Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The RIGHT View for For Occupy Wall St Movement!

Posted 2 years ago on Oct. 5, 2011, 3:11 p.m. EST by riethc (1149)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

When visiting my usual news blogging website, I came across an article about a bunch of hippies living in Zuccotti Park (which they had the audacity to rename!) who were demanding things that made my blood boil!

Now I like to think of myself as an independent and objective thinker, so, to verify the information, I clicked on the link to the demands, and there it was, officially on the Occupy Wall Street website, proposed demands that would make a Rothschild snicker. (I also concurred that these must be the real demands since they fit all my preconceived notions of the movement; that it is composed of dirty hippies, left-wing nutjobs, etc.)

I knew from there what had to be done. I posted comments and sent out e-mails all night about how these fools were playing right into the hands of global bankers and Obama. I must have gone on for hours, and late in the evening, my fingers exhausted I went to bed.

Unable to sleep, I rolled in bed, pondering how to save this movement of useful idiots from falling into the trap of Statism and I pulled out my notepad and wrote up a new list of views that I now, do not propose, but DEMAND you take up.

The RIGHT views for Occupy Wall Street:

  1. Gold is money

My friends and I have been hoarding this yellow stuff like crazy. I know what you are thinking. The IMF has a majority of the world’s gold reserves, but, what I have to say is that at least those of us with a few ounces will have something to trade when the fiat currencies collapses.

  1. Vote Ron Paul 2012

Ron Paul is the messiah, you know. He doesn’t get any mainstream attention in the media, except when he does. He’s the dark horse and we all know the dark horse, like the Dark Knight, is the good guy.

  1. Austrian economics is King

Since I only know about two forms of economics, Austrian and Keynesian, and since Keynesian is failing, Austrian must be the right one. I once heard rumors of an American economic system, but then I heard it had something to do with Alexander Hamilton and that he had something to do with central banking, which is, of course, always bad.

67 Comments

67 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by noahtron (48) from Montreal, QC 2 years ago

this is not about supporting a particular person. this is about coming to a consensus about what needs to change, and then incessantly demanding that the change be enacted. and it must stay that way.

[-] 2 points by AN0NYM0US (640) 2 years ago

Those aren't our demands, those are the demands of one person, just as your very short-sighted demands are only your demands.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Yep, that was what I was trying to say.

[-] 2 points by Fallspring (30) from Silver Spring, MD 2 years ago

i am sure liberals did make your blood boil. but i do not think this is a libertarian movement. it is a left wing movement.

[-] 3 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 2 years ago

Let me make one correction, it is not a left wing or right wing anything. this is the people of this nation trying to fix what wall street and the government screwed up.

The people do not have a political affiliation, but the person does and because this movement is made of a lot of individual persons the moment covers all things and can not be corralled in to nice neat little boxes to catalog it.

[-] 1 points by Jolibear (47) from Greenfield, MA 2 years ago

Nicely put!

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 2 years ago

I've only heard of a few solutions from Occupiers. The rest has been re-garbled garbage from half-ill-informed people.

WHAT are the solutions? WHAT has to occur for Occupiers to leave? Instead of making demands, I've suggested to actually List the Crimes that have been committed and by whom, so that we can charge them and they can have a Trial by Jury to declare them innocent/guilty.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I like that idea.

[-] 1 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 2 years ago

Everyone has their own demands, and right now the group as a whole is trying to narrow those down to a list people can agree on. there is no "official" list as of now.

[-] 1 points by IndependentVoice (19) 2 years ago

Give an example of one of the crimes.

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 2 years ago

Crime: Treason / Who: All members of Congress / How: Not abiding by their Oath by not fulfilling their duty of coining our money.

See, not hard to do at all.

If occupiers don't know of any crimes that occured, why are occupiers there and what are they there for?

[-] 1 points by IndependentVoice (19) 2 years ago

Well, if Congress is at fault, why aren't you occupying the Capitol?

