^^^but your violent movement does support it

1/31/2012 9:19:20 PM

Perhaps I was indoctrinated by Bill Hicks, but I could care less about burning a flag:


'My daddy died for that flag,' Really? I bought mine...

'He died in the Korean War for that flag,' What a coincidence, mine was made in Korea...

He didn't die for a fucking flag... he died for the freedom to burn the fucking flag.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 4:30 AM. Reason : /]

2/1/2012 4:29:48 AM

that's true. why burn a flag.

burn down a police station or a court house instead and put your money where your fucking mouth is

2/1/2012 10:42:09 AM

I think that flag-burning is in very poor taste and would generally consider 99% of people who would burn a flag to be huge douchebags entirely worthy of any and all derision, but I am far more enraged by the idea of laws against it and prosecuting someone just for burning a flag (although if some redneck walked up and popped him on the chin for being a dipshit, I would be pretty view that as a cost of flag-burning)

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 11:01 AM. Reason : ^ or maybe an ROTC building in Ohio or something]

2/1/2012 10:59:44 AM

Flag burning can symbolize a multitude of things. It might symbolize opposition to the nation itself, opposition to the nation as it currently exists or functions, opposition to nationalism or jingoism which both wrap themselves in the flag (usually so they can construe opposition to them as opposition to the nation in general), or opposition to the supposed sanctity of national symbols. Some of these are more valid than others. Some folks just wanna cause a stir.

In either event, as far as I'm concerned, a flag is some colors on a sheet of fabric that has no relation to the underlying principles of a nation. Symbols like the flag, and attaching sacred qualities to it, are usually used to unite people in a "GO TEAM!" sort of way who would otherwise be uninterested in civic virtues or put any effort into learning about political philosophy. In other words: patriotism for shallow dummies.

If the US turned into a violent fascist dictatorship it could continue using the exact same flag. Maybe then some folks might find it more acceptable to burn in protest. It all depends on your perspective. To someone who is vehemently anti-war, I can see how you might have a distaste for the symbol that's paraded at the front line of all our unjust national ventures abroad.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : .]

2/1/2012 11:10:42 AM

no point in beating around the bush


why don't you OWSers just go find some random anglo saxon dude who built a rich business who you feel doesn't pay enough taxes and go beat the shit out of him and his family in broad daylight

kill around 9 birds with 1 stone.

[Edited on February 1, 2012 at 11:13 AM. Reason : ,]

2/1/2012 11:11:46 AM

It happened in Oakland, who cares. After all,

2/1/2012 12:11:29 PM

pack bryan are you really such an angry troll

do you derive amusement from this lack of learning, and utter waste of time you engage in here

where you spend hours producing uninteresting text and learning nothing, remaining the same loser today that you were years ago

2/1/2012 11:22:38 PM

just breathe for a second and decide to start listening

truth wasn't fully covered in your neck of the woods

2/1/2012 11:23:14 PM

You're right McDanger,

We should all be radical socialists who hate anglo-saxon capitalists and success and be like Sweden


Then, like you, McDanger we'll all be ivory tower elites and overcome our problems





/every post from that guy

2/1/2012 11:26:56 PM

a variety of viewpoints can be valuable but no we all gotta be your way because (no argument given)

2/1/2012 11:30:36 PM

I'm sympathetic to the message that this financial crisis was created in large part by an arrogant banking elite empowered by gross Fed collusion and regulatory capture, and that those responsible should be punished. But the OWS crowd is gonna have to figure out how to channel their energy to the voting booths the way the Tea Party did.

They have manufactured some outrage amongst the civil liberties crowd by constantly stepping over the line until local police forces pepper spray and/or arrest them. It's a nice trick that never fails to get a certain demographic frothing at the mouth about those "fucking pigs!" But if they want to enact real change, it can only come through the political process, which starts with votes and donations to those in Washington who are sympathetic to their cause. Provoking local police and trying to get arrested may make headlines, but it also marginalizes the group into fringe territory. Breaking the law for the sake of breaking it is counter-productive, because mainstream voters and politicians won't align themselves with those radical measures. This talk about some kind of revolution and operating outside of the 2-party system is just nonsense. Time to get back to reality, OWS.

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 2:43 AM. Reason : 2]

2/2/2012 2:35:07 AM

Time to get back to reality and write the King for more sensible policy.

