Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What are Gary Johnson and Ron Paul Really Advocating?

Posted 1 year ago on Oct. 23, 2012, 4:50 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6584)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The answer is tyranny.

The policies advocated by Gary Johnson, Ron Paul and the rest of the leading figures in this so-called libertarian movement are really destructive. Now, there are some reasonable suggestions from parts of this movement when it comes to foreign policy for example, but when it comes to the economy and property rights etc, these people are way off. The libertarian movement is in reality advocating tyranny.

These so-called libertarians (a term used in a completely different way thruout history) advocate something that in reality would lead to a more corporate-run society. They want to privatize more services and give HUGE tax cuts to the wealthy and the big corporations. That of course means that the corporate elite and the top 1% will become even more wealthy and powerful in society.

Handing over huge amounts of cash and resources to the rich will weaken democracy even more, moving society towards more tyranny – private tyranny: Non-elected wealthy elites getting even more powerful.

In a real democracy it would be the people themselves that got to be in charge of their own workplaces and communities. In a free-market capitalist society however, it’s the wealthy that have the overwhelming power over our economy and our communities – even though we’ve never voted for them! We’ve never voted for the ones controlling our workplaces, and we’ve never voted for the financial elite and speculators at Wall Street. Still Paul and Johnson want to hand even more power over to these people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYxGkFxb7f4&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwQEgOKEEXI&feature=plcp

These policies are also, as we can see, not very far from what the Republicans advocate. A good example of this is the Rand-worshiping republican Paul Ryan. And it is exactly these kinds of policies with privatization, weakening of workers' rights, tax cuts for the wealthy etc, that have been implemented more and more in society, causing huge gaps between rich and poor, austerity etc. – and Ryan, Paul and Johnson want more of these policies..

So in other words, this ultra right-wing libertarian ideology has the wrong answers. What we should work for is a sustainable society where democracy is the core and controlled from below; a society with more direct participation, with the economic institutions and the communities being run democratically by the participants; a society where people participate in the decision-making, and are in control of their own work, life and destiny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jRy5ZIYZok&feature=plcp

111 Comments

111 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (21064) 1 year ago

Amen! Well said! These are the points that need to be made about libertarianism that people just do not get.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Thanks. Yeah, it's important to focus on these things. A lot of people have embraced the ideas of this cruel ideology, they should be introduced to the facts of what the consequences of their wishes are.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

republicans and democrats stand for tyranny.

indefinite detention laws

wars based on lies

world's largest prison population due to corrupt lawmaking

spying on Americans

groping you when you travel with illegal searches

Wall Street getting unlimited resources

brutality against protesters under laws they created

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The things you mentioned here are of course totally unacceptable. The point with the post was that the libertarians want private tyranny: Power concentrated in the hands of the huge corporations and the financial elite.

The Democrats and Republicans both support private enterprise playing a huge role in society, so they are also advocating private tyranny to a large extent. The libertarians just want more of it.

Capitalism, regulated or non-regulated, is intolerable. It must be dismantled.

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

We already have non-elected wealthy elites getting more power. Why do more people know about what Donald Trump has to say in comparison to someone like Jill Stein or Gary Johnson?

I do fully agree that eliminating minimum wage and going strictly to a consumption tax is an unfair and ridiculous idea, as are many policies of the libertarian movement... I do not disagree with you about that.

They say eliminating corporate tax rates and certain regulations would brings jobs back to America. If they think the government is in debt now, that definitely won't help. We could bring jobs back to America by reforming trade laws to abide by American labor standards.

What are Obama and Romney really advocating? War and unlimited resources for Wall Street.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Can I ask you: what do you think about Libertarian Socialism?

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

But Pres Obama has ended Iraq war, ending Afghan war, and resisted right wing pressure to start Iran war.

That's not advocating war.

Hey! You're not being honest!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

preaching 13 years of war in one country is advocating war.

drone bombing a bunch of countries is war.

libya was war.

Bragging about the largest military preparation and wargames with Israel for a potential war in Iran is warmongering.

Crushing a civilian economy is brutal too. How would you feel if Iran all the sudden put sanctions on our country and your dollar decreased by 80%?

brags about increasing military spending every year too.

Bombs and sanctions are not peace. They are war.