[-] 1 points by Reigne (175) 2 years ago

You asked for an example, I gave you one. IF congress was doing their job, the FRB would not be operating here. I'm not occupying the Capitol because I'm Occupying Harrisburg in Penn Try as I might, I have yet to physically be in 2 places at once ;o)

[-] 1 points by gawdoftruth (3698) from Santa Barbara, CA 2 years ago

gold standard is impossible because there is not enough gold to represent the money. ron paul is a wingnut and certainly not a messiah. Hes not the good guy hes the bumble clown, electing him would be a tragedy for this country. You only know about two forms of economics and you think you are in a position to give us all advice on ANYTHING? to get serious requires a few things they don't have. like chat admins who aren't ego serving propaganda tools, a wiki, 1001 sub forums, an actual game plan, a straight up political platform... you know.. basic organizational things sane people do BEFORE protesting.. like figure out a diplomacy and logic centered metaprocess to give their chatadmins so that they don't really just drive out even more people than the trolls. Adminatrolla. trollaAdmin. Whats the difference to somebody whos got the truth facing a propaganda tool abusing admin powers to push their agenda? how can you prevent such a thing? Metaprocess. did i mention metaprocess? and science diplomacy science psychology science sociology and all those textbooks to read B4 protesting?

you can't have capitalism without a free(SLAVE) market. but you can have a free market without capitalism. And thats strangely the only way it CAN work.

Marketing 101 was fascinating. I admit thats a lot less than a bachelors but its sure more than enough to see whats really going on given the other things I know. Capitalism is not the problem since it does not exist. corporate oligarchy is the problem. capitalism has never been tried. I am a democracy guy. in order for real democracy to function a free market system is required. Thats not capitalism. thats a free market system. there is a subtle difference there which most people would miss. I will again repeat. Neither capitalism nor marxism nor communism nor socialism has ever existed. All of those governments were oligarchy pretending to be something as a con scam. Telling that simple truth gets one banned out of the Chat by either a capitalist or a socialist whos pissed you just said their pet ideology isn't real. It isn't. anybody who thinks that it is is accidentally playing for team corporate oligarchy as a tool. the ONLY system worth talking about is DEMOCRACY. how democracy HANDLES a FREE MARKET system is dynamic and interesting and NOT capitalism.

o. yes. no. yes. what? making change is not reliant on changing the money system one tenth as much as it is on changing the informational ecology. Going to a gold standard as an idea is a proof of ignorance, not a solution. Really the end game is we evolve out of money. To do that we evolve first new currencies and new economic strategies. this leads to economic singularity in about 50 years. If everyone is a millionaire how much you get depends on exactly the material valuation of that money. Which is to say that by the time money becomes obsolete everyone will live like the current millionaire. Tangible items to other tangible items? the real economy is about ideas, change the ideas and everything changes. the problem with the tangible economy is it does not change; its a static reality. you can't make a meaningful gold standard with only enough gold to represent on millionth of the economy. You can make a purely imaginal money system work; but it has to be subject to moral and ethical laws. This is about pinning down those moral and ethical laws and implementing them in new currencies; not trying to imagine a control freak impossible non solution because of the simplicity with which you go about thinking over the problem.

once again. there has never been a socialist or capitalist economy. in all instances such nations were oligarchies. using a mask and a con scam and telling their dupes and pwns that they were something other than oligarchy. the big hump to get over is that the USA oligarchy and the Soviet oligarchy are in on this lie against the rest of us TOGETHER. Neither of them was ever anything other than an oligarchy. both claimed some other system in order to have US fight over the ideals of THAT system while they secretly shafted us all playing a completely different game.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/stop-playing-the-devils-games/

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150343790359248&set=a.10150264906064248.348293.511989247&type=1&theater

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

The whole thing was sarcastic, a bit of humor.

[-] 1 points by eric1 (152) from Corona, CA 2 years ago

Ron Paul is at heart a laissez faire capitalist and although I appreciate some of his views, particularly with respect to the Federal Reserve, his brand of capitalism is largely responsible for the mess we're now in(repeal of Glass-Steagall, unregulated derivatives market etc. etc.).

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 2 years ago

Read End the Fed by Ron Paul. He opposed removing Glass-Steagall.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-05-26/ron-paul-change-the-philosophy-of-government/

[-] 1 points by eric1 (152) from Corona, CA 2 years ago

Well then I recant my statement that he is laissez faire. Said that based on his libertarian credentials. Thanks for the info concernedcitizen.

[-] 1 points by concernedcitizen (121) 2 years ago

Sure. I think that you'll find Ron Paul is one of the most honest politicians around for the past 30 years...

[-] 1 points by scotths (8) from Johnson City, TN 2 years ago

God bless all of you in this movement............

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

God bless America

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

It's sarcasm, people.

