Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Why shouldn't one economic class purchase another?

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 15, 2012, 10:09 a.m. EST by marvfriedenn (5)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Why shouldn’t one economic class purchase another if it can afford it? If it has enough jobs to offer to meet the seller’s price?

Why shouldn’t three hundred thousand rich Americans purchase the three hundred million Americans who fill the positions?

And when it can no longer afford it why shouldn’t one economic class freely dispose of another?

Not like Nazis liquidating Jews by herding them into chambers.

But like Americans free to disappear in any manner they choose--a freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights--so long as no one interferes with the right of another to disappear after his or her own fashion.

69 Comments

69 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Why can't we cut off three hundred thousand heads?

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

No problem. When do we start?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the french were able to do it,,,, they surpass americans in their bravery and initiative.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Try.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Phase 3 stay tuned

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Then brace yourselves and wear iron turtlenecks yourself. The American people would not more allow you to cut the heads off of 300,000 rich Americans than they would allow you to cut the heads off of 300,000 poor Americans.

Besides, bullets will stop you a whole lot faster than swords will stop them. And the 75% are well armed AND well practiced.

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

The rich won't cut off the heads of 300,000 poor Americans. They'll just allow 30,000,000 to starve to death or die of exposure and lack of medical care.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Or kill millions in their assorted wars,

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

It won't be millions of Americans unless it is a civil war.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Why. do you think americans are exempt from dying in our wars.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Not what I said. We (the people) would never allow millions of Americans die overseas in a war. On the other hand, it is easy to see millions dying here in a civil war.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

A lot of Americans were allowed to die in Iraq, and Vietnam, and Korea...

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

All bad, but not in the millions. You guys are missing the point.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Ah yes....and you could show me statistics that PROVE that 30 million Americans die every year due to starvation and exposure and lack of medical care?

Shouldn't the "government" be taking care of all that for you?

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Are you a complete and total idiot or just unable to read?

"The rich won't cut off the heads of 300,000 poor Americans. They'll just allow 30,000,000 to starve to death or die of exposure and lack of medical care."

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

WHO are the 30 million people they are "allowing" to starve to death or die of exposure and lack of medical care???

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

The ones who won't have any jobs, income, food, health care, etc. under an expanded "free market" ultra-capitalist society the likes of which are being pushed by every GOP candidate and their corporate sponsors.

they'll contraction of they will or they shall, future tense

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Ahhh "they shall" or "they will" is your perception, idea, prophecy, assumption, accusation of what you THINK "the rich" will "allow" in the future.

But see, here's my problem with THAT scenario-which is the same problem I had with cJessgo's in the first place. In order for "the rich" to "allow" such an atrocity to actually occur, EVERY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN who is NOT one of "the rich" would have to ALLOW it to occur. NOT just "the rich". Which would make YOU and ME and everyone else just as guilty as "the rich".

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

I haven't worked in 8 months, and not for lack of trying. Does that make me guilty?

Between the militarization of the police, Homeland Security, the NDAA, construction of FEMA internment camps, mass arrests of political protesters, supremacy of corporate power, widespread corruption and cronyism, disdain for human rights, interlacing of politics and religion, obsession with national security, fraudulent elections and the near complete domination of media by corporate interests, we have a state that has structured itself somewhere between deeply fascist and totalitarian.

In such an environment is is likely that the people are going to suffer, and brutally, as the power structure resists and and all attempts to change it.

Thus the potential for civil war.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

My husband hasn't worked in almost 4 months, and not for lack of trying, and we have four children living at home as well. Does that "allow" me to ignore someone I see begging for food or in need of clothing? NO. Not as long as I have enough for my family AND something additional to share.

Do you have food to eat? Clothes to wear? A roof over your head? I can only assume that you do because you also have a computer and an internet connection-which most people would NOT have if they had to choose between that and food, clothing and shelter.

Even in our "jobless" state we can see with our own eyes that we are STILL "rich" beyond the wildest dreams of the poorest on this planet.

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

"EVERY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN who is NOT one of "the rich" would have to ALLOW it to occur."

...and they may very well allow it to occur. Yes, YOU and ME may be just as guilty as "the rich".

[-] 0 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

and THAT is exactly what every single one of you rightwing trolls and zombified fools advocate when you come in here trash talkin OWS and advocating repelican policy and regurgitating repelican talking points

the scumbags would privatize social security!

and then what? Oh, sorry the stock market collapsed? AGAIN.

YOU right wing fuks can kiss my ass

the repelican party is DONE

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Will it NOT be YOUR fault and MINE if we ALSO "allow" that to happen??????? ANYONE who would stand by and LET people die of hunger and starvation because THE DAMN GOVERNMENT won't take care of them-is JUST as sick and twisted and dark hearted as you proclaim the rich to be.

You are ALL holy and upright about "the problem" aren't you? But you want "SOMEONE ELSE" to take care of the problem FOR YOU. YOU yourself won't feed the hungry and clothe the naked or house those without shelter WILL YOU? But you sure as hell want it to be DONE-just by someone else. Is that how you "shove the poor" out of your realm of responsibility? If they die-it's the government's fault? Or the Republican's fault? But not YOURS.........