The drone strikes are war.

hiring private mercs is the same as having troops there.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Just your everyday Anti Obama partisan campaign attacks. None of what you mentioned is meaningful. It's not war mongering, it's not wart If you had a little more experience you'de know what war is. And you would know that it is the republicans (who you always seem to leave out) who are to blame for all these war on terror military actions.

Spew your misleading, inaccurate partisan lies to someone who don't know better. I got your repub plant number!

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

if you're going to spew...

.................................spew into this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouDDj6kr1qo

I love how you think opposing the wars is "repub plant"

You think anarchists are republicans because they don't support Obama.

[+] -5 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I didn't say anything about anarchists. Thats you lying about my position.

I didn't say opposing wars is repub plant More lies. I said you're the plant!!

You have to lie cause your arguments don't stand up to the truth!

Liar!

[-] 3 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

Libya was war - Fact

Drone strikes are acts of war - Fact

Obama bragged about military spending increasing every year under his presidency so far - Fact

Iran's civilian economy is crushed and their money has dropped 80% and Obama bragged about it on Monday - Fact

Bombs and sanctions are not peace - Fact

Hired mercs are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and many other countries - Fact

Afghanistan has been supported by Obama since it's inception - Fact

Federal Reserve gives unlimited resources to Wall Street with no real oversight or regulation and Obama and Romney are okay with that - Fact

Pretty sure everything I listed was fact.

And i've seen you call a bunch of people speaking against anything under the Obama administration a republican of some form. So yeah that's fact too.

[-] -2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Pres didn't "bragg" about anything that is you slanted partisan exaggeration.

And campaigning in this right wing country is just an effort to convince the people scared by repub fear mongering that he is strong enough against terror.

Of course that simply required so he can get re elected and continue undoing therepub created war on terror, & begin the process of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

Grow up. Stop being so naive!

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Obama did "bragg" about the ridiculous sanctions and speak of war games with Israel in the latest debate....that was actually a fact...i know you watched it VQ.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Campaign nonsense. the sanctions, the claim of increased military spending (When he cut the growth), the war games is just appeasement to the right wing war mongers in an effort to continue successfully resisting their pressure to invade Iran.

Grow up. I ain't so naive I think these anything more than a campaign dance that is required in this country that has been scared shit by the fear mongering repubs who began when they exploited the 9/11 attacks.

It's a game. You gotta be a little more intuitive, sophisticated, intelligent.

But I realize if you are simply a right wing partisan you need to paint Pres Obama as a war monger so as to minimize the real war mongerers.

Peace out!

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

So he's lying to the american people to trick them into electing him again?

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He has not used the indef detention authority that repubs created in 2002, wrote into law in 2011, & defeated dem attempt to repeal this year. HAS NOT USED the authority. Only repubs have.

Patriot act, indef detention, and other rights violations can't successfully be repealed until we end the fear mongering (by repubs) and declare an end to the war on terror.

We have ended the overt war in Iraq, ending the overt war in Aghan, resisted the right wing war mongering pressure to start a war in Iran, and have not started any other wars.

We have reduced drone strikes in Pakistan from 120 in 2010 to 35 this year. and all US military killings from a million+ plus to thousands. (I'm against the remaining military actions and I protest against them & encourage everyone to join)

Pres Obama just signed an executive order expanding protections of whistle blowers because repubs in congress would not pass the law.

Romney & Obama, repubs & Dems are vastly different. Your spin is the most negative you could find and neglects the FACTS that I listed.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

how is Bradly Manning being held ?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html

Your "FACTS" aren't even accurate....42 this year so far....in pakistan alone....i've lost count of how many countries we're in doing this....so don't sit there and pretend your wrongly stated number (35 which is actually 42) in pakistan alone is the extent of the attacks this year...we're in a bunch of other countries doing this same thing.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

He's 'spinning' the facts so the independents (scared by fear mongering right wingers) Can accept him as strong enough on defense (terror).

It's the only way in this country to get re elected. Which Pres Obama MUST do in order to declare an end to the war mongering repubs war on terror, drone strikes, rights violations and begin the process of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

Get it.?

What did you see as a lie.?

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

yes, because he's done such a good job at scaling back war on terror, drone strikes, rights violations and getting rid of all nuclear weapons.