It's how you try to discredit ideas when you don't have the intellectual equipment to refute them.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

I'm surprised by how many people did not get the sarcasm. I hope that they get it later.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

It's trivial to refute fundamentalist "free market" ideas. You can do it by looking at history, by using logic, or by simply using the internal inconsistencies of it.

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

Fine, then do it.

My point is that everyone is being taken in by a sarcastic post as if it were real.

It's not.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Where would you like me to start?

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

With property rights.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Okay, well property rights are something that we can't measure scientifically. It is a moral statement, so I assume that you can argue why property rights should exist?

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

Can't measure scientifically?

You create something, I confiscate it. No special instrumentation required, really.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

You don't create something, but are inherited the land. You use your inheritance to rule over those who are more intelligent than you. Doesn't seem fair to me.

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

Sorry, I don't understand that sentence.

I create stuff every day. And sell my products and services to people who desire them. I give them a good deal, they trust me, they like me, they look forward to dealing with me. My work enhances their lives, and their work enhances mine when I buy their creations. We treat each other as we like to be treated, and only on terms we both find agreeable.

What ELSE could be fair?

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

Sure, but who's arguing with that? The problem is that the majority of the wealth in this country is held by people who don't work, by people who don't enhance the lives of others, and who don't create.

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

Can't disagree with that.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Ron Paul is correct on a couple of major points and bat-sht in many other (like nearly every political party or leader). End the wars, bring the military home to defend america,. dismantle the extra military junk left over from the 900 bases around the world,. This is a major issue Ron Paul is correct about! but deregulation of EVERYTHING is asinine,. what keeps banksters, mega corporations, in check under the Paul plan? The mythical invisible hand?? Yeah, that has proven to not quite work at all,. .

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

Regulations created by the federal government are designed to benefit a Fascist environment and favor transnational corporations. Regulation is the power to control and when you CONTROL THE ENTIRE GOD DAMNED ECONOMY, what do you think is going to happen to the people in that economy? Regulation created the Federal Reserve, which is the third time its been put in existence here. Benjamin Franklin said the Central Bank(of England) was the prime cause for revolution. Burr, Thomas Jefferson's vice-President shot the original Central Bank architect (Alexander Hamilton) and killed him in a duel. Andrew Jackson survived an assasination attempt and killed the second Central Bank, on his deathbed his last words were "I killed the Bank!", The Fed Reserve, which is a private corporation that controls our entire money supply was created while congress was on christmas break! Congressman Louis McFadden was killed after 3 assassination attempts because he wanted to try the Fed Reserve Board for treason! 20% of our President's have either been assassinated or almost died because they stood up to the Central Bank money masters. We no longer have free markets, we are Fascist (fascism=corporatism), there is a difference! If you think the solution is more debt then you are the problem. Debt is the power to destroy! People who say Ron Paul is batshit are the people who don't know how to think for themselves and say what they are told as good loyal slaves that listen to the TV for all their answers. In order to restore our country, we need to focus on STATES enacting legislation for themselves and not have a federal entity dictate what everyone should do. Letting 50 states try their own systems will produce more innovation than one far away entity, this is proven with our history and the history of the world. WAKE UP! We are in a cycle that's lasted for thousands of years.

Fractional Reserve Banking is the most dangerous instrument ever devised. This is NOT NEW! Our founding Fathers knew about this and were very outspoken about it! The only difference now is they are trying to do things in secrecy because the Central Bank failed twice before. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SO HEAVY HANDED AT THE PROTESTS! This is why this protest is different, it hits home at the heart of banking.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

er,. yeah, I agree the private fed is a sham,. major monetary reform is needed,. likely the scraping of the current money-as-debt system for a more equal interest free public system. Resource based,. or other??

"People who say Ron Paul is batshit are the people who don't know how to think for themselves and say what they are told as good loyal slaves that listen to the TV for all their answers."

Easy killer,. what about his batsht deregulate everything stance? You know" regulations like if say,. you run a factory, you can not just dump any chemical soup wast product into our water supply. People who make household electric products,. say a lamp, must meet standards of quality to stop houses burning down, or regulations like, if you are a bank and you lend money you actually must first have this money!

Like I said, Ron Paul is right about a few things, but he makes up for it by being completely wrong around others,. we need some systems in place (regulations) to stop fools from killing as all,. toxic factories, food producers, child care workers, nuclear energy plants, and so on,. .

