Forum Post: What about those of us who don't want a "fairier" world?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 1:59 p.m. EST by Daennera
(765)
from Griffith, IN
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It would seem to me that the Occupy Wall Street movement has designated itself to speak for 99% of the citizens of the United States. And it would seem that the assumption is that the movement takes almost for granted that everyone in that 99% thinks like they think and wants the type of governance and society that they want.
But what if you are the minority? What if the majority of the 99% don't mind a world that is slightly skewed in favor of those with money? What if the majority don't mind the lack of a safety net to save those who have made bad decisions (ex. student loans)? I am definitely squarely in the middle of the 99%, but I most certainly DO NOT want a more socialist world. I do not want debt forgiveness, or more welfare programs, or more unemployment insurance. What I want is the type of society that is more dog-eat-dog than it is now. I want transparency so everyone can make fully informed decisions, and that they may suffer the consequences of making poor or ill informed decisions. I like the idea of the rich having access to better resources than the rest. Although the odds of obtaining such wealth may be very much so against myself personally, I am confident that I can get exactly what I need out of this world. Maybe not necessarily what I want, but what I need. And I believe that only those intelligent enough and willing to make the hardest decisions should be allowed to obtain the necessities in this world.
You'll have to excuse me, but I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value. I believe value must be earned in life, and that works for both those born rich and born poor. Value is earned by making good decisions and doing business fairly. A rich man who does fair business is worth far more than the idiot who drowned himself in student loans, mortgages, and car payments, and is begging for someone to give him a freebie because life's not "fair".
BTW: Business Week just did an article about how coal mining companies are having huge problems finding labor. They're offering starting salaries of 70K. Let's see how many of you are willing to leave all the creature comforts of NYC to mine coal. Yes it's back breaking work, but let's just say that it's a real test of just how badly you really want a job. Call me cynical, but I don't think there will be a huge exodus from the park down to the Appalachian mines any time soon.
Are we to believe that you don't believe that equal opportunity, i.e. fairness, is a good thing? That you don't believe that human rights ought to be respected, i.e. that human beings have intrinsic value?
I have a hard time believing that you are so opposed to the principles of justice. If indeed you do oppose justice, though, then it's simple: we oppose your views.
Equal opportunity does not mean equal pay. Equal opportunity means equal access to a good education and health which a person can then use to maximise their potential, or waste it as they see fit. If they maximise it, then they should get paid more, if they waste it then they should get paid less. Simple.
Does everyone get a high school education? Yes. Does everyone get some level of health care? Yes. Is it 100% equal? No. Can it be improved. Yes. Does it need to be completely destroyed by revolution? No.
Agreed. See my response to FriedmanRocks.
Agree totally.
We need to clone you.
Why?? What are you going to do with my clone??
Ha! Something ethical I promise.
We just need more sister soldiers fighting the good fight from the high pillars of morality and reason, through philosophy... is all I'm sayin'. :)
phew
Well, I'm just glad that philosophy degree came in handy when we needed it.
It certainly did, although it's not simply about the degree in itself. You could as easily be talking about Nietzsche or Rand as Rawls. The (innate, I believe) moral quality of the philosopher is as important as his/her training.
I stand corrected. Let me revise:
Well, I'm glad all those years studying Habermasian critical theory came in handy when we needed it.
I've been reading; seems like a solid foundation for a "theory of the case" as it were. Particularly enjoyed this, in reviewing his critique of postmodernism:
"Habermas feels that the postmodernists are animated by normative sentiments but the nature of those sentiments is concealed from the reader."
Normative sentiments... Is his position that values must have a purely rational (product of deliberate reason) basis? Or do you think his critique is that the sometimes non-rational basis of these sentiments is not well described? The more I learn, the more it seems to me that the full scope of human morality is difficult to quantify/communicate in a "rational" way, being so influenced by intuition, emotion, sense experience, etc... I think it's important to develop an ethical framework anyway, but I guess I'm of the opinion that to fully rational-ize morality is to destroy it. Sorry for hijacking, just always curious.
I'm purely amateur, and have focused mainly on Kant, Rousseau, Mill, and others, including, speaking of postmodernism - Sartre.
Yeah, Habermas sometimes gets attacked as a cognitivist of the form you seem worried about (someone who believes that all values must be the product of deliberate reasoning). The truth is that, while he is a Kantian and an advocate on behalf of the project of the Enlightenment, he doesn't think that values must arise from deliberate reasoning, but only that deliberate reasoning is how we test their legitimacy.
What this critique of certain postmodernists (first and foremost, Foucault) is really about is that these philosophers purport to offer a critique of certain of contemporary society's widely shared values, but neglect to offer a ground for their critique. As a consequence, Habermas holds that such postmodern critical theory is cryptonormative : it is grounded in norms that are unacknowledged. This isn't so problematic in itself, since the ideal of complete self-transparency is impossible to accomplish. But it is problematic for these postmodernists since they claim to be offering a critique of society that is not founded in reasons at all (contrary to Enlightenment social theory), while secretly importing these values and reasoning from them.
In short, the question here isn't about the basis of social values themselves but about the basis of critique of social values.
For a really good discussion of just this issue, check out Habermas's "Philosophical Discourse of Modernity" -- a series of lectures on the course of critical social theory from Hegel through the postmodernists. It's almost comprehensible.
If you're just generally interested in Habermas's thought, I would recommend skipping the magnum opuses (he has a few) and instead reading his very first book: "The Structural Transformation of The Public Sphere." In my opinion, it's the clearest presentation of Habermas's democratic theory that you'll find, and it's one of a very few political philosophy books that totally changed the way I think about the world, not by scaring me about the depth of the problem, but by giving me hope.
Thanks, this is very helpful and I think makes sense - need to re-read a couple more times. :) I will dig in to Habermas.
Hope.. quite a concept these days.
Kant, using logic, arrives at a moral concept (categorical imperative) that I intuitively recognize, and find similar to the golden rule. However, I had a feeling at one point that synthetic a priori knowledge might tie into my "semi-cognitivist" thinking on the subject... Unfortunately much of it requires a deeper understanding than time/education allows..
Anyway, thanks again!
Glad to help.
"I had a feeling at one point that synthetic a priori knowledge might tie into my "semi-cognitivist" thinking on the subject..."
Here you uncovered the foundational insight of the thought of another great philosopher of the 20th cent: Martin Heidegger. There's a lot to say about this, but I think I gave you enough homework already. If you want to see someone present this insight in a short, fairly comprehensible essay, check out "Heidegger and The Synthetic A Priori" in the volume "Transcendental Heidegger". You can actually get the whole thing free online, courtesy of google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=KLoR4IPhwnoC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=heidegger+%22synthetic+a+priori%22&source=bl&ots=_yqZ6BGfrK&sig=bOyLzQuZKaUTGx9DsJ-lXp7pgOs&hl=en&ei=TnqfToLcM-LV0QGEy7ndBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=heidegger%20%22synthetic%20a%20priori%22&f=false
Happy reading!
The idea of Justice is subjective, people don't take everything into consideration. And make errors in Judgement ... I.e. Capital Punishment, many support the idea but fail to consider the fact that many are innocent of crimes they've been judged guilty.
I think it would be more accurate to say that judgments about justice and injustice must be left to the moral conscience of individuals and are subject to error. But the idea of justice itself is as objective as can be. That's why I found Daennera's stated objection to justice as such so disconcerting.
Which still means objective..however I do agree that we as a species must rise and surmount the corruption plaguing us at present...which is why I cannot whollyy support OWS...the individuals while their cause is quite ostensibly obvious, they cannot come to a mutual agreement as to what they want, inauspiciously to them their lack of understanding is what shall allow their movement to founder, and quite honestly this is why Democratic government in all eventual fails.
Do you want equal opportunity or equal results? Can you have justice without having equal results?
Good question!
I do believe that you can have justice without having equal results. In fact I believe that justice dictates that we will have unequal results if the world is such that people have different natural abilities. That seems to follow from the liberty principle. For a clear illustration of why this is, I recommend reading Kurt Vonnegut's short story, "Harrison Bergeron" (a film adaptation of the short story was advertised with the dystopian tagline "All men are not created equal. It is the purpose of the Government to make them so").
But that doesn't mean I believe that all unequal results that follow from equal opportunity are just. This is the point of the equality principle: social and economic inequalities are only just provided that all positions are open to any individual, regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity or sex, AND ALSO that such inequality is still a Pareto improvement for the least advantaged, i.e. that even the least advantaged are better off in a society with such inequality than they would otherwise be. So there are two conditions for the justice of an unequal society: (1) equal opportunity, and (2) that such inequality must still constitute a Pareto improvement for the least advantaged. The second condition is, in effect, a limit on what kind of unequal results can still be just.
Hope that constitutes a satisfactory answer to the question.
How is the human trait of "lazyness" dealt with?
I don't see the problem here. If you're reading my comments as a call for communism, you should re-read them.
Justice does not demand a society of absolute equality, but rather that everyone have equal opportunity to prosper. Presumably, those who are lazy do not prosper -- this presumption can be regarded as a near certainty in a just society, where all positions are open to any qualified individual and not reserved for some (who may be lazier or less qualified than others) through discriminatory policies. And since the lazy are not harmed by the prospering of others, there is no violation of the second condition for the justice of unequal results.
So, in a just society, it would seem that the lazy do not prosper. Insofar as people desire to attain more advantageous social and economic positions, they ought to develop their abilities and talents and do their best. All that justice requires is that, if they do so, the advantageous social and economic positions will be open to them.
I agree. But let's be clear that even if a position is open to a "lazy" person, the mere fact that someone is "lazy" may also imply that they have not spent any time becoming learned (such as yourself) and they may in fact not be qualified for a certain position. The point being, we should not empower citizens by spreading the wealth irregardless of their contribution.
Sure. No one is entitled to any particular social or economic position, but only to the equal opportunity to attain such a position. Whether they get the position or not is to be determined by their qualifications (talents, abilities, work ethic, etc.).
The actual distribution of wealth is only just insofar as it is accords with justice, i.e. it must respect the liberty and equality of all.
Human rights sure. Justice, sure. But tell me what justice is achieved by taking from one to give to the other? Wouldn't it be far more just to leave each to his own devices?
Great! So what does it mean to support justice?
The leading theory of justice around today (thanks to John Rawls) holds that justice is fairness. This has two components: liberty and equality. According to the liberty principle, each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties (i.e. human rights). According to the equality principle, social and economic inequalities are only just provided that all positions are open to any individual, regardless of his or her social background, ethnicity or sex, and that such inequality is still a Pareto improvement for the least advantaged, i.e. that even the least advantaged are better off in a society with such inequality than they would otherwise be.
So justice does dictate that everyone has a right to own private property (in accordance with the liberty principle). But justice does not dictate that there is an absolute right to unlimited private property, since the acquisition by some of unlimited amounts of private property could result in a violation of the equality principle. Accordingly, to the extent that "leaving each to his own devices" would result in a state of inequality in which the least advantaged do not have an equal opportunity to attain a privileged position (let alone one that does outright harm to the least advantaged; for instance, by keeping them in labor camps), it is unjust.
I'll leave it to others to determine how any of this applies to current US tax policy. All I'm interested in is the strong claims you made in your post about rejecting the value of fairness and the inherent value of human beings, which would amount to a rejection of justice itself.
Testify, sister.
Anyone who says "What I want is the type of society that is more dog-eat-dog than it is now" can only be classified as a psychopath or sociopath.
Or someone who is mistaken about what he really wants. If Daennera were a psychopath or sociopath then we wouldn't have been able to have the pleasant conversation we had.
“how does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquimas: an unjust law is a human not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrade human personality is unjust.” - Martin Luther King
ANd Martin Luther King says, justice is anything that uplifts the human personality, and anything that degrades it is unjust.
Is it justice to penalize one to support another?