He's increased the covert war on terror, increased drone strikes, increased human rights violations by the state, increased our loss of civil liberties with resigning the patriot act and instituting the NDAA, taken away your rights to free speech and limited them to free speech zones, gone after whistleblowers, not done anything about the GMO foods that are feeding his campaign, expanded the wars overseas to new countries, is picking a fight with Iran....and on and on.

Wake up.

"spinning the facts" = Lying - just like romney

From his record though, i have no reason to believe any of these facts are being spun in the slightest.

Pakistans drone strikes (just one of the many we're attacking illegally):

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/10/drone_strikes_map_shows_pakistan_drone_strikes.html

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

If it is 42 this year in Pakistan that would represent a huge reduction from the 120 in 2010. So we agree. I am against the drone strikes and support any reductions in death.

The other countries amount to less than 20 strikes combined. We must protest against all military action if we want to end it. No need to exaggerate or lie.

It's up to us. I believe the reductions represent the goal of ending the drone strikes entirely & then declaring an end to the war on terror.

You claim Pres Obama is just like Bush, When he is the opposite. All areas of military destruction are being ended or reduced towards ending.

That is the truth. Even you Pakistan drone strike number corroborates that.

[-] 0 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

obama is a self-centered dirtbag. what isnt about getting himself re-elected is aimed at destroying capitalism and the usa as founded.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

LMFAO. Whatever you say boss.

Peace Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

obama and his self serving administraion let 4 americans be murdered in benghazi. they called for help 3 times and were turned down. obama is a dirtbag. if he were a republican you would be outraged.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

2 seals murdered? They are heroes. Pres Obama was no where near them. It was Libyan religious extremists that killed them.

I think you are confused.

[-] 0 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

yes , they are heros. the battle went on for 9 hours, they asked the white house for help 3 times and 3 times they were turned down. ambassador stevens was sodomized, tortured and murdered. the cia has coved their own asses with a statement absolving them and pointing toward the white house, the cic specifically. the murderers were not " religious extremists" this was a pre-planned attack. this building had been attacked 2 times before sept.11.2012. you attempt to shield obama ffom this is pathetic. obamas lies and your lies about obamas lies are obvious. give it up, too many people know that obama is responsible for the murders in benghazi.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Good luck in all your good efforts

[-] -1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

You can't defend the actions ( or more importantly , non actions) of obama, the murderer-in-chief.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Thanks for that. You should get the impeachment started.

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

here is a pic of the kid that he murdered, an American citizen.

How you can possibly ignore this is beyond me....

http://www.globalresearch.ca/top-obama-adviser-awlakis-16-year-old-son-should-have-had-a-more-responsible-father-if-he-wanted-us-not-to-kill-him/5309698

[-] 1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

If I could , I would. Obama, purposeful wrecker of the American economy, traitor, murderer of American servicemen and the U.S. ambassador.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are delusional, and unamerican.

Just a right wing wacko who uses these tragedies for political gain.

Pathetic!

[-] 2 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

obama is un american and unfit for office. he is responsible for the murders of 4 american. you ought to get up to speed, the administrations lies and cover up about benghazi are unraveling.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Pres Obama is not responsible for these assassinations. Thats just your anti dem partisan extremism talkin.

Your candidate Romney tried to play politics with these peoples lives on that very night and even repubs rebuked him, He was told to stop using one in his campaign stump speech by a parent! He was caught in one repub talking point lie in his debate.

You, your candidate Romney, and any repub who is trying to benefit from these brave Americans deaths should be ashamed of yourselves.

You have no honor!

[-] 0 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

obama being cic , is responsible. he is guilty of dereliction of duty and murder. obama knew what was going on in benghazi 2 hrs after the fighting started. there were 3 requests for help, and the WH said no ,....3 times. the muslims never got the memo, they were supposed to capture stevens and obama would orchestrate a prisoner exchange with him for the blind shiek. but stevens was murdered, obama and his idiots blamed a video. obama uses everyone, seniors, welfare recipients, women.only thing that mattters to obama is getting re-elected. so, give your2 survivin brain cells a rest and stop spinning the lies as fact. they are not. obama is without honor or ethics.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You are clearly and admittedly just an anti obama partisan campaign operative.

No need debating you.

Besides, your just hurling partisan insults & accusation without any proof.

Right wing wacko much?