No rulers, No masters, No leaders!

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

If a factory pollutes your property, you have the right to protect your property through litigation. That is the purpose of property rights, to protect what is yours from damage. How is this solution not the best? When you regulate everything you regulate to engineer things a certain way, which becomes politically driven (Pharmaceuticals kill 800,000 people per year in the USA, staggering no? How have those regulations helped? They only give an official seal on the products making it harder to sue or link debilitating disease. Even so, some regulation might be deemed necessary, but where should this regulation come from? Why should it come from a government body that has no connection to our daily lives or communities and is just used as a tool by the elites in their unquenching globalist greed for power?) The USDA and FDA systematically raid organic food growers for "violating regulations" in a bid to force us all to eat poisonous GMO food. Regulations are the power to destroy by those in power. This is fact and because of that, your philosophy of government control of our lives is inherently flawed. A government that governs least governs best -Thomas Jefferson. It is the regulations that are used to destroy the middle class, not the other way around. STOP THINKING THE GOVERNMENT IS YOUR PARENT, it doesn't work and it is constitutionally wrong to think that way. I think public schools have caused most of America to be completely retarded...sigh The government has incrementally taken away our rights over a span of 100 years through regulations, how can you not see this? Are you a frog in an incrementally boiling pot of water than just dies? Or perhaps you are a frog just realizing hes getting cooked and don't know how to deal with it? Instead of blaming the lack of government, blame the excessives of government. More regulation and less government are like oil and water, you can't have it both ways, where do you stand?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

"How is this solution not the best?" If we am a not a land owners (the vast majority of us!!!) then we have no rights by your silly corporatist system. Yes, Ron Paul is a corporatist. "THE GOVERNMENT IS YOUR PARENT" No, WE are the government,. the government is to express our collective will,. this is what is broken, and this is what these protests are about! Why you RP people buy into the rhetoric of deregulation and drowning the gov. in the bath,. and not seeing that removing regulations on banks and corporations will free them to screw you even more, is amazing to me.

Yes, I do agree with you that the regulation have been co-opted by the corporation for many years,. but you are missing the point that deregulation is what started the banking failure,. and massive environmental destruction.

[-] 1 points by bethechange2012 (54) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It is quite clear that the current regulatory environment is not keeping banksters, mega corporations, etc. in check. The very reason we're in the crisis we're in today is because the government tried to regulate the market instead of allowing it to take its natural course. Bailouts, stimulus money, all of these government interventions are the reason that we find ourself in this financial mess. The government and the fed (who are on the same team) are feeding the 1%; why are we demanding MORE regulation, MORE power?

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

You seem to see only the crimes of the corrupted in government,. what about the crimes of the corporations/bankers? Have you seen any of these? how do you propose to remove regulation and keep them in check? !?

We the people are what the government is supposed to represent, you know the "will of the people". We know this has not been happening, if you actually read the opinion poles, you find that people are quite reasonable,. and support many reasonable positions,. however, when you look at government policy it is most often diametrically opposed to public opinion. This bit of knowledge tells us that we no longer have a democracy.

Yes, the right wing gets in government,. does the best they can to brake it,. and then they point and say "look gov. is broken lets get rid of it",. "drowned it in the bath!" Once the corporate thieves have been removed from our collective decision making (government),. we can enforce the regulationsd and keep them in check.

"Bailouts, stimulus money, all of these government interventions are the reason that we find ourself in this financial mess." Really? We had a bail out for banks because we wanted to create this mess?? No,. I think you will recall that there ALREADY was a mess,. before any action was taken,. the banksters had already messed it up big!! (due to an utter lack of oversight, regulations, and humanity), The bailouts and stimulus where of course stupid, and just piled money on the money they already had stolen, and they quickly shifted this new free (stolen) money off shore,. and into the gated compounds they enjoy. This is due to our collective reasoning (government) having already been taken over by the banksters and corporate power brokers. We need to take back control for ourselves,. Deregulation is a pro-corporate position.

