. The crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve’s failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ETHICS at all levels.
and
how about the people who borrowed to buy a house with the intention to flip it for profit? Do they need to be held accountable ?
I think losing the full amount of their investment qualifies as being held accountable.
Did you have something more in mind?
no - thats it. why isn't OWS talking about them alongside the banks?
I am of the opinion that OWS is a million voices.
it depends who you talk to.
[Deleted]
[Deleted]
Then what's with the commie lable. Lose it man!
Please humor me so there is no misunderstanding... What commie label?
Read Emunny's comment above
I'm sorry, I thought this was an apolitical movement and forum. What does it matter?
What is ethical about using force to confiscate ones earnings to give to another?
You raise a very good point which was going to be my next post... Only what is legal in taxes. Nothing more.
nah, It's about taking and giving to those that didnt earn it
What about the Madoff's of the world? Did he earn it?
There are laws against what Madoff did, which is why he is currently in jail. Mentions of theft are not evidence in support of wealth redistribution.
I meant WHAT ABOUT the Madoff's of the world WHO AREN'T in Jail. There are thousands and thousands of white collar criminals stealing the people's money and looting this country and that is fundamentally what people are pissed off about. They don't get prosecuted and get away WITH TRILLIONS of dollars.
Who are these thieves and how are they stealing money?
That is why I am saying ETHICS is the problem. Because it doesnt matter what system you have, political or economic, if there is no ethics taught to the citizens.
From "ENRON:Smartest guys in the room" to the FEDERAL RESERVE to personnel in the black budget of the govt, to Many CEO's of various companies you see in the news all the time... Many of these guys get away scott free. I recognize the government is one thing the private sector is another. But many many executives at fortune 500 companies are pure criminals.
There will always be criminals, whether you are referring to the public sector or the private sector; however, redistribution will not put an end to this. I would also like examples of these "many many executives." I feel that you can only provide those which have been mentioned in most media outlets.
I don't think there will always be criminals. The mammal brain existed long before the neocortex and it understands how to deal with (I will use a Jungian term here) "shadow". So, you create community, rites of passage, and a lifestyle centered on belonging rather then alienation, and have healthy outlets for shadow like self-examination. There is a reason other empires, from ancient greece to tribal societies, had formal ways of creating community and dealing with shadow through rites of passage and initiation. (secular ceremony) They did these things because it allowed for a healthier individual and group psychology and allowed everyone to feel included. Inclusion is the most important factor in creating community, If someone feels left out, the community never becomes a true community, it remains less then it could become. That is where we are right now in terms of a NATION. Solutions to conflict always arise out of finding a higher common ground. The solution exists is a realm that is inaccessible unless we are WILLING to entertain a new possibility that integrates and transcends both diverse points of view and sometimes conflicting points of view through communication about the conflict and deeper understanding of each other's needs. Just like you do in relationship counseling except on a much larger scale.
The brain can be divided many ways, but the model I like the most is left-right, then as you said, brain stem up to mammal limbic system, up to neocortex. the limbic brain and reptilian brain is where our unconscious mind resides. Ceremony is a way to communicate with the unconscious mind to bring about a change in consciousness, behavior, and new levels of maturity. Our society is lacking in maturity because we have forgotten that emotional maturity happens in sudden leaps and bounds rather then gradually over time. And so we do not provide the individual wit any recognition by the community as having passed a threshold in maturity or having moved to a new stage of life. This is a matter of honor and it is sad that as a community we only do this in a religious context. There is no law saying we cannot have secular ceremony. I do not think of emotion as color, at all, but I know what you mean. This can be taken to a an extreme and then you have synaesthesia, seeing sound, and hearing color. Many of these genetic variances are treasure troves of data that explain how human beings are different and how we are similar. But I like to find common ground or at least try to. As far as your comment about being too diverse, I think it is that WE ARE TOO LAZY to expend the time and effort required to form a bond with someone so different from ourselves. A word about ceremony: I am speaking more about rituals that have meaning to both the group and the individual. Modern ceremony has been reduced to a dead language of pomp and circumstance with no meaning for the individual. Here is a group that does some of this work http://mankindproject.org/ but I think we need this for younger people and teens. Rather then waiting until they are rebelling, which is their job as a teen, we ought to honor them by recognizing they are at a certain stage in a ceremony with the community, without religion involved. This could be seen as an honor rather then as a chore. The adults could offer insight and stories and people could say the positive strengths they saw in the teen. It doesn't have to be a grandiose thing. you could have a potluck afterward. No big deal. It is an opportunity for the teen's mind to recognize a threshhold and allow for a leap in maturity.
There will always be criminals. All animals have some form of criminal behavior, and humans are no exception. We have inherent emotions that some individuals allow to take control. It is impossible to prevent all crime, regardless of how "wonderful" you perceive your society/community to be.
SirPoeticJustice has proffered a wonderful introduction to the meaning of community and ethics here, which has been in many ways uprooted from our current notions of society and daily life. These are the questions I think we need to start asking ourselves, in this country as well as around the world: What does ethics really mean (at this point - i.e. people may not even be familiar with ethics as a conscious standard in their lives) and can we reintroduce an awareness of ethics into common social dialogue, so that people ask themselves, what is ethical to me personally? What is moral? What would I personally accept or reject and what is a possible overarching standard of ethics for the nation that is secular and general enough not to be invested in a particular belief system? So perhaps this is about redefining an ethics for the current times, in a way that is just and well-considered and from the true power of the people, which is something coming from Within. That is what's missing from our education systems, but even from our family upbringing much of the time. Often morality is conferred as a matter of personal opinion or imposed cultural "norm," reaction to past trauma, or as a means of control. It can be misused due to collective psychosis - which is more prevalent than collective sanity at this point. My personal stance is that ethics comes from what is sustaining the thriving of life force, dignity, free will, and true power humans and all life forms on this planet have a birthright to. If "ethics" is misunderstood and taught to people in a way that blinds them, takes advantage of, usurps, controls or manipulates, it is not truly ethical because it is being done out of greed rather than true power. We need to re-understand ethics and bring it back to the table.
In terms of community, we need to recreate a valuable and genuine template of what true community could look like. Perhaps there could be many templates, but they also must be based on ethics and a deep respect for the individual that is recognized within the fabric of community through mutual respect, commitment, dedication and forms of exchange. We need to educate/re-educate ourselves on what this looks like and really means. Maybe with the help of first nation people/ indigenous people world wide, and their community and tribal government models.