[-] -1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

murder knows no politics. it has already been established that there were 3 calls for help that were ignored by the white house. the 2 seals that were murdered were told to " stand down", but went to help their countrymen anyway. they deserve posthumous medals of honor. obama is guilty of murder.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

Obama did it! Obama bad!!

Obama! Obama!!!

Peace. Good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 1 points by andover4 (-33) 1 year ago

obama is at best guilty of dereliction of duty, at worst, MURDER.

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

everything he mentioned is meaningful

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

I disagree

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

It's interesting....i didn't see tyranny in new mexico while johnson was governor....i'm pretty sure the state (which is 2/3 democratic) voluntarily elected him for a second term because of the progress.

Its a shame that people will judge so quickly..instead of really sitting down and studying this stuff...because once you do..you'll never go back. They don't seek the policies they seek to try to hurt poor people...and prop up major corporations....they do it for just the opposite....but because the logic is counter intuitive to most at first glance..they write it off. You really have to study it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I find it a little interesting that you libertarians, who are usually very talkative, very often go completely quiet, once I confront you with the fact that the policies you're advocating include giving the corporations and the 1% HUGE amounts of cash and power, giving them even more tyrannical control in society.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Struggle...me and you have argued back and forth over this too many times now. Until you sit down and really study our argument, you're never going to understand. You say we're giving more power to the corps and the 1%, I argue it is doing exactly the opposite. It is limiting corporate greed and its influence over everyones lives.....and part of the proof in that can be seen with New Mexico. Many of Gary Johnsons opponents said there would be poor people running around in the streets dying and the corps would rule NM.....his second term came along and he was re-elected by a 2/3 democratic state because of the positive outcomes for the average person in the state. And he did all this by balancing the budget and vetoing more bills than all the other governors combined.

I just finished your side of it..... read the Shock Doctrine. I'm writing a post on it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Does Johnson want to give huge tax cuts for the wealthy? Does Johnson want to privatize more services? What exactly do you expect is going to happen when the wealthy are given even more wealth and power, along with privatization and welfare cuts?

You want an undemocratic society in which the power and wealth lies in the hands of non-elected wealthy elites.

People should be able to control their own lives and communities, and you do that by strengthening democracy, including democratizing the economic institutions - not handing them over to the private enterprise.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

You know i don't support pure democracies....it leads to mob rule. If 51% of the people think i'm a witch they can haul me off to jail for the rest of my life. If 51% of the people wnat to take my land for the resources on it, they can. I don't believe people are informed enough for direct democracy like you advocate....people elect representitives who then immerse themselves in what is going on and have a better ability to make sounder judgements. Now you can argue we've gone off track with this and i agree...money rules the show now and our elected officials don't really represent us anymore. But here are examples of the people that would be making decisions for me under direct democracy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EohGmG-QUhA&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts&feature=player_embedded

"Does Johnson want to give huge tax cuts for the wealthy? Does Johnson want to privatize more services? What exactly do you expect is going to happen when the wealthy are given even more wealth and power, along with privatization and welfare cuts?"

Did this happen in New Mexico? No. What happened in New Mexico? The democratic state elected a libertarian for a second term because the budget was balanced, employment went up, taxes went down, and people were getting paid more.

I don't think you relaly understand the ideas behind a libertarian society....otherwise you wouldn't be talking about corporations ruling the people and private tyranny like you are. Seriously, read some books and study their ideas a little bit before you just assume you know what you're tlaking about.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“You know i don't support pure democracies”

But you should. People should be able to control their own lives.

“it leads to mob rule.”

In a libertarian socialist society, with participatory democracy built from below, there’d be no mob rule. Institutions in society would be controlled by the ones participating. All individuals can’t get their will all the time of course, but that’s a logical consequence of living in a society with other people.

“If 51% of the people think i'm a witch they can haul me off to jail for the rest of my life.”

And if a minority, or a constitution written by long since dead people, states that certain people are witches they can haul them off to jail for the rest of my life. I’m talking about a from the bottom up-democracy in a civilized society.

“I don't believe people are informed enough for direct democracy like you advocate”

There’s a lot of ignorance, that’s true, but that’s not a law of nature. People can become active, engaged and willing to participate in the decision-making. We’ve seen examples of this in the past.

“money rules the show now and our elected officials don't really represent us anymore.”