That depends on what you mean.
I can "penalize one to support another" by taking one's wallet and giving it to another -- that would be unjust.
I can "penalize one to support another" by ruling, in the capacity of a judge in a court of law, that the one who committed an unjust act be penalized and the victim of the injustice be compensated -- that would be just.
I can "penalize one to support another" by declaring, in the capacity of dictator, that all property must be turned over to my brother -- that would be unjust.
And I can "penalize one to support another" by determining, in the capacity of a citizen in a just democracy, that the accumulation of wealth by some has reached a point where the equality principle has been violated, either because social and economic inequality has come to interfere with equality of opportunity for the least advantaged, or because such inequality has rendered the least advantaged worse off than they would otherwise be. In this case, justice would demand a limited redistribution of wealth so as to ensure compliance with the equality principle.
I do not believe in justice. I feel no right to it myself, and I have no idea why others feel they have some sort of right to it either.
I'm not sure I understand. Before you said "Human rights sure. Justice, sure."
Now you say you do not believe in justice.
But then you talk about having a right to some things and not having rights to others. For instance, you say that you "feel no right to it [justice] [your]self". But what is this right talk in the absence of justice? Rights talk depends upon a belief in justice: when your rights are respected, that IS justice, and when your rights are not respected, that IS injustice.
Likewise, you claim that it would be "far more just to leave each to his own devices." Here again you pronounce a belief in justice.
So what do you mean when you say that you do not believe in justice? On the surface, this seems to contradict everything else you've espoused a belief in.
I do not believe that justice is natural. It doesn't exist without people imposing it. And therefore I do not rely on it when making decisions and living my life. And no one else should either. Justice is a bonus if you can get it (hence the "sure why not" part of my reply), but it's not something the world guarantees.
I agree with you that justice isn't natural: a dog-eat-dog world is not a just one. Rather, justice is something that only comes about through human action. But given that this world is not only a state of nature but also one of human action, don't you think we should be able to say that humans OUGHT to act justly?
I respect your prudence in not assuming that others necessarily DO act justly. But what does the recognition that there is a gap between how the world IS and how the world OUGHT TO BE amount to? I agree that it amounts to a call for realism in making decisions, and not assuming that because others ought to do something that it is guaranteed that they will. But I strongly disagree that it also amounts to a call to reject justice as a principle for making decisions in living one's life. Even if it isn't guaranteed that you'll do what you ought to do, that doesn't change the fact that YOU STILL OUGHT TO DO IT. If you act unjustly, then we ought to hold you accountable. If the world is unjust, then we ought to work to make it better. Indeed, on the final analysis, the recognition that there is a gap between how the world IS and how the world OUGHT TO BE amounts to a recognition that we have a lot of work to do in making the world a better place.
So, while I support your realism, I strongly reject your conclusion that it's mistaken in some way to want a more just world. It is precisely because we recognize that the world is not a just place right now that we have come together and formed OWS: a movement to make the world more like it ought to be.
The world isn't perfect we agree,and you are ok to fight for something better, good, so you still haven't answered the main point - if I work harder than you and/or I am smarter, shouldn't I have more "wealth"? Are you saying that fairness is irrelevant of a person's effort?
I don't understand the point. Fairness is a criterion of justice. Effort is not. So, for the purposes of this conversation, yes, fairness is irrelevant of a person's effort.
It's not hard to see why this is so. As any reader of comic books knows, someone could be very smart and spare no effort to accomplish their goals, and yet be an evil villain, i.e. someone who is unjust. Less dramatically, someone could be very smart and work very hard, but directs his intelligence and energy to something valueless (e.g. technology that has no application, a theory that is incredibly nuanced by completely false, a program that is complicated but annoying, etc.). The person does not become wealthy just in virtue of his intelligence and effort; someone actually has to want to buy the stuff.
So, no, I don't believe in some meritocratic version of the Marxist principle that would give to each according to his IQ and effort. An intelligent hard worker ought to direct his abilities and energies towards getting the position he desires most; if he chooses a course that proves to be valueless, it is not a matter of justice that he get compensated as though he had invented Google or whatever.
Good or bad is a human interpretation. Nature doesnt care about that. That is why there are rich powerful bad guys. It is not fair when one gains at the expense of another. Be it the rich guy or the poor guy.
Right. As I said to Daennera, justice isn't natural: a dog-eat-dog world is not a just one. Rather, justice is something that only comes about through human action. The recognition that there is a gap between how the world IS and how the world OUGHT TO BE amounts to a recognition that we have a lot of work to do in making the world a better place. It is precisely because we recognize that the world is not a just place right now that we have come together and formed OWS: a movement to make the world more like it ought to be.
So in your world, how does the human being seek to become better? According to your thoughts it appears that we all would have the same housing, transportation...etc so why don't we all just do easy jobs and take it easy? PS: Having lived in the Soviet era, you make your world seem pretty idyllic but you may need some experience from those who actually lived it.
Oh no! You misunderstand my position. See my brief discussion with FriedmanRocks in this same thread below: http://occupywallst.org/forum/what-about-those-of-us-who-dont-want-a-fairier-wor/#comment-150858
And what if most people have no interest in a fight to make the world what it ought to be? What if there are more of me than you? What will you do then?
I'm not sure, since I still don't know what your position is.
Are you hostile to justice -- do you want the world to be less just?
Are you a revisionist about justice -- do you think that justice does not demand fairness?
Are you a skeptic about justice -- do you doubt that justice-talk has any sense to it, i.e. that the idea of having a moral obligation to act a certain way means anything at all?
Are you a pessimist about justice -- do you believe that we ought to act justly, but that so few people will do so that it doesn't make a difference anyway?
Or are you just not interested in justice -- do you believe that others can try to make the world a better place if they want, but that's not for you?
Once I know what it means for people to be like you in this regard, then I'll be better prepared to answer your question about what would happen if there are more people like you than people that want to make the world more like it ought to be.
I believe every man can decide for himself how he will act. If you wish to be the man who improves his world and acts justly, then do so. If you wish to lay waste to you world for your own gain, then you are free to do so. Each of us is free to act and react how we see fit. After all, ourselves is all we can control at the end of the day anyways. And all should be wary of the other man he chooses to do business with. Know that he may act unjustly. If he does, you then have the choice to seek retribution or not.
"Only the "victim" of injustice may hold the other accountable. It is on his conscience what must be done to rectify the situation."
OK, so let's take stock. You do believe there's a such thing as justice and injustice (you're not a skeptic about justice). And you believe that victims of injustice should hold the perpetrators of injustice accountable (you're not hostile to justice, and you're not even that uninterested in justice). And you don't obviously hold any revisionist views about justice.
If that's really your position, then we don't really disagree that much. To answer your question about what would happen if there are more people like you than people like me and the rest of us in OWS, then, is pretty easy: we who are victims of the injustices perpetrated by Wall Street seek to hold Wall Street accountable for their actions. All who recognize themselves to be victims of such injustice are invited to join our movement to hold Wall Street accountable.
YEAH! nailed it! :)
here's what Daennera thinks: "as long as i get what i want/need, i don't care about justice or the needs of anybody else and nobody should have the right to force me to care about anybody else but myself!"
isn't that right Daennera?
I'm just personally against one ambiguous group holding another ambiguous group responsible for so called injustice. It's no longer personal, no longer specific.
Of course everyone can decide for himself how he will act. There's no controversy there. The question is this: if someone acts unjustly, should we hold him accountable?
If you're hostile to justice, you'd say: no, you should reward him!
If you're a revisionist about justice, you'd say: yes, but your conceptions of justice and injustice are backwards.
If you're a skeptic about justice, you'd say: this question does not make sense.
If you're a pessimist about justice, you'd say: yes, but it won't make a difference anyway.
If you're not interested in justice, you'd say: if you want to, go ahead, but I don't care.
Which of these views is the one you mean when you say things like "I don't want a more just world" or "I don't believe in justice"?
Only the "victim" of injustice may hold the other accountable. It is on his conscience what must be done to rectify the situation.
"I guess I take up issue with the definition of "justice" more than anything. Some here would believe that just means nobody having more than them. That justice means their society will not let them fail or starve. Justice has nothing to do with any of that."
OK, well, if that's what this was really about, then I see the point. I can't speak for everyone in OWS, but I personally don't agree that justice demands perfect equality (and I know many other people involved in OWS who think the same way). See my discussion with FriedmanRocks for why I think justice is compatible with certain forms of inequality (it's in this same thread, below). If that's the actual point of our disagreement, then let's continue the conversation over there, since we've extended this thread as far as it will go on the issue of belief in justice in general.
"I'm just personally against one ambiguous group holding another ambiguous group responsible for so called injustice. It's no longer personal, no longer specific."
That's fair enough. Ultimately, this will be a matter of judgment, and you might just be of the opinion that the injustice alleged by OWS is too indirect and too general to get your personal support. I respect that judgment, even if I judge the matter differently for myself.
(For the record, while I support OWS in its demand for more vigorous prosecution of white-collar crime, I also recognize that President Obama was right when he said about Wall Street's shady activity in the mid-2000s that "a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless." Since you can only be prosecuted for illegal action, I recognize that the people who did the wrong things that we in OWS are upset about cannot be prosecuted for doing these things. In that sense, I suppose I agree with you that our grievances must be specific. That said, I also support OWS's demand for much stronger regulation of the markets so that these kinds of wrong activities will be specifically made illegal, thus solving this problem for the future, instead of allowing it to be repeated.)
What interested me was the much stronger claim that you seemed to be making about not believing in justice and not wanting a more just world. If that's not the view that you really endorse, then I think we can just leave it at that.
Why don't we just regulate every immoral act?
I guess I take up issue with the definition of "justice" more than anything. Some here would believe that just means nobody having more than them. That justice means their society will not let them fail or starve. Justice has nothing to do with any of that.
"If you wish to lay waste to you world for your own gain, then you are free to do so. Each of us is free to act and react how we see fit.' So you prefer anarchy? IMO, your attitude and your views are that of a gangster.
because the facts just don't back that up,. we see public opinion polls and MOST people do seem to support a fair and just society. So do many people we interact with,. the corporate media does a good job at dumbing down,. while propagandising that the angry masses of the 99% are a mindless mess,. . only that appears, not to be true.
perhaps the net will generate an electronic overmind of connected thought processes.., uniting the world in a new way,. where we apparently must do a great deal of repair and regenerative work to attempt to reverse the killing off of our eco-sphere,. the systems of the world that sustain life as we know it.
monkeys are self-centred,. they see the green earth turning gray/brown,. . and the problems this causes for people around the world. when they realise that yes indeed people are stressing the earth to death,. biodiversity, species extinction,. ocean health,. . etc. MOST monkeys do want to leave something to their children, they will change or loose even that.
Well, that's interesting. Do you consider yourself a patriotic American? The founders disagreed with you. The documents that form the basis of this nation's rule of law indicate that justice is due every human being and that each human being is endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator (at birth, just because they exist, to use your words). So how do you reconcile your views with being an American?
Gee, I wasn't aware that one had to be of one specific view to be an American. In fact, I thought the idea that a wide range of views would make this country stronger is what was American. The fact that I have any view at all makes me American.
You're right. You inspire others how NOT to act.
Sure, you're an American just by virtue of being born here but you are an American whose views are counter to what the Constitution guarantees to other Americans.
Your post attempted to marginalize our views by telling us we are in the minority because we believe human beings are born with rights - but it turns out your views are the "marginal" or fringe views when they are compared to the basic founding principles that this country is supposed to operate under.
You can continue to hold those views (or not) but you may want to rethink your position that our views are the ones that are marginal.
Even if I am the minority (and that's fine by me, the successful usually are) so what? Justice for all is a nice concept, but one that only fools rely upon to survive. Fight for justice all you want, just be aware that you may not succeed.
Daennera..... who is John Gault..... is he your daddy.