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

A strong government that is instituted to make you a "subject" rather than a citizen doesn't work. A far away government with a Department of Justice that fires its OWN LAWYERS because they want to prosecute the banks. Hmm, tell me how this helps? If the government IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS IT IS FASCIST! A Fascist government represents CORPORATIONS, NOT its human citizens. How can something that represent corporations at your personal expense be better if it's larger rather than smaller? You can't sue telecommunications companies for spying on you, Sprint alone gave away 8million gps coordinate locations alone in 2009 to law enforcement and Washington signed into law immunity against law. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT HELPING US? What about regulations that allow martial law in time of economic distress>? Just who the fuck do you think is getting regulated here? US, WE THE CATTLE WE THE SHEEPLE, WAKE UP ALREADY SHIT! Local government=easier to fix, federal government = revolution to fix, take all that public school and throw it out your head, youve been engineered to be brainwashed."A government that governs least governs best" - Thomas Jefferson. Either listen to what your founding fathers warned us about and WARNED US ABOUT FASCISM AND CENTRAL BANKS, THIS SHIT ISNT NEW! THIS IS A 700 YEAR WAR AGAINST BANKERS, stop being a drone.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 2 years ago

Using ALL CAPS make you right? How does your "government that governs least" regulate massive corporate wealth controlling and manipulation the people?? Ron Paul and those that want to deregulate everything are the corporatists pure and simple. Once you remove the government where is the oversight and regulation to protect us? Yes the current system is corporately controlled that is what this is all about!

[-] 1 points by bethechange2012 (54) from New York, NY 2 years ago

"You seem to see only the crimes of the corrupted in government,. what about the crimes of the corporations/bankers?" My point is that they're one in the same; government is in bed with corporate. I understand the need to keep corporations in check--there are thieves on Wall Street that need to be in jail for fraud. But those people are allowed to continue running their businesses unchecked because the politicians that we are asking to pass more regulations have been bought out by the very corporations that they are claiming to regulate. So as long as these people are still running the show, there will never be a regulation (though I'm sure they will try to use this movement to push more of the same big government agenda...and this is on BOTH sides of our screwed up political system) that will fairly represent the American 99%. The answer is decentralizing the federal government and restoring the states' rights to the extend that our founding fathers intended.

[-] 1 points by GammaPoint (400) from Oakland, CA 2 years ago

I believe riethc was trying to use satire here to poke fun at the very monolithic views of many of the Ron Paul supporters. I don't think this post was meant to be taken seriously.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

Yay, you got it!

[-] 1 points by iseeamuse (155) 2 years ago

It is dangerous to speak knowingly about a subject and then to belie your own ignorance in the same speech. If you only know of two economic models, then do not speak as if you have the answers to the entire human problem. This is a chance for discussion and conversation, to teach and to learn, and hopefully come out with a solution that works for everyone.

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

There's already a movement for that. It's called "Ron Paul for President." I suggest you go join your ignorant friends over at www.ronpaul2012.com, because you have nothing in common with us.

We here support government. We demand more taxes on those who can afford them, more regulation of the markets, and more prosecution of white-collar crime. We believe in real solutions to real problems. And we will realize a better world because of it.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

It's called sarcasm, my dear.

[-] 1 points by RG32 (81) 2 years ago

Why do you support a government that you readily admit has been corrupted by Wall Street and the corporations? If the government is 50% of the problem, then why support government which has failed us?

Many OWS protesters think that government is the problem as much as Wall Street and the corporations are the problem. Why do you disagree?

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

I don't agree that the government is 50% of the problem. I maintain that government is 100% of the solution.

A strong government is the only way to check the destructive power of the unfettered market. I believe in holding our elected leaders accountable; thankfully there are procedures for doing so. I also believe in holding Wall Street accountable; but, without government, there are no procedures for doing so. That's why OWS protesters are demanding that government hold Wall Street accountable. Insofar as we criticize government, it is because it has not been doing a satisfactory job on that front. We will hold our representatives accountable for failing to hold Wall Street accountable. But we will continue to support government and demand higher taxes for the rich, stronger regulation of the market, and more prosecution of white-collar crime, because this is the only means for holding Wall Street accountable.

[-] 1 points by RG32 (81) 2 years ago

Sister Ray, I think that you and I probably would come up with a very similar list of problems that this country is facing and are both equally pissed off. What we view to be the solutions of these problems, however, are in opposition with one another. I would like to think mine is more evolved, but that is just my opinion not fact.

The course of human history is a testament to the fact that concentrating power in the hands of government inevitably leads to corruption and oppression. Our country was founded on the principles of the Constitution for exactly this reason. Our Founding Fathers were very aware of the dangers of concentrated governmental power.