What do you think about the fact that money rules. Do you think this money influence will decline when multibillionaires get huge tax cuts?

“Did this happen in New Mexico? No”

New Mexico wasn’t laissez-faire capitalist society either, now was it. And Johnson was then a republican, right?

“I don't think you relaly understand the ideas behind a libertarian society....otherwise you wouldn't be talking about corporations ruling the people and private tyranny like you are.”

Tell me then, where am I wrong? Johnson wants huge tax cuts for the wealthy, right? Johnson wants to privatize more services, right? Again: What exactly do you expect is going to happen when the wealthy are given even more wealth and power, along with privatization and welfare cuts?

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

"In a libertarian socialist society, with participatory democracy built from below, there’d be no mob rule. "

That's great that you're reassuring me of this, but i see no evidence to the contrary. I have a historical couple thousand years of human psychology to draw from. You talk about how we live in a "civilized" society now. Pretty sure it was just a year or two ago that the citizens in the US wanted to tear down a mosque in NY city. Human nature doesn't change...just because we have nice buildings and we have sewage and water running to homes does not change basic human nature.

"There’s a lot of ignorance, that’s true, but that’s not a law of nature. People can become active, engaged and willing to participate in the decision-making. We’ve seen examples of this in the past."

It's funny....things right now are absolutely horrible in this country...we're on the edge of a cliff....yet i don't see this engaged and willing public right now. I see no reason to believe it would be any different in a lib socialist society. In fact, even if they were, i still don't think this deters the negatives of mob type rule.

"What do you think about the fact that money rules. Do you think this money influence will decline when multibillionaires get huge tax cuts?"

If you relaly understood a lib society, you would know that money doesn't rule....the consumer does.

"New Mexico wasn’t laissez-faire capitalist society either, now was it. And Johnson was then a republican, right?"

I you remember, johnson ran in the republican primary and was excluded...so decided to run libertarian. As far as i'm aware he hasn't changed all of his beliefs to mold into the lib party....he's preaching the same stuff he did on the republican platform. I also don't understand the fear of Johnson if you saw what he did in new mexica....the governor and president aren't dictatorial (although that is debateable right now) in what they can and can't do. Obviously if johnson was president he wouldn't be able to go strictly laissez-faire....just like he wasn't able to in NM. But that didn't stop him from turning the state around...his policies greatly helped NM and the people knew it...that's why a 2/3 democratic state elected him again.

"What exactly do you expect is going to happen when the wealthy are given even more wealth and power, along with privatization and welfare cuts?"

I think our difference of opinion on this stems from the fact that you view a lib society as a hybrid of what we have today. Lib's believe that the reason you have such rampant corruption today is because of government..not because of a lack of it. Government becomes the engine for which private business can steal your wealth and not be accountable for their own actions. Financial crisis is a great example....did the people get bailed out by government or the major institutions that caused it who contribute millions to campaigns? Or look at the evil companies we talk about today....Monsanto - propped up by government....Haliburton-Lucrative government contracts and ties....Fannie and Freddie - Government guaranteed housing loans....the list goes on and on.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“I have a historical couple thousand years of human psychology to draw from.”

What exactly are you referring to?

“You talk about how we live in a "civilized" society now.”

No I wasn’t. I was talking about that the libertarian socialist society I want would be a civilized society.

“Pretty sure it was just a year or two ago that the citizens in the US wanted to tear down a mosque in NY city.”

There are lots of improvement that can and should be done, yes.

“Human nature doesn't change...just because we have nice buildings and we have sewage and water running to homes does not change basic human nature.”

I claim no such thing. However, human nature is best suited an egalitarian, solidaric and free society.

“It's funny....things right now are absolutely horrible in this country...we're on the edge of a cliff....yet i don't see this engaged and willing public right now.”

But I just said that this is no law of nature. Propaganda spewed out by corporations and the financial elite (you know the guys you want to give HUGE tax cuts) has a lot of blame for this unsustainable society we have today. That’s why it’s so important to strip them from their power, not give them tax cuts. People can be engaged and active in the decitionmaking in their communities and workplaces. We know this for sure, because we’ve seen it in the past.

“If you relaly understood a lib society, you would know that money doesn't rule....the consumer does.”

What? That one you’re going to have to explain more thoroughly.