You don't have to be RICH or POWERFUL to be a BIGOT. You just have to be a selfish, blackhearted ass. And you have that in SPADES King Bigot.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I'm not completely sure about that; I would like to see the government involved for the simple reason that we can't necessarily save them all. Everyone does what they can for those who have less than they do, and I personally will do what I can no matter what policy the government chooses to implement. The problem is that there is more poverty and more suffering in this country than you or I or anyone else can handle on their own or even in a voluntary coalition barring extraordinary circumstances, and it takes some form of strong systemic approach to poverty to ensure some sort of universal safety net to deal with the people that may fall through the cracks in the patchwork of individuals trying to help.

I may believe in near-universal human kindness, but believing in it and being willing to bet other people's lives on it are two very different things. Hell, I wouldn't even bet my own skin on the mercy of strangers when the choice was that or a legally binding support system that I incurred no resentment for making use of, and if I wouldn't bet my life on it there is no way I'd bet someone else's life or well-being on it either. In short, the government would not be absolving us of our duty to look after one another in any way, shape or form. It wouldn't be giving us an excuse to duck away from those we can help, but it would provide something for the ones beyond our reach.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

But there is no way to be SURE that what is directed into the hands of "the government" will EVER find the hands that are outstretched in want of it. Every organization the Gov is responsible for is over budget and bloated beyond all reason with employees and red tape that is NOT necessary.

According to recent stats, 15% of US citizens fall UNDER the US delineation of "poverty". 15%. And let's take the "richest 1%" out of the equation for purely hypothetical purposes. That leaves 84% of the American population. Are you really, REALLY, trying to convince me that 84% of us cannot "save all of them"-the 15%??? Seriously? That means 5.6 people-per each "poverty stricken" person. If 85% cannot take care of the poor out of their own pockets with their own means, then 85% of this country are shameless, selfish, completely amoral people-just like "the rich" supposedly are.

If 85% of Americans "cannot find" or "cannot reach" all of them, then how on earth do we expect the government or the 1% to do it?

If we give the government the power to "protect" or "save" all of us, we also give it the power to CRUSH all of us. Are you willing to "bet your life" on it?

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

Ask marie and her family what a starving people will do.Thay also had guns.As soon as the wind blows your kind will and does scatter.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

That you think the situation in America right now is like the French Revolution, or that the American people are like the French, just demonstrates how little you understand the American people.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

People are the same everywhere and as in the past. The situation is headed there.You can convince a man to die for his country but not starve for it.Nothing special about you or your flag.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Those that plan ahead and see the signs coming won't starve. And every man will kill to protect his family.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

The plan is to stop the problem not to surive it's results

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"Why can't we cut off three hundred thousand heads?"

Nice plan. Good luck with it. Your humanity is SO much more enlightened than mine.

[-] 2 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 2 years ago

I doubt that. We are all the same.Do not hide behind some moral code that is just a pretense to plunder.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Is that what you are doing?

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Your premise is incorrect. Labor is a commodity. People who provide the labor are not a commodity - Americans or otherwise

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 2 years ago

"Why shouldn’t one economic class purchase another if it can afford it? If it has enough jobs to offer to meet the seller’s price?"

As long as the "jobs" and the "price" have some basic respect for human dignity

"Why shouldn’t three hundred thousand rich Americans purchase the three hundred million Americans who fill the positions?"

As long as the "purchase" price and the "positions" have some basic respect for human dignity

"And when it can no longer afford it why shouldn’t one economic class freely dispose of another?"

As long as each is disposed in a manner that has some basic respect for human dignity.

"so long as no one interferes with the right of another to disappear after his or her own fashion."

Our very human existence is such that we all interfere with the right of others to disappear after his or her own fashion. We negotiate to regulate that interference and negotiation requires genuine listening on both sides.

I've yet to see the usefulness of denying the existence of even the minutest link, which would require some basic level of respect, between all of us.

You don't have to be an Asshole to be a Capitalist

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

[-] 1 points by Coreupt (294) 2 years ago

Ummm. I think this is the current state of affairs.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

They would, but the upkeep cost is too high. Cheaper to let them starve to death.

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

If the economy wasn't dominated by a bunch of mega-corporations, you might have a point.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Do you really think that most Americans work for 300,000 people?

You need to look around as you drive through town. Most people work for small and medium businesses. Plumbers, electricians, flower shops, landscaping, garden centers, delicatessens, ski shops, music stores, auto shops, thrift shops, sporting supplies, restaurants, coffee shops, graphics and printing, cabinet makers...

[-] 2 points by marvfriedenn (5) 2 years ago

If three hundred million participate in the same economy. But three hundred thousand control the economy, that is drive it like a car where they want it to go. Then to my mind three hundred million are dependent for their livelihoods (as well as the thousands of employers who hire them) on the decisions of the three hundred thousand richest Americans. And because we all depend on them, we work for them.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@marvfriedenn...When the system no longer is responsive to the will of the people, the system goes, not the people.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Working for them during part of our days, does not mean they OWN us-in any other aspect of our lives.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Well they actually have a lot less power than you think they do.