So now you are trying to prove you are somehow superior by claiming the views of the successful are usually minority views.
What factual basis do you have for that statement?
And how did that hold true when you were telling us OWS is the minority?
Anyone who undertakes any endeavor "may not succeed" in accomplishing all their goals. To use your words, "so what"?
You are an American when you follow the constitution. You are a traitor when you fail to follow that which our country was founded on.
We are not a democracy, we are not a dictatorship, we are not an Anarchy or oligarchy. We are a republic founded on a set of laws that promote Justice and liberty.
Pretty simple. You are not an American if you don't believe in the values it was founded on. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness. If you are an American you realize that these people are fighting for their right to happiness and are searching for their liberty. This country has turned into EXACTLY what you say you hate.
We aren't allowed to put in our body what we want, because someone else is imposing their view of of morals on us.
We aren't allowed to marry who we want. Because we have others moral views forced on us.
We aren't allowed to do what we want in the privacy of our home as long as we aren't hurting other people.
So I guess what you are saying is, you don't like freedom, you enjoy oppression the way it is, because "YOUR" vices, "YOUR" comfort level and "YOUR" freedoms aren't affected.......
Yet.
But what will you do when they are, and all of us who are willing to fight for your right to choose and to live life free of oppression are gone, who will fight for you then? Do you think your chronies in government who you praise for the current system will?
Nope. Then what? Then what will be your feelings on justice?
No one has the right to ask anyone to fight for them. Therefore this is a non issue.
No one is asking anyone to fight for them. You going to actually talk about the content of my post, or ignore it with some straw-man argument that has nothing to do with the conversation at hand?
Then go read the pledge of alligance. I think you don't understand what it means to be American. I think your views are repugnant.
Then go live in Somalia or the congo, where injustice abounds. You are a traitor.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. People aren't worried about suicide bombers at the grocery store, we have all the liberty one could want (ex. this website). The pursuit of happiness is up to each individual though. You have to take responsibility for your own happiness.
No, justice is if an injury (not a moral or ethical one) is done to someone such as being robbed or a family member killed. Then you would get compensated for that injustice. Note:Being robbed of opportunity doesn't count
Indeed, it is true that we talk about "justice being served" when someone is held accountable in a court of law for an injustice they caused and mourn the injustice of a criminal evading punishment. This is called "criminal justice".
But the notion of justice is much greater than that. As your own post recognizes, robbery and murder are themselves unjust, not because we could redescribe them in terms of criminal justice (I don't even know how to begin to redescribe these injustices as crimes that go unpunished, since they are still injustices even after the perpetrator is held accountable), but because they injure someone: they violate an individual's basic rights and liberties. So there's certainly more to the notion of justice than just criminal justice (contrary to what a legal positivist might hold). This is captured in the liberty principle stated above.
As for restricting the conception of injustice to forms of bodily injury, I'm not really sure where you're coming from with that. One can steal without causing bodily harm; that's certainly unjust. One can also intentionally make false promises; that's unjust too. So I don't know why you would want to set this kind of limitation on the concept of injustice, which strikes me as totally arbitrary.
As for excluding equal opportunity from the concept of justice, that strikes me as equally arbitrary. Surely we can agree that an apartheid society is unjust, and that what's unjust about it is that it arbitrarily privileges some over others, so that the better economic and social positions are closed off to classes of individuals simply because of their social background or ethnicity or sex, etc. But if you're willing to grant that apartheid societies are unjust for this reason, then it seems like you should be willing to grant that unequal opportunity is a form of injustice. This is what the equality principle stated above is supposed to capture.
It's not about taking someone's earnings to give to another. It's about redristributing the surplus created by society through the division of labor. Even if you have a great idea that nobody has ever thought of before, you still need labor divided among a vast number of people to be profitable. If you implemented an idea on your own, you cn surely make a profit by yourself. But where does the additional profit come from? It's created through cooperation of many people and not just the labor of one person. This is why the idea that "what's mine is mine" is completely flawed. You didn't create anything on your own. I haven't created anything on my own. Creation of wealth is only done through cooperation. It's because of this that we need a mass cultural awakening. Everyone needs to understand that just because you acquired mass amounts of wealth, doesn't mean you "earned" all of it. Someone who earned a million dollars can gain the U.S. median income through investments without doing a damn thing. They might have earned that million dollars, but they didn't earn the interst beyond that. That wealth was earned by everyone else and was extracted entirely by the absentee investor. This is very simple to understand, but it amazes me that so many people still think ALL money is earned. I don't care how hard you have worked in your life, not one man or woman has ever earned a multi-million dollar salary.
So it doesn't count as work if you used your brain and not your brawn to parse through and make good investment choices? That doesn't count as earning?
Of course your mental labor counts as much as physical labor. But any knowledge or understanding you have has been molded through the mental and physical labor of the society. Your ideas are just a collaboration of many ideas and theories that were proven by others. I thought this was implied when I wrote, "Creation of wealth is only done through cooperation." So having an idea surely counts as earning, but having sole ownership of that idea is a fallacy and a disservice. That idea was created by the physical and mental labor of billions of people in the present and past. So that's why I agrue that no individual has ever EARNED a multi-million dollar salary, but this money was earned by many individuals, but kept in sole possession of the owner.
You are right. There is no justice in taking from anyone. But what you are arguing is proof that you are against the same thing that you are supporting. You are attempting to argue that there is nothing wrong with free market capitalism, and supporting corporate socialism at the same time, which has been actively happening in this country since the early '80's. If i am understanding this correctly.
Exactly, why is it okay for the government to take our taxes Money to do what they please? Why is fair that I'm in debt at 22 yrs old and CEOs are getting screwed over because I can't find a full time job while wall street and the banks get bailouts ? Where is the 99% help? Where is our bailout? Where are our bonuses? We pay more and suffer more, it's unjust!
what kind of debt. please be very specific. there is good debt (things you need) and there is bad debt (things you want). you need an education and you need housing and you need transport.
what is your specific debt..??
Educational. And your right I do need that, but other countries pay I different ways for higher education I.e taxes... Asking 18 yr old to Take out loans that equal near $100,000 is CRAZY , especially when there aRent enough jobs to support majority of them after completion of a degree. And I'm sorry but the education in this country isnt worth close to $100,000 because we keep cutting teachers salaries and government funding for schools ...we are over priced for an education that isn't working!
Taking from one?? Most of that was stolen.
Can you prove that? Or is that just sensational emotionalism?
They are making the highest profits in history while workers wages have fallen. They cut benefits and staffing...not emotionalism but economic reality.
Look, we will not see eye to eye, it is obvious. Some people are simply wired differently.
But they have stolen nothing. They have decided to refuse to GIVE workers benefits and raises, but they have stolen nothing.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_welfare/real_tax_rates_plummet.php
Trust me it is stolen.
"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it. " - John Adams.
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -Thomas Jefferson
You have not proven how it was stolen. No one has the right to force someone to give up what they have. No one put anyone at gunpoint. Everyone acted in a complete free market. The company offered a set wage and benefits, and the workers accepted. Neither the company nor the workers were forced to participate. The contract they made was free from duress on either party.
That is corporate nonsense talk. Have you been sleeping for the last 30 years? Do some research. Your problem is you see stolen as i come over to your house to visit and why you are getting me a bottle of water being a good host i am stealing money out of your wallet.
Their are many ways to steal money and make it look legit. These people do this for a living. They keep us in sheep pens and never trim the wool from our eyes and slowly drain us of money all while it goes into their pockets.
You REALLY need to wake up and start paying attention.
I think you need to back off the conspiracy theories just a bit. You don't really think that's how decisions are made do you?
What conspiracy theories? I did my research.Educate yourself, you would be surprised at what you would learn.
Ask the girl who got her $5500 Mac 'redistributed.' :-)
omg -- this is so complicated, surely we don't have to follow this argument in order to want a better world. little children know what fair is and is not. it is a basic human instinct. justice is the equal application of the laws which means the people who stole the houses should be arrested.
Narcissistic is probably the more appropriate term. I expect if that you were true to your work ethic and that you wanted to help these people get a job if needed you would be so kind as to post a link to ensure those who wanted could got out and destroy Appalacia. Just ask the residents in the Tennesse Valley how much they like the coal industry. I am curious did you like seeing your tax dollars, billions going to the clean up of the slag piles that slid into the Tennessee river and its tributaries? Hard work and decent decision making is a fine trait I will not argue that. If someone wants to mine coal I suggest you contact this person.
"slightly skewed in favor of those with money"? What kind of La-La land are you living in.
1% buys their representation in government. 99% are left with the scraps.
You do not have YOUR fair and equal representation in government.
Your voice is being drowned out by money in the political system. Does the phrase "of the people, by the people, and for the people" mean anything to you?
I never heard any great and heroic President of ours say, "of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.
This ok with you?
So do not accept the representation if you feel you were not included. Disobey or ignore laws passed by such a government. Sitting in a park isn't going to do it.
What you see as sitting in a park, is actually citizens of this country using their freedom of speech to affect positive change. Plenty of postive change has been successful using this method.
My fair and equal representation in my government is my right as a citizen. In case your confused, it's your right too. Why would you not want your fair and equal voice in our democracy.
Why would I choose to be unlawful when the First Amendment gives me the right to freedom of speech for the very purpose of speaking out to our government and voicing our grievances with it? It makes no sense that you would suggest civil disobedience, or to act in an unlawful way. Why would I do that??
What other "rights" are you willing to forgo or so readily accept being trampled upon?
This is the first time in my life that I actually hear someone admit that enjoy eating and rolling around in feces and that they would love to see their natural environment destroyed, leaving a barren and desolate world not fit for humans, with violence and despair as the only interest and daily activity. Unbelievable stupidity.
???? Where exactly did you get THAT idea?
It's called Cause and Effect.
of.....?
..... not caring
Who cares what you want?
"A rich man who does FAIR business is worth far more"
This line right here. Fair business... those are the people that deserve what they earned. They do not fall in the 1%.
The 1% are the people that lie, cheat, and manipulate to get their way up. They are the people that use their signifigant wealth and influence to manipulate a government that is suppose to have the wel being of the masses as it's main priority.
The 1% is not meant to describe the rich. It is meant to describe those the rich that abuse their power/gains at the detriment of the less fortunate.
Afterall would you say that if I went around and stole from everyone I could to the point I was a multimillionaire that I was worth more than someone working hard at an honest job and only made 20,000 a year?
Now I do agree for you; the movement hasn't exactly said what it's demands or main focus really is yet aside from "this is bad". I really hope it's focus is more to regulated business to allow hard work to pay off for everyone and not just the heads of companies. I really hope it's focus isn't handouts.
I'd mine coal for 70k a year. This is the first I've heard about this though. Makes me think its kinda BS.
as far as this 99%. We have been heckled and harassed by the mainstream media, and most of American still bases their world around them, even though it is NOT in their best intrest.
But OWS is growing. The mainstream media, the culture of lies it spawns is shrinking. Most people do not know what we are about for real.
I am ok with this because we are growing, and if you read the front page on who we are really. Neither people nor society change overnight, but we will be here for the rest of the 99%'ers when they decide enough is enough. We are right and hold the high ground and everyone will see it eventually.
The 60s and Richard Nixon's Silent majority are OVER.
I believe I am understanding much of what you say, and find myself in agreement with you on several points. Specifically the idea that no one should be coerced by their government or individuals into redistributing wealth or property in the name of social justice or some vague sense of "fairness". The right to gain and to own personal property is one of the foundational elements of our country, upon which many of our other liberties depend.
However, I do disagree with your statement that humans have no intrinsic value by sake of existing, and only gain value as it is deemed earned by others. Taken to its logical conclusion, this idea ITSELF would negate the right of personal property. If a person in and of themselves has value only as attributed by others, then their property would logically only belong to them to the level at which they themselves were valued. In other words, their property is only personal BECAUSE they are human and have an intrinsic right to it.