“he's preaching the same stuff he did on the republican platform.”

Sounds about right. Republicans and libertarians have very similar views.

“the governor and president aren't dictatorial (although that is debateable right now) in what they can and can't do.”

But, I told you: it’s not the politicians and the way they get elected that I called “tyrannical” here. It’s private enterprise that is tyrannical – and Johnson and Paul wants to hand over more power to these tyrannies.

“Lib's believe that the reason you have such rampant corruption today is because of government..not because of a lack of it.”

I know, and that’s a huge mistake, because you fail to address another form of power center: Private power. Private wealth is very highly concentrated, and libertarians want to give huge tax cuts to the wealthy making them even more powerful. Very destructive.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/dont-tread-on-me-except-for-all-you-capitalists-ce/

We seem to agree on corporations and government being very closely linked, and I understand that you want an end to this. The point is that your solution is not going to limit the power and influence of corporations.

When you give huge tax cuts to the corporations and the financial elites, and privatize more services, you can’t seriously suggest that their power and influence is going to decrease, can you...?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (28525) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Ur funny = If 51% of the people think i'm a witch they can haul me off to jail for the rest of my life. If 51% of the people wnat to take my land for the resources on it, they can.

You prefer how it is now - with a teeny tiny minority making these decisions.

[-] -1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

Witch was used because of the salem witch trials. People get worked up into feeding frenzies as groups...i've seen it happen. They do things they never would acting as individuals. This repeats itself throughout history because human nature doesn't change. Asch comformity experiment is a great example of people accepting what a groups things and going along with it even though it is blatantly wrong. There are all kinds of examples in psychology available screaming at us why a direct democracy would be dangerous.

That is what the constitution is for. To preserve the foundational rights.

"Teeny tiny minority making these decisions"

You have the ability to throw this teeny tiny minority out whenever you want....by voting. You can't, however, throw the 51% out if you don't like what they're doing.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“It's interesting....i didn't see tyranny in new mexico while johnson was governor”.

Sure you did, John.

“i'm pretty sure the state (which is 2/3 democratic) voluntarily elected him for a second term because of the progress.”

I wasn’t talking about the way he got elected. I was talking about the fact that what he advocates is private tyranny: handing over huge wealth and power to big business. It’s pretty hard to miss when you read the post, don’t you think?

“instead of really sitting down and studying this stuff”

Does Johnson want to give huge tax cuts for the wealthy? Does Johnson want to privatize more services? What is it that I’m missing when I criticize his policies in the post?

“They don't seek the policies they seek to try to hurt poor people...and prop up major corporations”

What exactly do you expect is going to happen when the wealthy are given even more wealth and power, along with privatization and welfare cuts?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

As opposed to the tyranny of the two parties we have now (and yes dem. are included there)

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Democrats and Republicans want lots of private tyranny. Libertarians want even more. The right-wing Libertarian ideology is awful. The wealthy must be stripped from their power, not given more.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

But who's going to save us from the people who striped them (rich) of their power, you don seriously think that would be enough for them do you? You want me to belive that I we create this new monster to consume the ok one the new monster would just vanish not become the exact same thing?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

“But who's going to save us from the people who striped them (rich) of their power”

The ones who must strip the wealthy from their power are the people themselves. Private ownership on the means of production must be abolished in favor of collective, democratic control.

“you don seriously think that would be enough for them do you?”

People should be able to control their own lives and work. That is done by creating an egalitarian, participatory democracy; a society without capitalism and other forms of tyranny.

“You want me to belive that I we create this new monster to consume the ok one the new monster would just vanish not become the exact same thing?”

There’s no monster created by putting power back in hands of the people.

[-] 0 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

So what your saying is pay no attention to the man behind the curtain? Your answer is there will be no monster, well that is just bullshit forgive me if do pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

What is this "monster" you're talking about? You say that what I write is "bullshit", but you don't explain why. Who's the man behind the curtain?

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

It really went over your head? My point is people with similar skills and needs will always band together to improve their situation they will rise above others. Unless gov stops them, if gov stops you then why try at all?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You mean like a union?

[-] -3 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Yes! Exactly like that.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

replace anti union conservatives w/ pro union progressives & protest for change that benefits the 99%

[+] -4 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

Copy/paste feel good statement

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

And you believe the opposite right poddy?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

No, the society I want would be highly organized with things democratically controlled by the participatants. There'd be no tyrannical structures and hierarchies.