Furthermore, the government is 100% incapable of restraining and regulating corporate greed because they have been bought off and paid for. The regulators are the corporations. Obama's administration is littered with Goldman Sachs alumni and corporate titans. This is undeniable.

The problem is not capitalism. We have not been a capitalist country for a long time. We are a crony capitalist country which is on the verge of fascism. All of our lives could be dramatically improved if we ended the private, banker controlled Federal Reserve and took back much of the government's power and returned it to the people in their communities.

The free market, when it is not subsidized by anti-competitive government policies, and not bailed out by the Fed and the Treasury has an elegant method of weeding out bad actors - the choice and the consent of the people. In a truly free economic system it would be impossible for corporations and individuals to get ahead as a result of unbridled greed, dishonesty, duplicity and underhandedness. They would quickly lose the choice and consent of the people, and would be driven out of business.

More government will never create equality, justice, or economic vibrancy. It just leads to more corruption, less freedom, and crony capitalism where the government is run by and for the corporations.

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

We do indeed have very different understandings of how to solve our country's problems. Yours are indeed more radical than mine, which I don't think is a particularly positive trait -- I believe in an Occam's razor approach to political action, according to which that which accomplishes the most good by the fewest, mildest changes is to be preferred.

But if you're going to adopt a radical view, it should at least be one that is supposed to result in a better world. What I find so shocking about the anti-government views you're advocating (and which have become quite popular recently due to the mainstreaming of the fringe right) is that not only are they utopian, but the utopia they envision strikes me as most undesirable. It's not just that I find your proposed means unrealistic; I find your proposed end most undesirable.

If you think the free market can do no wrong, then I don't see what there is to criticize politicians for when they listen to moneyed interests. Isn't that just the free market doing what it does, i.e. putting dollars where they can be most effective at increasing individual profit? If the market has its own checks on greed and dishonesty, then wouldn't corporations who lobby politicians lose the choice and consent of the people in the present system? Why are those corporations that lobby politicians still in business? Is it at all plausible that CEOs are more responsive to the choice and consent of the people than the people's own elected officials are? Can anyone believe that corporations are more transparent than democratic governments are? Is there any economist in the world who thinks that free markets favor equality and justice?

No. A world in which government is powerless and the free market dictates all would be an unstable world of extreme inequality, in which the powerful pursue their narrow self-interest at the expense of the powerless.

To be sure, the concentration of power in government in order to check the forces of the unfettered free market poses its own problems. But the problem has never been the concentration of power itself; the problem is the concentration of power without checks and balances, without processes for holding those who wield power accountable.

[-] 1 points by IndependentVoice (19) 2 years ago

Maybe it's the size of the government that is creating more opportunities for corruption. They have their hands on the pursestrings. They pass out the favors. The bigger and more intrusive the government, the more favors they can dole out.

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

The smaller and less intrusive the government, the more powerful Wall Street is to exploit your labor and leave you for dead.

A strong government is the only way to check the destructive power of the unfettered market.

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

A strong government that is instituted to make you a "subject" rather than a citizen doesn't work. A far away government with a Department of Justice that fires its OWN LAWYERS because they want to prosecute the banks. Hmm, tell me how this helps? If the government IS OWNED BY CORPORATIONS IT IS FASCIST! A Fascist government represents CORPORATIONS, NOT its human citizens. How can something that represent corporations at your personal expense be better if it's larger rather than smaller? You can't sue telecommunications companies for spying on you, Sprint alone gave away 8million gps coordinate locations alone in 2009 to law enforcement and Washington signed into law immunity against law. HOW THE FUCK IS THAT HELPING US? What about regulations that allow martial law in time of economic distress>? Just who the fuck do you think is getting regulated here? US, WE THE CATTLE WE THE SHEEPLE, WAKE UP ALREADY SHIT! Local government=easier to fix, federal government = revolution to fix, take all that public school and throw it out your head, youve been engineered to be brainwashed."A government that governs least governs best" - Thomas Jefferson. Either listen to what your founding fathers warned us about and WARNED US ABOUT FASCISM AND CENTRAL BANKS, THIS SHIT ISNT NEW! THIS IS A 700 YEAR WAR AGAINST BANKERS, stop being a drone.

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

There is something legitimate in some of what you say in this rant, but a lot that's just silly.