If humans have no value unless deemed so by an extrinsic "Other", (they have "earned" it), then logically there is some point in their life where they have not yet earned that value, and property, or even life itself, can be taken from them without consequence and without redress.
that's what Daennera wants to tell everybody: "as long as i get what i want/need, i don't care about justice or the needs of anybody else and nobody should have the right to force me to care about anybody else but myself!"
Pretty much. You have no right to force me, I have no right to force you. Agreed?
I've been a saver. Frugal, no car, etc. Positive bank balance since I was 12. Other half of my network was assets in admittedly speculative investments, 5 figures or wiped a few years back. Still have savings left.
However, I do believe in public policy that makes sense. Financial regulation is one that I think we can agree on. For me, debt forgiveness is something that should be seriously considered as a policy option. Otherwise we may be stuck in economic malaise like the Japanese were and still are. I won't get anything out of it as a saver, nor as someone who has already been punished by low-interest rates and inflation, but if it works and banks can be bailed out, so can people. Of course it can be spun any number of ways but if there's a convincing argument, I'd be for it.
On government redistribution programs, I'd agree. Legislating redistribution creates division. People simply do not like being told what to do. The top 1% can very well afford to have their wealth and income taxed more, but I think the majority of them want to find a way around it.
I think it's up to us as individuals to be more giving and less materialistic and spiritual and community minded. To be able to share, care and be able to show compassion. It's more a social change than a political change. Even very small things would help - like getting over this silly notion that humans are "rational", greedy, self-interested human beings. Those were just models in economics, but repeat it enough and it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and people think it's okay to act that way. We are much more and better than that.
If we do this at a large enough level socially and at the individual level first, it could lead to political change. Hell, we might not need it.
I think the question shouldn't be: do we want a "fairier" world, but do we want a more honest world, where cooking the books is not rewarded, where bribes cannot be made legal.
We may differ in how we want the world to become in the second step of the process, but can we at least agree about the important first step, making sure politicians and regulators cannot be bought and guaranteeing that all business transactions and law enforcement activities are properly accounted for?
Transparency is necessary yes.
Then we agree on the first step. I suggest we discuss the next step in "changing the world" for some later date. Creating transparency and proper representation of the will of the people, instead of the influence of money (wherever it may come from) is tough enough to waste time on things that come later.
Oh I'm OK with the influence of money, so long as it is transparent.
I think that's too idealistic. Transparency is important, but we can only see a limited number of things at a time. Influence of money is already pretty transparent. It is to a large degree known who is being paid what to pass what law. We know to a large degree what organizations write which particular laws.
Of course we could make it even more transparent so we know exactly what dollar amount organization X paid think tank Y to write legislation Z, and while I am completely for it, I don't think many people will really care what sum exactly is being paid.
Exposure can heal, but too much exposure makes numb.
I think acceptance of bribery makes the world more corrupt and with that economically more unstable, leading to fewer opportunities.
And how do you intend to stop bribery then? We already have laws. We know they do not work.
In some cases there is actually nothing wrong with the laws, but with the enforcement of it. Again the influence of private money on the workings of government.
It's impossible to stop bribery absolutely, but it can certainly be reduced. I think it's fair to say that Denmark is less corrupt than Uganda. On average people in Denmark also do economically better than people in Uganda.
The answer may be to look at countries that do better on this particular aspect, maybe there is something to learn about smart laws and good enforcement.
'A rich man who does fair business is worth far more than the idiot who drowned himself in student loans, mortgages, and car payments, and is begging for someone to give him a freebie because life's not "fair"'. This statement right here is why the rest of the Western world think Americans are stupid...and sadly, I have to agree with them!
Why is that stupid? I would far prefer to shoot myself in the eye than think for even a second that I'm owed that which I did not earn. That's not stupid. That's the thinking that keeps people OUT of trouble.
Men never get rich fairly. They only get rich off the interest of student loans, mortgages, car payments, etc. by those who have been put at a considereably disproportionate socio-economic disadvantage because they want to add something to society, rather than profit from it! 'If anyone ever tells you they got rich from hard work, ask them whose...'
And I will show you the scars on my body from the work I did to build the houses I've built.
The averge CEO makes 365 times more than the average worker in the United States of America. The top 3 percent of the nations's wealthiest citizens own 45 percent of the the taxable wealth. The top 20 percent of the richiest citizens own 85 percent of the taxable wealth, leaving the bottom 80 percent only 15 percent of the nation's taxable wealth. 98 percent of minorities dont have taxable wealth. Hopefully, you were fully compensated at a price that is much more equal than that national average for the HARD work that you did. This discrepancy is what this protest is about...not hard work!
Im not angry that rich people aren't spending their money. I'm not angry that the government isn't paying for my school or healthcare. I'm not angry that corporations aren't being taxed. I'm angry that we have a central bank that is allowed to couterfeit our currency, fully allowed to steal from you and me by printing new money without a limit. This is the bottom line for me. This is what makes me want to stand up and do something - our powerlessness over the value of our dollar, the fear that there is no limit to what they will take.
people should make as much as they please, as long as they don't destroy the planet for everyone else. which is why corporations need regulations because not everyone is fair in business. But how do we regulate with and owned government? Get the money out.
You need qualifications to do mining work Daennera.
also are you aware that you are coming off as elitist and as a bit of a eugenesist?
Life is a long journey with no script. Some have a head start - others with a handicap or two.. some race it - some pace it and others fear to tread each step.
One thing for sure is that we all die in the end. You are condemning your brother before his time. Look honestly at your life (especially your early life) and ask yourself what hand you were dealt with. Ask yourself - Have I been the beneficiary of socialist actions. Do I give in as much as I take?
Believe you me, few give as much as I do and few deal as honestly as me. I believe in the sacredness of business and commerce. That only through trade do we advance as a species.
The Federal Reserve and Bank of America Initiate a Coup to Dump Billions of Dollars of Losses on the American Taxpayer
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/10/the-federal-reserve-and-bank-of-america-initiate-a-coup-to-dump-hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-of-losses-on-the-american-taxpayer.html
1.The bank holding company (BAC) is moving troubled assets held by an entity not insured by the public (Merrill Lynch) to the Bank of America, which is insured by the public
Since you believe in the "good" served by receiving less than you have earned and subsequently deserve, it would be befitting for you to make the required sacrifices to begin working in the Appalachian mines, yourself. Please render all due credit to members of the OWS movement, who influenced in your decision to persue your dream, when communicating your successes in the coal industry in the future. We wish you the very best, in your endeavor, and remain most pleased to assist in this mutually beneficial arrangement. Cheers.
Since you believe in the "good" served by receiving less than you have earned and subsequently deserve, it would be befitting for you to make the required sacrifices to begin working in the Appalachian mines, yourself. Please render all due credit to members of the OWS movement, who influenced in your decision to persue your dream, when communicating your successes in the coal industry in the future. We wish you the very best, in your endeavor, and remain most pleased to assist in this mutually beneficial arrangement. Cheers.
it is only fair if we get benefits.
if others get benefits NOT FAIR TAX HIM
We have too many fairies already.
"What if the majority don't mind the lack of a safety net to save those who have made bad decisions (ex. student loans)?... I want transparency so everyone can make fully informed decisions, and that they may suffer the consequences of making poor or ill informed decisions."
I understand you want accountability. However, the movement isn't about promoting not being accountable. It's about being, excuse my French, "screwed" by reputable organizations that weren't "transparent" and took advantage of their positions with unfair lending practices that gives them the upper hand and leaves students without recourse. Be mindful that there are crooks that are "intelligent enough and willing to make the hardest decisions" through illegal practices. (ie. Bernie Madeoff) for personal gain...Your position would be valid if systems were transparent and honest. However, that's not the case and that's why we occupy Wall Street.
Regarding coal mining...$70K is a sham. Once there, they'll ask about experience. Who from NYC has experience mining coal? That 70K will shrink with a swiftness. Mining is one of the most hazardous jobs in the world. Now your lungs are black, you're half dead and mining companies aren't known for their great insurance benefits...wow, and you still never quite made it to the $70K mark!
"What if the majority don't mind the lack of a safety net to save those who have made bad decisions (ex. student loans)?... I want transparency so everyone can make fully informed decisions, and that they may suffer the consequences of making poor or ill informed decisions."
I understand you want accountability. However, the movement isn't about promoting not being accountable. It's about being, excuse my French, "screwed" by reputable organizations that weren't "transparent" and took advantage of their positions with unfair lending practices that gives them the upper hand and leaves students without recourse. Be mindful that there are crooks that are "intelligent enough and willing to make the hardest decisions" through illegal practices. (ie. Bernie Madeoff) for personal gain...Your position would be valid if systems were transparent and honest. However, that's not the case and that's why we occupy Wall Street.
Regarding coal mining...$70K is a sham. Once there, they'll ask about experience. Who from NYC has experience mining coal? That 70K will shrink with a swiftness. Mining is one of the most hazardous jobs in the world. Now your lungs are black, you're half dead and mining companies aren't known for their great insurance benefits...wow, and you still never quite made it to the $70K mark!
Economic events of the last four years are only a prelude and not the main event, because the economy is and has been on an irrational and unsustainable track, and unless we take real and rational steps to correct it, it will correct itself. History shows that this always ends badly. Wealth imbalances divert money from the real economy and redeploy it in the “financial” economy, which at this stage in the cycle more resembles a rigged casino than an efficient conduit of capital. The last time the financial industry share of GDP spiked and the wealth imbalanced skewed like it is today was 1929. The reason it has not crashed yet is unparalleled government intervention, which has not fixed the problems, but only delayed the day of reckoning and increased the magnitude of that inevitability if nothing changes.
It is necessary to break the cycle of history. To accomplish this requires three simple things: Federal revenue must go up, Federal outlays must come down and there must be simple but real financial reform. It is not a choice between one and the others. Federal revenue increases should come exclusively from income streams that have enjoyed preferred treatment for a long time, but everyone will have to expect less from the government for expenses to be reduced. It will not be enough to merely balance the budget; we must begin paying down the cumulative debt to remain a dominant economic power. China’s “currency manipulation” is simply a matter of them buying our debt because we create it. For the last ten years the “financial sector” has prospered while the rest of America got saddled with more debt both public and personal. “Cutting taxes” and borrowing the shortfall isn’t really cutting taxes, because the actual tax due increases with the addition of interest, and the burden shifts to people who can’t vote because they are children or haven’t even been born yet. This generational theft is unconscionable. We hear a lot about the right to life of the unborn, but what about their right to liberty? The real price of the financial bailout is that we sold an unborn generation into indentured servitude when the government assumed or guaranteed private debt for which it had no previous obligation, while no attempt was made to “claw back” any money from the perpetrators or to prosecute them for systemic fraud. Instead, they kept their ill-gotten gains, their jobs and their freedom. They also claim they broke no law so the rest of us must have missed the news the day fraud was de-criminalized.
Anyone who says "What I want is the type of society that is more dog-eat-dog than it is now" can only be classified as a psychopath or sociopath.
"You'll have to excuse me, but I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value." YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME!
Every one has value. I am sorry that you don't have enough self-worth.
Occupy Westchester - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Westchester/274093539289447
"You'll have to excuse me, but I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value." YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME!
Every one has value. I am sorry that you don't have enough self-worth.
Occupy Westchester - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Occupy-Westchester/274093539289447
If the people who want "faireness" win, then, it will be your turn to bear with "FAIRENESS" that you do not want. The world of fairness is a different type of dog-eat-dog system that you love. That is all. Nothing will change for you.
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
But your value system is tremendously flawed. You are valuing human life in terms of money, and that is how your value system is flawed. While human life may be insignificant, it still does have value. We are not primitive animals, although by our level of intelligence you would be forced to think we were rather stupid creatures.