[-] -1 points by podman73 (-652) 1 year ago

And in your world there would be candy rainbows and unicorns I get it, sadly that's just not realistic. No matter how I much I loved/hated what you said I'm a realist. As such I just can't see your model ever comeing true. This is not an episode of star trek, it's real life.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

A society based on workers' self management and direct participatory democracy is not some unachievable fantasy. It has actually existed to a large extent. The greatest achivements took place during the Spanish Revolution.

A society in which people control their own life work and community is not just achivable, it's what we should stive for. Capitalism must be abolished and replaced by democracy.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

There's nothing wrong with gary johnson & ron paul & rand paul -
that a vist to ayn rand would not fix

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Ayn Rand has had a huge influence on these ultra right-wingers, both libertarians and republicans. Their views are very much alike when it comes to property rights and private enterprise. It’s not a coincidence that Ron Paul used to be involved in the Libertarian Party, and is now a republican, and that Gary Johnson used to be a republican, and is now running for the Libertarian party. These people share a lot of the same views – including their admiration for Rand’s grotesque philosophy.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 1 year ago

google ayn rand william hickman
dont eat before reading what you find

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I think Cenk Uygur did a good job here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fojrlX6rmmM

"Rand is one of the most evil figures of modern intellectual history"

-Noam Chomsky

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

May the hard core libertaryans vote their twisted consciences- fewer votes for the one who is the clear and present threat- Romney and company.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I see your point, but in the long run we should try to convince these people of abandoning this awful ideology and join the fight for freedom and justice. There are quite a few of them, especially in the U.S, and they're very destructive in the struggle for a better society. They are angry - often with good reason - at government, but their focus is wrong. They must be convinced to start fighting for a society that benefits the 99%.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Without a doubt you are right. However those who aren't ready to join OWS or become progressive activists in some other way in the next few days are doing some little good something a bit positive in finding a way to not vote for the GOP.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Sure.

It would be really awful if Romney/Ryan won. Obama's bad, but these guys are even worse.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Glad we can be on the same page from time to time. I hope all is well with you re the hurricane.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I live in Norway so I wasn't affected by the hurricane. I hope all the people on the east coast will recover soon.

Where do you stand politically? What do you think of the ideas of Libertarian Socialism?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxYth0ktPsY&feature=plcp

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I think Noam is a crock, a soft zionist and I think a revolution has to be hard core. But I am not in accord with the attacks on him coming from the RW.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"I think Noam is a crock, a soft zionist"

What makes you say this?

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/chomskys-zionism/

not inclined to beat this dead horse over and over again....

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Chomsky's a big supporter of the Palestinian people, and their right to their land. The claim that NC is a zionist is false.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I'm not going to participate in a still another "round and round" discourse on The Chompster. He gets more attention than he deserves anyhow.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

This claim of zionism is just a strawman. He's been a huge critic of israel's terror and human rights violations in Palestine, and he is against the occupation. He's not a zionist.

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I find it odd i got upvoted so fast. Something strange is going on...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I personally would like to see a strong FDA and SEC and EPA. As it stands now, those agencies are filled with the very people they are supposed to be coming down on. How to fix this situation has a few different solutions.

I dont agree with all that they say, but I do find many of their views interesting. When our government is stealing money from the people to funnel into Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, something needs to be done. Something radical.

As far as the average person goes, the average guy is so regulated its damn near strangling. The people need to be deregulated, the playing field for the little guys needs to be leveled. Again, there are various ways to do that.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There’s something seriously wrong with the existing society, yes, and corporations and government are very closely linked. But that’s not an argument for handing more wealth and power over to the wealthy, right?

Could you elaborate on the average person being regulated too much? What do you specifically have in mind?

It is the corporations and the concentrated private wealth that is screwing the average Joe the most.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Look at how many taxes we pay on everything we do/buy/try to save. Its insane. Go try to work on your house, look at all the bullshit you have to go through. Try to start even a small business, its crazy. Insurance costs are out of control, forced home owners insurance that goes up every year, property taxes that are out of this world. Cant even smoke a joint in your house. Forget about two consenting adults getting into a contract for something, the gov needs to get their cut on that too. Can serve in the military and get your head ripped off at 18, but cant drink a beer. Gov can spy on you whenever it pleases.