A government that is owned by corporations is not fascist. Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Corporations tend to have little interest in authoritarianism (they want the freedom to conduct business as they see fit, not as some politician tells them to), and corporations tend to have little interest in nationalism now that we're in a globalized world. Indeed, fascist regimes are hostile to much of what corporations promote: a strong private sector, deregulation, finance capital, and internationalist economics -- really, capitalism itself. So, no, a government that represents corporate interests is not fascist.

But you are certainly right that corporations have too much influence on our government. It IS an outrage that the DoJ isn't prosecuting white-collar crime. It IS an outrage that government has perilously deregulated markets. It IS an outrage that corporations are not accountable to anyone.

But what are we looking for in recognizing these problems? An elimination of the DoJ and of all regulation of the markets? No! That would just guarantee that corporations will not be accountable to anyone -- that just does corporations' evil political work for them.

We are looking for a STRONGER DoJ, protected from corporate influence by new anti-lobbying laws, which can finally prosecute white-collar criminals. We are looking a STRONGER regulatory regime, protected from corporate influence by new anti-lobbying laws, which can finally keep corporations' power in check.

This has to happen at the federal level, because every problem you're concerned about would be magnified at the local level. Local governments are cheaper to buy, easier to bypass, and have too small of a jurisdiction and cash flow to actually regulate and oversee a multinational corporation. The founding fathers got it right when they gave congress the power to regulate commerce. We need to empower congress to finally exercise that constitutional authority by passing campaign finance reform and anti-lobbying measures. Only then will we have the strong government we need if we're going to hold Wall Street accountable.

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

You forget that politicians locally are cheaper to buy but you have to buy many many more, they are also MUCH EASIER TO REMOVE from office. All you need at the national level is a handful of crooks and they can do anything. WHen the budget is bigger, more gets lost in it, the DoD lost trillions that they say they cant account for since 2000. We need a lean, efficient and transparent government. Anytime you centralize power you centralize corruption, a central powerful government that declares war on its people secretly is extremely dangerous. "All governments are inherently evil"- Benjamin Franklin.

Overall SisterRay, all of our problems stem from one, that is central banks. Central Banks are the mechanism used by the elite to transfer mass quantities of wealth through debt. JFK knew this and restored USAs right to print its own money, he was assassinated. Congressman Louis McFadden wanted to try the fed board for treason and after 3 assassination attempts he was killed. Lincoln introduced the greenback, he was shot, 20% of ALL of our presidents have either been assassinated or an attempt was placed on them, virtually all of them tried to circumvent the money masters. This is a 700 year war!

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

I am intrigued by your claims about local government. As a 'democratic republican' in the most traditional sense -- someone who believes that political liberty means freedom from arbitrary power, where arbitrariness increases to the degree that democratic input decreases -- I am very sympathetic to the idea that freedom in the full sense is only possible at the local level, where government is small enough to hear the voice of ordinary citizens. (By the way, this means that I strongly disagree that "all governments are inherently evil;" I firmly believe that truly democratic government is just.)

However, as a card-carrying member of the reality-based community, I am very wary of your proposal. As you concede, local politicians are cheaper to buy, and they can be bought wholesale (the fact that there are more of them doesn't impress me as a reason why corporations would have a harder time buying them). While it requires fewer votes to remove local representatives from office, that doesn't make up for two deeper problems with local government: (a) the opposing candidates can be bought too, perhaps even more cheaply than incumbents, and (b) most people are even more ignorant about their local officials than about their representatives in Washington. For these reasons, I'm very skeptical that local government can be made to run better than Washington. Indeed, just look at how things are run in Albany and you'll see how false it is that local is intrinsically better.

Moreover, even if local government could be rid of corruption, that would get us nowhere with respect to the main problem we're facing and what the Occupy Wall Street movement is all about: multinational corporations have too much power and too little accountability. Just imagine what would happen if your local government, cleaned up so it was now corruption-free, passed some great laws regulating the markets and committed to prosecuting anyone who broke these laws, regardless of title or income. Well, the big corporations might have a hard time carrying on business as usual in your hometown at first. But what would keep them from operating as they do now in the next town over? Your local government's laws wouldn't govern their conduct there, and your local courts wouldn't have jurisdiction over them. What's more is, the next town over might give some of these corporations a break and build them a new mall or a fancy office building and grant them special tax exemptions. Then these corporations will be able to offer their products and services at prices so low that even the good folks in your hometown will be driving over across the town limit so that they can save a couple dollars. Soon enough, your hometown will be losing money and jobs while the corporations will be carrying on unharmed. In the end, your local government may just realize that their great laws were great in theory but economically devastating in practice, and vote to repeal them, reverting to square one.