What you speak of is a Capitalist society.
Where can you mine coal for 70,000 a year??. Seriously I would like to know because I would be very interested in this job? Is it 40 hours a week or do I have to work overtime?? Does it come with health insurance?? retirement plan?? I have to go check business week.
Another narrow minded world view, where someone thinks they know what's good for every one else.
So if you think that life has value when you earn it, then you must not be pro-life. And if you claim you're pro-life, you aren't, and you're a hypocrite.
Of course I'm not pro life. Believe you me I will be the first person marching into the Dr's office demanding to have such a thing ripped out of me.
Clearly you have no idea what's going on in the United States of America and clearly you have never taken a U.S. History course and/or read the foundational documentation that this country was built upon (i.e. The Declaration of Independence). Whether you support "Occupy Wall Street" or not is irrelevant. At the end of the day, the United States of America has forgotten what it means to be the United States of America. Your post is proof enough that citizens are completely disconnected and have willingly accepted a life that our founding fathers would consider appalling. It’s time for U.S. citizens to have a voice again and it’s time for honesty and integrity to be more than empty words. Stop thinking about yourself long enough to realize we're talking about a country as a whole. Stop being a road block to your own country.
Best to put you Bankers down in the Mines so you can discover what actually labor is like. Shuffling papers, conniving to steal over expensive meals, and making phone calls on your yachts and on the links....this does not qualify as work. When is the last time you did an 8 hour day of REAL work.
Recently thank you. And I really don't like the idea of "real" work. It's all relative to your perspective. Any fast food worker could say that any office personnel don't know "real" work. Any ditch digger could say any fast food worker doesn't know "real" work. So please, cut the "real" work crap. Any action done in exchange for monetary compensation is real work. Unless you choose to make the argument that it's fake and just a figment of imagination.
Drug dealers do real work too. So, according to your definition, it loses all meaning. The point is if you were getting paid what a ditch digger got paid, all right. So it's not just the nature of your 'work', it's your pay. What goes around comes around. No doubt you or someone in your family will get theirs, and then we will see how well you function.
What does THAT have to do with anything? I definitely did not say ditch diggers should make as much as doctors.
Quote "You'll have to excuse me, but I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value. I believe value must be earned in life, and that works for both those born rich and born poor. Value is earned by making good decisions and doing business fairly. A rich man who does fair business is worth far more than the idiot who drowned himself in student loans, mortgages, and car payments,"
This is the ignorance that perpetuates the demise of humanity. I believe, as SO many others do, that VALUE as a human being does not come from ones ability to achieve material success in life, but ones ability to live a life of integrity and love, caring for his fellow man and the world we are so blessed to live in. Character and dignity define the Value of a human being, NOT income or status!!! And many of those with debt etc. are people of good character and dignity.
I think the computer lost part of my comment. I mean to say that the man drowning in debt and trying to force his neighbors to pay for his mistakes has no value versus a rich man who has dealt fairly. Basically, value does not come from just existing, you have to prove yourself worthy. And money has nothing to do with it, I was using it more along the lines of "a rich man will have an easier time...."
How can you say that any human has no value. That is such a loveless and cruel statement. We all have value, none of us are perfect, yet none of us are worthless. There are many wealthy people who do good business but are heartless on many other fronts, so is wealthy good business man more valuable as a human being than his neighbor in debt who goes down to the mission each week to volunteer time, etc...??? None of us are more "worthy" ....we all fall short in this way or that but we ALL have Value!
We are born valueless and every choice we make, every law we decide to live by, determines our worth.
The choices we make do not determine our worth or value, we all have worth and value within us from day one....Good choices are the expression of that God given worth and value IMHO.
"Better is a poor man who walks in his integrity than a rich man who is crooked in his ways."
Exactly. In this case the rich has no value.
lol, he too has value, he is just making choices that do not express the value within. Its like a pitcher of water, you can pour water from you pitcher to provide for those who thirst or you can let the pitcher sit in the fridge. Either way, there is still water in the pitcher, still value in each person. Its all a matter of what we chose to do with the value we ALL DO have within. Ok Im done ;-) Now let us both go pour out our value in which ever way we can. :-D Blessings...
A more of a "dog eat dog" world is fine by me. But when the top 1-5% starts to control you "democratic" government I feel just isn't right. When these corporations end up being able to blatantly use government funds (bail outs) for their own personal use (vacations, private jets) from OUR tax money that was supposed to solely go to fixing THEIR problems, I get a bit irked.
I'm perfectly ok with people making more money than me while getting to buy more "toys" and the like. But once they start using MY funds for their own personal gain, I can't just stand back and let that continue.
Remember that awesome guy John F. Kennedy? It is pretty clear now, based on facts alone, that he came into office solely because of extra cash he mobster family threw at the Illinois government. It's stuff like that I see no use for in society. There must be a way to exterminate money from our political system.
Another point I would like to make... When you think of terrorism what do you think of? Flying a plane into a building while killing hundreds of people? Well, what would you call it if you first took all of the people out of the building and then destroyed it? This is basically what large corporations are doing by outsourcing their jobs. This is a time that companies are making record profits, but instead of keeping their companies in the U.S. they are moving to less developed countries to earn a few extra bucks. Given it's their company and they can decide what they are going to do with it, to me this just seems criminal, especially in a time when job opportunists are becoming more and more of a rarity.
There are many opinions on this forum as to what should be done. But that is all they are 'opinions'. This movement is primarily about taking money out of politics. It really is that simple.
http://occupytogether.spreadshirt.se/
Tldr.
"And I believe that only those intelligent enough and willing to make the hardest decisions should be allowed to obtain the necessities in this world."
You underestimate the good fortune you've had in not being born in the third world. I personally believe that this so-called social Darwinism only panders to the most animalistic and bestial thought processes of human beings.
One major characteristic that separates us humans from beasts is the combination of empathy, self-awareness, and rational thought that allows us to look objectively at the situation of human beings other than ourselves and still apply ideals such as justice and compassion. So I consider it a disservice to humanity to advocate the abandonment of this ability.
But dealt with on a personal level only. I do not wish my wages to be stolen at the gunpoint of my government to feed someone hundreds of miles away that I have never met and who has no effect on my community. Compassion only works when you're looking the other person in the eye.
"Compassion only works when you're looking the other person in the eye."
I couldn't disagree more. Compassion fails entirely if you only have it when you look someone in the eye. That's not "compassion," that's "shame."
Daennera, we don't know each other. I have a college education; I paid off my college loans. I've been working at least one job full-time since I was 17 years old. I worked two full-time jobs to pay for college. I'm full-time employed now. But my parents are unemployed. My father has an MBA from Cornell University's business school, but he couldn't find a job because he was "too old" and speaks English with an accent.
My father was diagnosed with cancer three years ago, and our family is just now overcoming the medical bills. The winter he and my mother moved to be closer to the hospital where he was seeking treatment, the boiler in their house failed and caused extensive water damage. I personally covered five-digits in medical bills and home repair bills that insurance refused to cover - my entire life savings from 17 to 27. My father received Medicaid - it wasn't a lot, but it was a huge help. Without Medicaid, we would not have made it.
You can't look me in the eye, Daennera, but tell me that my family wasn't "intelligent" enough, didn't make "the hardest decisions." Tell me we "deserved" this. Tell me I shouldn't have taken on debt to help with my father's cancer treatments, even though I wasn't sure at the time that I could afford it. Tell me all this and say you're compassionate.
Do you expect a handout then? Do you feel somehow entitled to the resources of others based off your poor fortune? I'm not saying that you don't deserve help, but I'm asking if you think others should be forced to help you even against their will.
This is the downfall of modern social society. We conform to a world which we rely on people who we may never meet in our lives to make our resources; i.e food, housing, money, clothing, and other amenities. We consider ourselves successful when we work hard, payoff debts, pay bills. This isn't success. Success if happiness. Success is being able to sustain oneself, literally. If we placed a small group of people into the 'real-world', nature, most, if not all, would not survive. Why? Because we rely on others to produce our goods for us. That is what modern society. Mass production of goods. It's prevalent in education and in all free markets. We consider civilization more advanced than before when really, were just structured differently.
I never expected help, but I was certainly grateful for it when it came. I'm asking you an entirely different question. I'm asking if you know what compassion is.
Because understand this: for all our misfortune, I recognize nonetheless that my family is lucky. We've survived this, I still have a job and have taken care of my debt. I pay rent, I still eat. I'm not here supporting Occupy for me. I recognize there are families in even worse positions, and I am concerned for them. That is my claim to compassion, and by extension that is my claim to being human. I am asking you how you stake your claim to that.
To answer your question: Do I believe that we have a responsibility to help others in our society? Yes. It is not a legal responsibility, but a human one, a moral one. It is the responsibility imposed on us for being human beings. I can't fault you if you find yourself emotionally incapable of shouldering that responsibility, but I do fault you for trying to justify it, and for advocating that shortcoming as somehow just, for advocating it as philosophically and morally just. The problem, to me, is not that people are "forced to help others against their will." The problem is that you consider it an outrage to help others, even a little bit.
There is a difference between socialism and compassion. There is a gradient to it, there are degrees of it. I am comfortable with a broad range within that spectrum. But you are - I like to believe accidentally and thoughtlessly - taking a simple-minded, extreme position. I am just asking you to question that extremism by questioning what you know of compassion.
Compassion is fine and dandy, but just having compassion for someone does not solve their ills. It does nothing actually. So why even talk of it?
Because compassion moves us to act. I agree that, by itself, it does nothing. It would not be enough just to get the world to care. It's what happens next that is most important - and determines whether we do good by the world, or if we ultimately pervert good intentions.
But by my book, making mistakes with good intentions does not excuse the mistake, but it can at least lead to correction. Accidentally doing good with ill intent will guarantee only more opportunity to do harm later. And worst of all is doing evil with ill intent.
Well, sometimes you need safety net because the people make mistakes, or disabled physically or have some mental or physical illness that prevents from working. Not against safety I think unemployment insurance should be improved so people can go get re-skilled for the next job. Still, welfare fraudsters and people that refuse to work that are capable of think those benefit should be reduced accordingly to change a behavior in that individual. There are people on far left an right think in black and white and never the grey in situation.
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
agree, more socialist world won't solve the problem, a more "effective" labor department or job centers may do !
Wow.. couldn't agree more!
Hey I just stole your wife and picked on your kid...it's not fair, I know but hey you want a dog eat dog society that's not fair, plus she like me better and I am having a blast!!!
coal mining brings death to workers. Are you paying attention to 'worker's health rights'?
"And what if most people have no interest in a fight to make the world what it ought to be? What if there are more of me than you? What will you do then?" We will do what we are already doing. We will continue to fight for justice without your help. But if you have no interest in a better world, could we proceed without your criticism, as well?
I was mostly just curious about how you feel if you were not the majority and not everyone wanted what you wanted. How would you feel? What would you do?
I am shocked how negative and abusive others are being in regards to this post. I do agree in part with this forum, however the biggest issues with many who have over extended themselves financially is do to a lack of education or at least it is the reason for my own personal financial lacking (in part). Our public schools did not teach us financial responsibility, nor did my parents. I have heard it said that "a wise man will learn from the mistakes of others, while a fool will not even learn from his own mistakes". That leaves me some where in between. I am fifty dollars away from qualifying for welfare and I am a thirty year old disabled female. I have gone through three foreclosures on my home and prevailed each time, I have lost my vehicle to being repo'd and I literally eat one meal a day because that is the most I can afford. Unfortunately for me there is no one to blame, not even myself. However, while I was able to work, I worked for one of the largest cellular companies in the United States and I was grateful for the opportunity to have that job. Given my circumstances, I would trade half my life to be able to go back to work again. I am for fair business and I am for fair government. End the income tax, end the property tax ( I bought it, it should be mine with out fear of my government taking it away from me!), end corporate gains tax and end the capital gains tax.. that will bring immediate relief to every American and it would bring companies back to the United States providing more stable jobs quickly.