Can you give an example of what Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, George Soros, or Warren Buffett have done this year that affects 300 million people.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Joethefarmer...Why did you pick the only billionaires in the United States with a conscious?.

Their billions of dollars to charities are legend.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I just picked the top guys I know of, it was not random.

So add to the list Charles Koch, Christy Walton, Sheldon Adelson, Jim Walton, Michael Bloomberg, Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, John Paulson, Michael Dell, Steve Balmer, Forest Mars...

Can you give an example what any of them have done to affect the lives of 300 million, (except Zuckerberg of course, we know that he did)

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@joethefarmer..The Koch Brothers are supporting republican States to abolish labor unions for public employees.

I think that speaks volumes for their mind set.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You know what? I support that too.

Why should public sector employees have unions? So they can hold the tax payers hostage? Does not make sense to me.

[-] 1 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@joethefarmer....I thought as much, there are reactionary's in every class of society that go against their own self interests.

That's what the koch brothers count on.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I am not reacting or reactionary I am just stating my opinion.

Why is it in my self interest for public employees to have unions?

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@joethefarmer...It goes deeper than that, you are advocating against members of your class in support of the 1% and your philosophy is one of division.

Dived and conquer is the 1%'s solution to winning, because obviously there are more of us than them.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

@chuck1al... It has absolutely nothing to do with the 1%. You are mixing apples and oranges

Public employees do not work for the 1%, they work for me and you.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@joethefarmer....Your saying they don't or shouldn't have a right to organize.

That is exactly the position of the 1%.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually it is the position of the 75%

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Joethefarmer...Actually you don't have a clue. So this discussion is over.

[-] 2 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@Joethefarmer: your permalink post below, we have a constitution, not a direct democracy, so you don't have a clue to how labor management interact when negotiating.

[-] -1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Actually I do have a clue.

I was off a little it is more like 68% that believe public sector employees should not be striking and should have pay part of the cost for their benefits like everyone else.

Perhaps the best thing to do is use direct democracy and put it up for a vote.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

I know, right? What makes employees think that they have a right to decent hours and fair compensation for their skills? Don't they know that because they lost the "sperm lottery" that they aren't ENTITLED to any of our rich money?

They can play by our rules or starve! Screw you, Tiny Tim!

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I said nothing about private sector employees.

Public sector employees are paid form our taxes. Most of us that pay for them did not win any "sperm lottery". We are electricians, plumbers, doctors, grocery store managers, small business owners, landscapers, factory workers, restaurant workers, hair dressers, general contractors...

Most of the people in the private sector have not had a raise in more than 3 years because of the economy but our taxes have gone up each year. When I talk to public sector employees they believe they should get a raise and not pay for benefits because their contract gauntness it.

From what I see, public sector employees are doing quite well, at least in my state. They have medical coverage with no deduction from their paycheck while I pay 30% of my benefits cost. They have vacation and sick time. Some retire with 20 years of unused sick time. When asked to contribute 3% of the cost of their healthcare they threaten to go on strike.

I don't believe public sector employees should be allowed to strike while the rest of us are on hard times. That is all.

[-] 1 points by marvfriedenn (5) 2 years ago

You're talking about rich individuals who will protect their right to accumulate fortunes by giving part away. But I'm talking about the 300,000 richest people in the U.S. And they all agree that what's best for them is best for all of us. No, I say, it's not best for me because I want the chairman and the charwoman equally invested in the economy. I want them to take home the same amount of money. Because that's the only way for all of us to live at peace. Otherwise we get the smug and the disgruntled. Otherwise we get meritocracy which daily has less and less merit.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Then we shall never live in peace.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

What's yer point? The problem, truly, is that there is a huge underclass in America that believes others have not GIVEN them enough. Instead of scouring the Internet in search of a job they're here complaining. From my point of view, they're just not hungry enough yet. And that's what a welfare for all society produces...

[-] 3 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Nope. The problem is there is a huge underclass in American that has been raped and robbed, and the criminals are driving Bentleys and living in oceanfront estates. It is the second age of Robber Barons ...

[-] -2 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Any you're what? Envious?

[-] 1 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

Nope, just observant, and not a complete fucking moron like you.

[-] -3 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Where do you get the idea that one group of Americans can "purchase another group of Americans".

Are you really that ignorant in believing that? People work for other people for several reasons.

1st reason is the person who owns the business took the chance to start a business.

2nd people who work for other people are satisfied in doing so, for if they were not, they would start their own business.

3rd people who work for other people have the decision not to work for other people. They can work for themselves.

4th If a person doesn't want to work for another person but doesn't know how "not to" what does that tell you about that individual.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

It's called indentured servitude.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Indentured servitude is when you have "no other choice" but to work for someone whom you owe money to.

Like back in the early days when people used to work for the coal mining industry. They would get housing provided to them by the company and in return would work and pay to live there.

However, they were never quite able to pay the debt down because of the "company store". So, they had no other choice but to work - they just couldn't "up and leave" owing a "debt" .