This is not some fictional myth I made up; it's happening all over America today. Local governments are too small and easy to bypass to really stand up to big corporations in a way that matters. What's more is that they don't have the cash flow to support the institutions necessary for regulating and overseeing multinational corporations. That's why we need a strong federal government. Only the federal government has jurisdiction over the whole country, so its laws cannot be bypassed by anyone interested in the American market. Only the federal government has the cash flow to support the institutions necessary for the regulation and oversight of big corporations, and for the prosecution of corporate crime. The Founding Fathers recognized this; that's why they gave congress the power to regulate commerce. Right now, because of the power of corporate money in Washington, the government is unwilling to use that power. That's why we need stronger anti-lobbying laws and campaign finance reform; then we can finally get government working for the people again.

That said, I do also support reforming local government to the greatest extent possible. We need more citizens involved in the democratic process, informing themselves about the issues and participating in local government to ensure that the land we live in is truly free. This is not opposed to reforming Washington as well, but just part of a larger project of ridding the corruptive influence of corporate money from government at all levels.

If it turns out that we make better progress on this anti-corruption program at the local level than at the federal level, then I'm open to empowering communities to do what the federal government refuses to do itself. But that's a contingency plan to be worked out after we assess this movement's successes and failures in the years to come. Right now we need to push for Plan A: strong laws regulating lobbying and campaign finance so that we can finally have the strong democratic government we need if we're going to hold Wall Street accountable.

[-] 1 points by Slave303 (44) 2 years ago

Corporations love authoritarianism. Removing our ability to sue corporations that span borders (nationalism and trade tariffs are not something these corporations would favor as it counters their ability to make money) and literally giving immunity to corporations, thus creating two rules of law in our country, one for the 99% and the other for the 1%. Corporations own this nation so the DoJ, SEC, OBAMA, ATF simply ignore the laws they dont want to abide by and enforce laws when it produces benefit(corporations literally position these political puppets and we even had FD Roosevelt, who was a banker and is the longest serving autocrat in our history). A prime example is the ATF, where they gave under direct authority of Obama the ability to give one drug cartel COMPLETE diplomatic immunity in exchange for information on rival cartels. It doesn't matter what law is on the books if the government has been completely usurped.

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

Right. So you grant that corporations are not nationalistic. That concession alone means that a government that represents corporate interests is not fascist, since fascism is a nationalist ideology.

While you claim that corporations love authoritarianism, the evidence you cite does not support this claim but rather the opposite one: that corporations love freedom. It's just that the freedom that they promote is abstract and negative: a freedom from responsibility, freedom from accountability, freedom from prosecution, freedom from regulatory control. It is freedom from lawfulness.

This is a complete perversion of the true concept of freedom: democratic lawfulness, where a democratic government, a government by the people and for the people, passes and enforces laws for the benefit of all. One of the key democratic freedoms, specifically recognized by the Founding Fathers, is ensuring economic lawfulness by regulating markets and prosecuting criminals, even if they wear white collars.

The problem you have pointed out is clear: corporations have too much influence on our government. This is obvious everywhere you look: the DoJ isn't prosecuting white-collar crime, the government's regulatory agencies has perilously deregulated markets in accordance with corporate demands, and corporations are no longer accountable to anyone.

But the solution to this problem is equally obvious: anti-lobbying laws, campaign finance reform, and a stronger government that can stand up to corporations and hold them accountable for their actions.

[-] 1 points by IndependentVoice (19) 2 years ago

Wall Street wouldn't have as much power as they do without the help of government.

Globalization wouldn't happen and jobs get shipped overseas without the U.S. military.

[-] 1 points by revg33k (429) from Woodstock, IL 2 years ago

SisterRay

I understand what you were getting at here, and maybe you are getting frustrated and burnt out form the rash of troll posts, but please don't stoop to the level of the trolls.

this would have been just as effective:

There's already a movement like that "Ron Paul for President." take a look over at www.ronpaul2012.com, and see if you agree with them.

The 2nd paragraph was spot on, good work!

[-] 0 points by agnosticnixie (17) from Laval, QC 2 years ago

I wonder if Paulista blood evaporates. All this boiling, can't be healthy.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 2 years ago

lol :)