I would also like to add this comment based on other comments I have read that the rich get richer and poor get poorer. That is untrue. Had I not become disabled I was well on my way to making far and above what I should, based on that quote. A bigger issue in today's times is that others do not want to be responsible for their actions (divorce, abortions, justice, etc). My father worked two jobs six days a week and a third job on Sundays just to make ends meet for my family and so that my mother could stay at home to raise their children. My father also worked through fourteen back surgeries, two massive heart attacks and a pacemaker. Not many men these days would do that. My parents birthed two children and out of the kindness of their hearts, they adopted a third. My parents could barely afford to take care of their own, but our family was better off than the family of my adopted sibling. My mother's heart was too big to not take in my adopted sibling and give her new child a fighting chance in this world. My parents are no longer poor. My father worked his way up the ladder, owned his own business and my parents have done more than their fair share to help others in our community and around the world. They support private individuals and they support ministries that have proven to help others around the world. I personally take food off of my own table to help others in my community and to support similar ministries around the world like the samaritanspurse.org. It all boils down to personal responsibility. Some times there is no one to blame, some times there is only your self to blame, and some times their are very good reasons to blame some one else... However, each individual should hold the majority of responsibility. If by some miracle I ever became gloriously rich, I do not feel that it is my duty to support some one who is not holy connected to me by force. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that when you give to "some", they continue to drain you with out trying to help themselves at all. I know this first hand. I have gotten people jobs only to have them never show up. I have paid electric bills only to find that the person I paid for was on a drinking binge and that was the reason they could not afford their electric bill. When you take food off your own table to give to some one else only to have it wasted, it really does put a bad taste in your mouth. Based on life experiences, I stand by the phrase "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime".
No one except someone with money would make the above statements. I don't care about being in the minority or majority. I care about truth. I care about my daily life. I care about my children, their future and losing my house. I care about feeding them and being able to get medical care when needed. This is why I am proud to call myself part of the 99%, or one of the ones who in your eyes have no value because I exist. (I didn't choose to exist, but that's a whole other topic). If you are fine with things the way they are, then more power to ya. You can sit back,relax and reap the benefits of our lousy economy. Right now my mom is bedridden in a vegetative state. I guess she's a human being without value since her savings are evaporating thanks to exorbitant medical bills. Even a human being who has no compassion, like yourself, unfortunately, still has value. My 55 year old husband, an accountant, has not been able to secure a permanent job after he was laid-off 3 years ago. He sends out resumes every single day. We have a mortgage to pay for a very unostentatious home. Don't know if our college aged children will be able to stay in college. Don't know how they'll pay back their rising student loans if this great economy that provides so much opportunity for everyone continues.. Our Cobra payments are as large as our mortgage. There is food to be put on the table, electric and water bills to be paid. Savings are dwindling and we are being helped by our parents, whom we should be helping rather than the other way around. Do you honestly believe that laziness outweighs pride? Those with money can keep their money and make more of it, but don't take my right as a living breathing tax paying citizen to make a decent living myself. Opportunities that were in place 10 years ago, no longer exist. if you think people are sitting on their asses by choice, you are deluded. Everything you stated is incredibly stupid. I find nothing wrong with people earning millions if indeed they have worked their way up the ranks or through entrepeneurship and good old-fashioned hard work. The majority of the 99% are NOT against hard work. High powered investors and bankers reaping million dollar bonuses for doing nothing more than sitting in their leather chairs is a little bit more immoral than sitting in a park fighting for the rights of the average citizen. Just so you know, many protesters and marchers do have jobs. Many of us supporting OWS march and then return to our homes. The core group that remains downtown NYC and in the other 250 occupied cities across this country sleeping under tarps in the rain make a LOUD symbolic statement for the majority in this country . Their representation must continue in the form of dissent in order for the rest of us 99% to feel that we are yelling at the top of our lungs for necessary change.be it in the form a a revolution or what ever results! ..I join in on the weekends and so do thousands. Corporations are running down this country,. Elected officials have been bought by their special interests. If you have no problem with this take over, then sit back and enjoy. I bet you wouldn't apply to the coal mine job if YOU had to. You're right, I'd choose the "creature" DIScomforts of homelessness in NYC over moving in with the white trash ignorant hillbilly you obviously are.. If you don't see anything wrong with this immoral imbalance, you are either one of the 1% or incredibly stupid. I suggest you stop over generalizing and prejudging issues you obviously have not experienced and therefore can not understand. I know my own experience and the anger I feel. Watch out for angry people.
You may lose your house. Which will suck, but that's the risk you took in buying it in the first place. That fact is, the ability to fail and fail hard is a requirement in this world. You may end up homeless and hungry. What you do about it is up to you and only you. It's not up to me or anyone else.
No one except someone with money would make the above statements. I don't care about being in the minority or majority. I care about truth. I care about my daily life. I care about my children, their future and losing my house. I care about feeding them and being able to get medical care when needed. This is why I am proud to call myself part of the 99%, or one of the ones who in your eyes have no value because I exist. (I didn't choose to exist, but that's a whole other topic). If you are fine with things the way they are, then more power to ya. You can sit back,relax and reap the benefits of our lousy economy. Right now my mom is bedridden in a vegetative state. I guess she's a human being without value since her savings are evaporating thanks to exorbitant medical bills. Even a human being who has no compassion, like yourself, unfortunately, still has value. My 55 year old husband, an accountant, has not been able to secure a permanent job after he was laid-off 3 years ago. He sends out resumes every single day. We have a mortgage to pay for a very unostentatious home. Don't know if our college aged children will be able to stay in college. Don't know how they'll pay back their rising student loans if this great economy that provides so much opportunity for everyone continues.. Our Cobra payments are as large as our mortgage. There is food to be put on the table, electric and water bills to be paid. Savings are dwindling and we are being helped by our parents, whom we should be helping rather than the other way around. Do you honestly believe that laziness outweighs pride? Those with money can keep their money and make more of it, but don't take my right as a living breathing tax paying citizen to make a decent living myself. Opportunities that were in place 10 years ago, no longer exist. if you think people are sitting on their asses by choice, you are deluded. Everything you stated is incredibly stupid. I find nothing wrong with people earning millions if indeed they have worked their way up the ranks or through entrepeneurship and good old-fashioned hard work. The majority of the 99% are NOT against hard work. High powered investors and bankers reaping million dollar bonuses for doing nothing more than sitting in their leather chairs is a little bit more immoral than sitting in a park fighting for the rights of the average citizen. Just so you know, many protesters and marchers do have jobs. Many of us supporting OWS march and then return to our homes. The core group that remains downtown NYC and in the other 250 occupied cities across this country sleeping under tarps in the rain make a LOUD symbolic statement for the majority in this country . Their representation must continue in the form of dissent in order for the rest of us 99% to feel that we are yelling at the top of our lungs for necessary change.be it in the form a a revolution or what ever results! ..I join in on the weekends and so do thousands. Corporations are running down this country,. Elected officials have been bought by their special interests. If you have no problem with this take over, then sit back and enjoy. I bet you wouldn't apply to the coal mine job if YOU had to. You're right, I'd choose the "creature" DIScomforts of homelessness in NYC over moving in with the white trash ignorant hillbilly you obviously are.. If you don't see anything wrong with this immoral imbalance, you are either one of the 1% or incredibly stupid. I suggest you stop over generalizing and prejudging issues you obviously have not experienced and therefore can not understand. I know my own experience and the anger I feel. Watch out for angry people.
Right on! I agree!
It's not about you. It's about children starving to death by the masses each minute because people who have more than enough to share refuse to.
It is their right to refuse to do so. Private property is sacred above all else. Without the right to property, you get 3rd world Communism. NO ONE should be forced to give up what they own, even for the best of intentions.
That's right. No one should be forced to. So why should we have to force people who have more than enough resources to sustain themselves to give to children who are dying because they have nothing?
Why can't we let go of our greed to give to people who have nothing? Why, if everyone were provided for in the context of basic survival, you wouldn't have to relinquish your precious money.
I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not. Of course no one should be forced into charity. That's common sense.
And no, I believe no one should be forced to do anything. But the very fact that the "haves" in this world are childishly holding on to their overabundant resources is rudimentary in the process of evolution and enlightenment. There will always be problems in this world so long as there is inequality and lack of love.
It is ridiculous and immature that people with more than enough have to even be forced to consider the common and mutual good of all.
I would love for you to spend a day in Africa, or travel to homeless family shelters across the globe. You will know when you look in the eyes of a homeless child what I know.
You will not go, of course. You will briefly consider my words and continue on in your indifference. See where it takes you.
Would I love to help all the homeless and hungry in the world? Sure. Can I? No. Should I be forced to? Absolutely not. In fact, I think there isn't a human being in this country who has the right to complain about anything so long as the conditions that exist in Africa and other such places remain. But regardless, I do not believe you can force anyone to help another.
No, you obviously do not have enough. I am talking about those who have more than more than enough (that was not a typo). I'm talking about money saved from stopping the creation of defense systems and weaponry.
I said I DONT WANT TO FORCE ANYONE. Sheesh, learn to read. I am not complaining for myself, I am complaining for those who can't say anything in other countries.
Consider this and you might just open your mind. If you, me, and your child were the only ones on the planet, and I had a solution or a cure that could help your child, would you not want me to share that with you out of the goodness of my heart? Why would I ever have to be forced to do such a simple task as sharing when I have enough to share?
How about if I refused to help your child, and indifferently sat back and did nothing. How would you feel? Try to understand this hypothetical situation and you will understand how I feel about the whole world.
No parent wants their child to die. Of course said parent would feel badly. But what are you gonna do?
Actually bring the meaning of fairness and love back to this world, who obviously is in starvation of such things.
You are free to act in such a way for your own self. You are not free to force it down others' throats.
I don't want such a thing. But I feel I shouldn't have to force someone to do what is naturally right.
Lots of things shouldn't happen in this world.
If no one does anything about the atrocities happening in this world, be it in this nation or in another, with someone you know or don't know, it will continue to happen if we don't care and if we don't assume responsibility. the attitude that "I didn't do it, so it's not my responsibility" is a selfish and primitive one. Until we can shed our greed and help our fellow human beings, no one will want to help us in our time of need.
I don't really get it... as long as you want to define someone's "value" in monetary terms someone born rich will ALWAYS be advantaged over someone born poor, simply because of access to resources that you yourself are perpetuating as proper.
All you're really saying is that you want the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor.
You're missing the point here. He who acts fairly and transparently without forcing charity by gunpoint from his neighbors is worth far more than he who thinks his neighbors should be forced to pay for his misfortune.
By that do you mean that they should "know their place" in society? Because that's what it sounds like. Seriously, all you seem to want is very pronounced social stratification.
You want someone to prove their "value" by raising the bar to class mobility near impossibly high across the spectrum, while making sure the resources are exactly where you seem to think they belong, in the hands of those with money.
Seriously, call it what it is - a very clearly define caste system. Feudalism is back in the mind of the far right, which you seem to adhere to.
No, I'm saying those that live for themselves and do not feel that anyone owes them anything, but are grateful for charity if they need it, are far superior to those who think the world owes them something and refuse to lift a finger to get it for themselves.
You've already justified why they should have no access to "resources" so how do you expect them to "live for themselves"? Circular argument is circular.
I'm calling it what it is. The rich stay rich and the poor stay poor in your fantasy land. Without an equal starting point, there's no other outcome. Those born wealthy have all the resources, those born poor will have none.
I did not say not have access to resources. In this country, so long as you are no imprisoned there are plenty of resources at your disposal.
"I like the idea of the rich having access to better resources than the rest."