And the best one in a while- go try to organize and protest. And get your 1st amendment rights fucked with and some pepper spray in the face.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

The way to deal with taxes is to increase taxes on the wealthy substantially, and get rid of unnecessary laws regarding the private sphere.

When it comes to the economy however, there should be democracy. The economic institutions in society must be run and controlled by the participants, not by private owners.

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

So you would prefer Mitt Romney over Gary Johnson?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

I don’t prefer Romney over Johnson, and I don’t prefer Johnson over Romney.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Mob rule can be dangerous. There's a reason why 95% of businesses dont make it past 5 years, its very tough and requires a lot of self disipline

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

There's no mob rule. I just want people to control their own lives. That can't be done when there's private ownership on the means of production. The economic institutions must therefore be owned collectively.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

I think that good bosses do take opinions on decisions on things, at least the good ones do.

That being said, what I believe we really need is a mass decentralization of EVERYTHING. The person working in the mom and pop hardware store gets a say in how things go. The person working in HomeCheapot gets a say in shit. And a lower wage.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"what I believe we really need is a mass decentralization of EVERYTHING"

So you want wealth distribution, then? Decentralizing the now very highly concentrated private power, by taxing the wealthy heavily, and strict regulation of businesses to prevent concentration of capital? Is that included in your decentralization-beliefs?

[-] 3 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

A mass decentralization would, at this time, almost require a time machine for it to happen. But taxing the wealthy more wouldnt even be required. What is required more than anything, with this plan and every other one, is an intelligent engaged population. without that, there isnt much hope for anything positive in the future.

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Let's leave the time machines out, and talk about today's society. In today's society private power is very highly concentrated and enormously powerful.Taxing the wealthy heavily, and starting strict regulation on private enterprise to prevent concentration of capital would have to be included in your decentralization-vision, right?

An engaged population is crucial to creating a good society, I agree, but I feel you're a little vague in terms of how the economy should be run. Could you elaborate a little more on that?

[-] 0 points by flip (6816) 1 year ago

yes

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Mine too :) I wonder if hchc feels the same way.

[-] -1 points by flip (6816) 1 year ago

do we care?

[-] 0 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Hehe. Well, since I'm engaged in a debate with him: yes a little bit.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

But think of how many votes they will steal from Romney and help Obama get into office....

If your main goal is getting Obama in, and not creating a unified movement of the 99%, which includes the libertarians of Occupy, along with the communists and the socialists, and the anarchists....

Becuase as it stands now, the progressives and libertarians and anarchists of occupy realize that they will not get a decent chance at any of it in this fascsist system, somthing all three oppose.

[-] 3 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"But think of how many votes they will steal from Romney and help Obama get into office"

3rd party votes should go to Stein, not the ultra right-wingers. In swing states people should vote Obama because voting anything else will help Romney. Obama's bad, but Romney's even worse. Keeping him and the Ayn Rand-disciple away from the presidency is an important tactic.

"and not creating a unified movement of the 99%, which includes the libertarians of Occupy, along with the communists and the socialists, and the anarchists"

The way to unify the movement is to enlighten people about the things I mentioned in the post, getting more people to embrace the values of the libertarian left: freedom, justice, equality and democracy.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Do you support the Gary Johnson and Ron Paul voters in the swing states?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Also, considering what I've written here, why would you ask me this?

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

Of course not. Do you? And why?

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

Im saying that if your main goal is getting Obama in, then supporting RP and GJ in the swing states would help you with that goal, as it takes votes from Romney according tot he logic of some here.

Gary could get as much as 2-3% of the vote this year. Die hard Dems should be sending him flowers.

Each side of the establishment is bashing the minor parties members as usual, so it only makes sense that the other party should be embracing it, because it goes with their win at all costs strategy.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6584) 1 year ago

"Im saying that if your main goal is getting Obama in, then supporting RP and GJ in the swing states would help you with that goal as it takes votes from Romney according tot he logic of some here."

The most effective way to making sure Romney don't become president is to vote Obama in swing states.

"Gary could get as much as 2-3% of the vote this year."

He deserves 0%

Gary Johnson and Ron Paul advocate tyranny. When it comes to the economy, the only thing they deserve is criticism.