What am I missing, exactly? Someone born into wealth is advantaged from jump street; meanwhile you're raising the bar for "class mobility" for those less fortunate by doing away with social programs. Honestly, do you want to encourage success or do you just want a permanent subservient class? Its hard to tell.
Your entire argument is a double standard. You want to make sure the race is 50m for someone born wealthy, 500m for someone middle class, and 5000m for someone poor. And then you want to piss on them for coming in last place, because somehow they weren't "valuable" in your sociopathic system.
I said "better". As in if you want shit tons of end of life care and can pay for it yourself, go for it. If you are expecting me and other taxpayers to foot the bill, forget it.
It doesn't really matter if its some or all, the end result is the same. You are defining, and defending, a caste system.
If people are so terrified of "socialism" they are willing to regress society to feudalism... I don't even know what to say.
Some people will always have more. Get over it already. It's happened since the beginning of time and will continue till the end of time.
Maybe it sounds CRAZY, but we could start by not determining someone's value to society as roughly equal to the size of their bank account. How many people throughout time may have had the potential, but never had the resources to succeed?
Outside of that, I don't have all the answers, I'm just focused on asking the right questions.
Simply put, the economy isn't functioning, in large part, because of the imbalance. The political system isn't functioning, in large part, because of the imbalance.
But you don't seem interested in an objective discussion, you seem more interested in patting your own back, and moreover, you've made up your mind about the movement. So, don't let me dissuade you with pesky things like "reason" or "evidence".
So how do you plan to make it work then?
So... you just want to make sure you get yours and then everything else can go to shit?
I'm not the least bit concerned with what others have that I don't. There will always be somebody richer than I. I accept it. Embrace it. And sleep fine. Hence, I do not find this so called "inequality" to be an issue. And therefore, I have no interest to fight to rectify a situation I find non-existant. It's not "fuck everyone else", it's "why are you even worrying about this?"
"An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics." - Plutarch
You did say one thing I agreed with... that humans have short memories...
And republics will continue to grow and continue to fall. It's not like there was ever any guarantee of an immortal society anyways.
get republicans to vote yes on jobs bill-by any means necessary
sure, you sit in your condo sipping your martini while 30,000 people die of starvation every day, and bitch about how the system is "slightly" skewed in favour of those with money.
honestly....
Martini?? yum Ill.take mine.dirty
In this country, yes. Even in the days of living in my car, I found it very hard to actually starve in this country.
you do realise that the USA only enjoys a high standard of living because of 50 years of economic and military warfare, pillaging countries of their resources through corporations to sell the goods back to the american people at a fraction of their worth, while the rest of the world suffers for it. That is the nature of "the american dream"
Huh? No, what rubbish. This is the myth spouted by neocons like George Bush, that the military adventurism is necessary for US prosperity.
The reality is that the US was prosperous well before military adventurism.
i was talking primarily about economic warfare.
Military warfare is only done as a last resort. The US has been overthrowing governments and enforcing sanctions, and pillaging resources from all over the world for a very long time now.
It's very well documented and not at all "rubbish"
It is rubbish, the US was prosperous long before economic warfare.
yes, that's true. But it wasn't a world superpower pillaging every other country on the planet, with military bases all over the world, with about 0.5% of all the worlds population consuming over 25% of all the worlds resources every year then, was it?
Right, so prosperity is not contingent on exploitation. Your zero-sum game model of the universe is patently false, and encourages militarism and neoconservatism.
I'm all about ending the economic and military warfare. So I don't see why you're disagreeing with me, really.
Because you said that the US only enjoys a high-standard of living because of "economic/military warfare", which is untrue. Even without those the average person in the US would still be well-off.
Warfare only benefits a few.
the conditions that have created the financial boom in america over the last 50 years that have allowed the massive consumption that goes on there now have explicitly been fuelled by economic and military warfare (as well as money-printing, de-regulating, etc.) Before that, not so much. But definitely at least since the US overthrew Iran in 1951.
Allow me to quote part of your statement " I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value." Perhaps, one can take your life away, and he/she would not have any consequences. We, the people, are born free therefore our value is our freedom. Another observation, What is your definition of fair business? there is not such a thing as fair business in a Monetary System beacuse what drives this system is MONEY which is 100% control by few. The problems is not the "Idiot that got student loans" like you stated even though all he/she wants is an education. the problems is that this monetary system is so corrupt that we have to pay for basic rights which we are entitle. if we dont change this, pretty soon we might have to pay to breath. BTW the only reason we dont pay for clean air is because Abundance of clean air. Scarcity is created by few in power therefore they can force slavary, or i will call it Modern slavery in the form of paper with not real value "MONEY" that they created out of nothing. "ONLY GOD CAN CREATE THINGS." Ref Bible
so you say value is earned by makiing good decisions?? so what about the decisions you cant make??..being born into a one parent house hold with siblings and a family tree that doesnt support your immediate family?..i understand value is made by striving for what you want and need...but humans make mistakes..one bad decision can alter any person life..sex without a condom while your in college..there you go..a new ball game.the point here isnt 99% of people need a cop out..its the 1% doin their job poorly and affecting the 99% without being punished.bonuses passed out by the millions for what??people being rewarded for doing their job poorly?..perfect example..where i work is a huge printing company which filed for bankruptcy 2 years ago..what did they do?/give the CEO a 2 million dollar bonus and for what? incompetency?and oh..what do you know..once he receives his cash he resigns and all the employees are given a 10 reduction in their hourly wage. its not about fairness its about common sense.oh and you know dam well a mining job would require experience to be obtainable.not to mention how many people have the resources to just drop everything and jump to another state.
Companies are free to make whatever decision they want concerning their money. I see no reason to infringe upon that right. No more, I'm sure, than you want your neighbor deciding what you do with your money.
i understand that fully..the problem is if i as a non-executive member of the company made a mistake that cost the company money i would be punished and most likely lose my job.now your talking about a person that did something bigger than put the wrong page in a book.this person was a major figure in allowing the company to be run into the ground. why cant i be given a bonus for putting page 5 in front of page 4...but this person can be given millions for putting 1000s in a unemployment line?..is that fairness?
It's fair to whomever is doling out the money. Isn't that all that counts?
lol you fascinate me...its counts to people like you who have the money blindfold on..money is the root of all evil..and sadly what make the world go round..why not use those 2 million and give it out to the workers who in all actuality deserve just as much because without those blue collar slobs...the CEO job would be obsolete..for me its not the money..its the respect and the thought like..."hey i got 2 million dollars and i ran this company into extinction..hmmm...should i keep it for me..or help out MY FELLOW MAN and possibly split what i have here because their heading to a job market that almost doesnt exist..hmmm....nahhh fuck em..i made more money this year than about 20 of my fellow non-executive employees but i think i want that 2012 bmw"..its about greed man...i see your torn between the 1% and 99% though
So you wish to legislate respect now?
there are different kinds of respect.why do you think OWS is happening??the lack of respect shown by the people "on top" to the people "on the bottom" is coming to a breaking point.these on top not only ran this country into historical and catastrophical debt..but arent even being punished for this.their ridiculous decisions throughout the last decade have caused millions and millions of americans to change their way of life.
And sitting in a park will change this how?
thas just the beginning..sitting in a park has sprawled numerous people all over the country and world to do the same..the media just started covering this recently..you know why they waited so long??..so people that are sitting around dont get any new ideas.but now its internationally known.its only been a month..just wait
its not about sitting in the park..its about the idea..just look at the middle east and all their uprisings of this year..you think thousands of people just got together one day and said "hey lets start a revolution"..no..it takes time..and takes a few to open peoples eyes
No, it takes blood shed and life loss. Something I don't think you folks are willing to do.
so if your not for the cause..why are you on this website???
You obviously haven't heard of the Velvet Revolution.
"money is the root of all evil.."
So you think that money is the root of all evil?
Have you ever asked what is the root of money?
Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
it is evil not because of what it is used for...but what it turns people into
But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality--the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money.
Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth--the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt the money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it.
i agree..money is a tool..so u dont think anything you just said revolves around evil?..focusing your life on being satisfied on what you have and not how you got it??..how about those that didnt inherit..those that used others as a ladder to get it?..isnt that evil?
"isnt that evil?"
Not sure what you are asking...Isn't "what" evil?
Having to earn your money, rather than inherit it? How is earning money evil? Money is simply a tool for exchanging the best of your worth for the best of another person's productive effort. How is earning that evil?
Do you mean "focusing your life on being satisfied on what you have and not how you got it?" How is focusing your life of being satisfied with the results of your productive efforts evil?
Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existance. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity?
Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit.
ok u sound like a republican lol i agree to disagree
I never attempted to speak for you. The rest of us 99%% welcome you to express your ideas. And you have done it. You don't have to agree with us to be us. Some will agree with you and some won't. But until this happened, the likelyhood of my hearing what you had to say were almost 0.
You are welcome. It didn't happen because the 1% (with a few exceptions) wanted it to. It happened because the evidence is convincing that our government is under the control of a minority that is harming the rest of us. Most of us have worked and are willing to work for what it takes to sustain us. A lot of us have worked nasty jobs, have sacrificed to get an educations and qualify for better jobs. Survival rations shouldn't be the norm. Living in a third world country is not the American Dream that most of us are willing to settle for. In the land of the blind, one eye is king. I think we would like two eyes. Help us find the way.
"You don't have to agree with us to be us."
Huh??? What kind of garbage is that? Who on earth would become part of a group they didn't agree with??? Would you ask Jesse Jackson to attend Klan meetings... hey, you don't have to agree with us to be us, right? See how ridiculous that sounds?
Pass the doobie I guess...
99% has a definition. It does include many people who disagree. Read the postings. You can define "us" as subset of the 99% and you might be 38%, 72% or 2%. The 99% is defined by income level, and what goes along that fraction in income, taxes, etc. can also be quantified. As soon as you start defining restrictive subsets, you start eroding your clout.
I am satisfied having both of you in the club, for now. Through dialog, you may find more areas of agreement with each other and with me. I didn't say you can be wrong and still be right by being part of a group. What is reported about the #OWS group is that it includes people who are dissatisfied that the game is fair. If you think it is, you could exclude your self. If you think it the system is unfair, there seems to be a broad spectrum of examples, some of which you may agree with, others you may not. You do not have to agreed with every one of them to be one of us". I don't think that is ridiculous. You may.
I main issue I have is by using the term 99%, it makes it sound like you are representing me as I happen to fall into the 99% as defined by my income. Just because my income level dictates I am part of the 99% of which you claim to be representing, you don't speak for me yet you want to lump me in with that group. I am not saying changes need to be made, but in all honesty some of the demands OWS have made or changes that have been proposed are absurd and unreasonable (in my opinion, obviously). Therefore I don't want to be lumped in the 99 even if my income qualifies me to be. The implication that you speak for the whole 99% is what I can't agree with.
I didn't intend to speak for you but I believe that it is proper for me to make observations and factual generalizations that are true of the 99%. The fact that some in the 99% challenge my generalizations or are even willing to accept what I believe is harm to them as being OK with them, doesn't negate my right to attempt to analyze and generalize.
I am open to considering these challenges to my conclusions or my reading of the facts but even those who aren't willing to do so are still part of the 99% and may do the same thing as I am doing, as their right. Some demands are outrageous, to be sure, and some will try to speak for all but many people will recognize them as such without overtly responding. And, I thank them for not embarrassing me.
Start working with the hand you were dealt. Play by the rules that exist. Change from the INSIDE. And understand that not only is failure an option, but a real possibility. Reconcile yourself to that and you will indeed raise your chances of success.
I don't know you or what you look like, but for the above statement that's as harsh and real as possible, I think I love you lol. You're a realist even if it appears to be harsh, I see what you're saying in all your posts...Look at the animal kingdom. There is no "fair" or "justice". There is instinct, survival and empathy. We just have advanced and 'defined' versions of these things and seem to make up our own definitions on our terms without remember life as is, doesn't care about what those definitions are. And someday we're going to die, and the world left behind will still have many things wrong with it, no matter what you do in the 73 years you're here..... Do what you can while you're here, if something doesn't work, find a better way. If you fail, so be it. Won't be the first time. I find it funny how I know people who mess up money wise over and over and wonder why things in their life are a wreck. Learn from your errors and be honest about them. It'll only help you in the long run. I've agreed with 99% of what you've said. Cheers.
I think it is fear of failure and hardship that keeps people from being happy. I wake up knowing I need to live, or die trying.
Maybe because I have been around a long time I can understand that dice can be loaded, cards can be marked, laws (rules) can be created or modified and judges can be bought to get the outcome somebody wants. There are plenty who have done exactly as you suggest and have been cheated out of their just wages. Reconciling to being short changed in the face of evidence of immoral conduct is just what the exploiter wants. I don't think "feed the hand that bites you" is the way the saying goes.
Being so naive is charming. But it is increasingly short supply.
Yes the dice can be loaded. That is part of the rules I'm talking about.
"What I want is the type of society that is more dog-eat-dog than it is now. I want transparency so everyone can make fully informed decisions, and that they may suffer the consequences of making poor or ill informed decisions."
But what if someone else thinks that your decision to create such a world is a poor or ill-informed one, and they decide that YOU have to suffer the consequences? And what if they're intelligent enough and willing enough "to make the hardest decisions" to follow-through with THEIR decision? You can have the most dog-eat-dog world you want, but you better make sure that the other dog isn't bigger and hungrier than you are....
I accept their may be larger and hungrier dogs that I. And I relish the thought and sleep very well even knowing the possible consequences.
Good. Then expect violence. Because that's exactly what powers your world...
To a degree, yes. Although believe it or not most people with real power detest violence. Instability is definitely not the friend of the powerful.
"Although believe it or not most people with real power detest violence."
LOL...yeah, I bet they do. Especially when it's violence directed at them....
It does not make for a good business climate. See, if you thought how a business men thinks, you might actually have a shot at winning this game.
I don't want to win this game. I want to relax in a nice, comfy coffin.
"I do not believe in the philosophy that just because you exist you have value" Well then it seems you believe that we are all slaves and do not deserve to be human, sounds very dehumanizing! We are all equal in "value", just because you might have inherited fame or fortune, or believe you are Nobel "better" then others doesn't mean that your not equal too me or anyone else here on the planet. You might think this but I promise you that is not the case, if you choose too Beleive in a world of enequality then do so on your own behalf and let it not harm others, be responsible for what you say and do! We are all brothers and sisters in the struggle for humanites future. Paper and gold coins are inanimate objects with only one future, governments and politics will always follow the paper and coin trails. Mankind should never be swayed by fame and fortune nor kingdoms come, please realize that this is real and something will come of this in the future, it is predestined in the constitution and declaration of independence of the united states that every man will have thier freedom from injustice and tyranny!
Activism always works--look at how the world has changed. That's us.
What activism are you referring to?
The activism against slavery, for women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, free speech rights--don't forget, we didn't even have our first Amendment rights in law until 1964, when the last of the sedition laws were ended. Woodrow Wilson used those to jail socialists.
All of which came about by some external pressures (violence or economic) besides the actual activism. Slavery did not end because people were picketing in the streets, it took a war!
My head.
And the war did not end racism or bigotry. The external pressures that shift cultural values in a society are more likely to be actions or behaviors that do not fit current cultural norms. The OWS movement is perhaps one of those shifts. We may try to pigeonhole what we are experiencing from an array of already established categories, but the fact is the OWS movement is a different species of movement. It may appear as somewhat familiar if we attach labels invented from the past to it, but the times are different, there is more to it. Never mind the fact that most outside observers are apt to oversimplify and cannot grasp its significance, for even participants themselves are overwhelmed by the possibilities of what is growing in the womb of this movement. Who knows what the end results may be? Regardless of what any individual may intend - it is a movement, a shifting of culture is occurring.
it was the whole political and social climate that brought it down. wait and see
Watch the film Bulworth, where the lefty Senator gets killed by the Capitalist. We do expect lots of pain.
I was thinking more along the lines of shedding the blood of Capitalists. Do you people really think that camping out in a park in NYC is going to change the behavior of anyone who matters? And you are all entirely powerless to hurt them on the economic front. So what other strategy could you possibly have?
everyone matters. Isn't that the point?
Uh...........no they don't. And THAT is the point.
maybe in your small mind, no they don't. But a lot of people are sick of exploiting each other and have had the crazy idea that maybe we should all help each other instead.
And THAT is the point.
What right do you have to force others to be charitable exactly?
Strawman, I never said that. Don't start talking about "rights" because I didn't even mention "rights."
I do not intend to force others to be charitable.
Rather I intend to use logical deduction to enable you to conclude that a world based on community-interest would be superior than a world based on self-interest.
that's what Daennera wants to tell everybody:
"as long as i get what i want/need, i don't care about justice or the needs of anybody else and nobody should have the right to force me to care about anybody else but myself!"
A world with bunnies made of chocolate and flowers made of lollipops would be superior too. But. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
yes, just like they all said "we'll never fly" "every problem in physics has been solved" "it's ridiculous to believe that we'll ever walk on the moon" "I don't see the need for more than 4 computers in the world" and so on and so on and so on.
Except we've tried the whole utopia form of governance before, and oh gee it didn't work out so well now did it.
2 problems with what you've written.
You mean as opposed to Capitalism, the great utopia that works perfectly and protects everyone. Always just heads and tails with people like you, isn't it?
Never any space to see a third option.
Although, I seem to remember that Venezuela, Cuba, and China, are doing pretty well for themselves. (all communist countries. all not suffering financial collapse.)
Communism. You know the great utopia that has not a snowball's chance in hell of actually working.
"as long as i get what i want/need, i don't care about justice or the needs of anybody else and nobody should have the right to force me to care about anybody else but myself!"
isn't that right Daennera?
Regardless of what I personally choose for my own ethics, what I'm saying is don't expect it of someone else.
i hope everybody in your environment turns against you for their own benefits. it's what you deserve.
you have NO IDEA about how much you depend on the good will of the society around you. you should have a taste of what it really means to take your fate into your own and only hands. cocky prat.
You say that as if I wouldn't LIKE that particular situation. In fact I would. I would kill for the chance to test my mettle and maybe die trying. You all have no idea what real thrill is in the world.
please believe me that there are people out there who have no interest to be superior to you, that would welcome you as an equal and as someone precious without preconditions. please believe me, that you have the right to be loved just because you exist. everybody does.
please go out and seek love, it will come to you. do it for your own good.
I'm just not big into that touchy feely hippie kum-by-ya existence. Not my preferred cup of tea. And I'm not the sole person in the world that isn't into it either.
everybody needs love. you know that. only the unloved hate.
i wish you all the best.
I didn't say people didn't need love. I'm saying that I, nor anyone else, deserves love just for the act of breathing.
you're such a huge asshole. words fail me.
actually i feel bad for you. i hope you'll find somebody who loves you. loves you because you exist. only that is true love.
Ummm...doesn't your analogy prove the OP's point? You don't love somebody just because they exist, just like someone doesn't have value just because you exist.
Those of my kind do not believe in loving someone just because they exist. They believe there must be a reason that you love someone. That they must "do" something for you. We love judiciously and with caveats. And I have found that those of us that do have the most successful relationships. Expectations make the world of difference.
as i said, i feel sorry for you. have you always had the feeling, that you're not worth to be loved unless you achieve something?
It's not achievement that brings love.
Okay, let me try to illustrate this. My friend has a woman who is a real horror. He's in the military and makes very little as an E4. She chooses not to work. She could work. She's capable of working (has all limbs and for the most part a brain), yet she chooses to keep her household in near poverty. They have no kids. She cannot keep the house at all; it's a total pig sty. She constantly belittles and criticizes my best friend for trivial crap. She can never pick him up in time for work and usually spends the paycheck before it comes in. She is not an asset to her household. She does not deserve his love. He busts his ass for 12 hour days 5-6 days a week and he gets nothing in return. He is the type that believes that people have value no matter what their actions. He is starting to realize how wrong he was.
As you describe your friend's woman, she has all the classic signs of an addiction, or possibly mental illness. It is obvious, by your account of her abusiveness toward your friend, she has little to no investment in her relationship with him, but is probably investing all her energy toward her addition, unless she is just mentally sick. In either case she is not herself and has no awareness. On the other hand, if he actually does see value in their relationship and her, he would not merely tolerate such miserable conditions and would seek the means to reform the situation.
Please, no more replies to Loser Asshole Troll Fuck Face. That goes double for ME!
Well, that was intelligent.
What I care is how the rich use their wealth to skewd the decision of our politians.
That is how the rich get richer.
You were born in the wrong era... You are definitely in the minority.
What era should I have been born in then? I figured we were talking about philosophies more timeless and not confined to any one era.
The Dark Ages...
Idiot, mining is raping the earth. Fuck off!
Well for so long as people like having this thing called electricity, it's going to be necessary. We simply do not have the alternative technologies available to meet the demand of electricity in this country. Is it a good goal to work towards? Of course, but ignoring reality in the meantime is just silly.
Solar is raping the sun.
Slightly skewed? Who are you kidding? Havn't you seen the numbers? The lower 90 percent of Americans are sharing less than 10 percent of all United States wealth. The richest one percent own well over 40 percent. Slightly skewed? Hell no. Obscene and immoral? Damn right!
It's so weird to hear all these numbers thrown out. Numbers of how somebody else has "x" more than this person. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about how much somebody else has. Where do you people find the time to ruminate about this anyways? Some of us are too busy working a full 40, going to class, and expanding our real estate portfolios for that.
Then why the hell are you here?
To make the point that you should consider that there exists the possibility that you are the minority and that all this may be for naught. That and you people obviously aren't willing to do what it takes to change the world anyways.
Thank you Daennera for saying what 99% of us are thinking
WeThePoeple are not the minority. You may think that "You" are the minority in your views(and you are),but #ows has spread across the globe. Hence the numbers thrown at you...99%. Your thoughts and views are partly self-centered and uninformed. Many #ows people have jobs and responsiblilties.What separates them from you is they have goals to change the current system so that all can benefit the same entitlements as the 1% equally. The World is Changing in a new direction for the middle/working class, so you might as well be Prepared.
Your opinion has been noted.
wait and see, we never forget
In my experience, it is humans who have the shortest memories.
wait and see
We are the majority.
I don't think so. That's all I'm saying. I could be wrong. But I have a sneaking suspicion you are not the majority.
You seem to be obsessed with OWS...
I do visit the site occasionally. It's an idea that I do not understand, and in that I wish to know more about it. I'm not necessarily sure if this particular even will make the history books yet, but I find the human and philosophical elements fascinating.
Great.
Daennera, Right now, I work 60 hours a week. In the past, I worked a 40 hr wk job and 2 part time jobs. I still find time to care about my fellow human beings...
Caring is not obsessing. It's not staring at the guy with the bigger house all day and going on and on about how his bathroom is bigger than yours, how he has more bedrooms, how his windows are newer, etc. Caring about people, and not always worrying about what everyone else has are two entirely different things.
You clearly don't get it... I don't obsess about bigger bathrooms, as you say, but I am concerned when doctors at the local city hospital are alarmed at the spike in childhood malnutrition. Malnourished babies grow up with physical and cognitive deficits, which means that they are more likely to require public assistance.
Then perhaps we need to go back to a time when allowing yourself to bear a child without adequate resources would confer huge amounts of shame on the woman.
This makes me happy knowing someone understands how things actually work. I'm a bit of a realist and I understand that know matter what you do someone will come out on top. If you do the work and find the right connections you might just become that person.
I suspect Jesus Christ would like to have a word with you.