2/2/2012 2:54:17 AM

Big business is in bed with Government, so we need more government

2/2/2012 4:24:11 AM

Big business is not inherently involved in government. Why do people think it would be easier to demolish the system than create rules limiting the influence businesses have on government?

2/2/2012 10:21:00 AM

Quote :

"But the OWS crowd is gonna have to figure out how to channel their energy to the voting booths the way the Tea Party did. "

Are you not following along? The voting system is rigged! I know it's rigged simply because I know not you or anyone else can prove it's not rigged.

2/2/2012 12:17:58 PM

Quote :

"Big business is not inherently involved in government. Why do people think it would be easier to demolish the system than create rules limiting the influence businesses have on government? "

Politicians don't want to write those rules.

2/2/2012 1:16:50 PM

I agree. So how do we fix it?

2/2/2012 2:05:57 PM

easy way (elect ron paul)

hard way (war)

2/2/2012 2:10:17 PM

You do realize the President doesn't make all decisions unilaterally in the government, right?

[Edited on February 2, 2012 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/2/2012 6:17:24 PM

Quote :

"Big business is not inherently involved in government. "

But the bigger the government is, the more it's worth to own a piece, the more corporations and others will pay to have their piece of control. If the government has the power to cost your business $X Billion, then it is worth almost any amount up to $X Billion to lobby, bribe or otherwise buy your way to into ensuring that they won't use that power, or will only use it to harm your competitors.

2/2/2012 8:07:02 PM

So decrease the power of corporations?

2/2/2012 8:11:50 PM

And how do you do that without making the government more powerful and therefore worth all that much more to the corporations?

2/2/2012 9:24:32 PM

That's a good question, but I feel like less government would give corporations even more power than they already have.

It seems as if the large corporations have American workers and taxpayers by the balls. If we mention raising their taxes, they threaten to leave the United States and move their operations even moreso overseas.

We have fewer and fewer chips on the table, whereas they're amassing a stockpile; they can bluff with hardly any risk whatsoever.

I'm not sure what the solution could be. Do we call their bluff and raise their taxes?

If capital is equivalent to power in our society, then capping their capital would be the only way to reign in their power; however, such a measure would be incredibly anti-capitalistic.

2/2/2012 10:57:21 PM

Quote :

"but I feel like less government would give corporations even more power than they already have."

by what mechanism? You liberals always post this shit and use such factual evidence as "look around you, don't you see" as your data.

We aren't buying this shit you're...taking from the wealthy and selling us.

2/2/2012 11:01:05 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sure what the solution could be. Do we call their bluff and raise their taxes?"

[facepalm]

2/2/2012 11:27:44 PM

^^
That was clever.

However, by what mechanism would it not?

If we stop regulating air, water, food, stocks, drilling, etc, etc, etc, do you need to even question that the large corporations would become more powerful?

Would you predict that their profits increase or decrease with less government?

If by "look around you, don't you see," you're referring to record corporate profits... well... then, look around you, don't you see?

^
I take it you don't think they're bluffing.

2/2/2012 11:39:04 PM

actually when i look around what i see is that we cant hire entry level people to our sister team in CA due to California's ridiculous labor laws. If government protecting the workers rights leads to a lack of available jobs due to mandates barriers preventing companies from hiring people at very livable wages, then i think the look around and see proves the point that big government = bad, personal freedoms/choices = good. And i really dont see how you cant make the connection that good for business = good for workers & shareholders (how overlap in many cases) = good for America.

2/3/2012 10:32:01 AM

I think the laws shaping the way corporations do business in general need to be revised as opposed to creating lots of specific policies to micro-manage the economy. The simpler, the better. I don't think it's necessary to grow government to fix things that are wrong with the economy. We need broad regulations that simply regulate the free exchange of goods, which is what capitalism is all about. The problem is that corporations are using their power to manipulate the market to their advantage which is anti-capitalist. Government is the only entity powerful enough to prevent this from happening but almost every politician in federal office is in the pocket of multiple interest groups. The most important issue facing the American political system today is removing the influence of these interest groups from government.

I argue that a weak government, while having less power to corrupt, loses even more ability to regulate a proper free market, which is the ultimate goal. Currently, the government is acting as an expensive stopgap in preventing corporations from manipulating the market to their will. Without government, these entities would be free to do as they will without anything hindering them. That's why I don't think less government power is the answer. I think the answer is a more powerful, simpler, and less exploitable government. Simplifying and simultaneously strengthening government regulations will clear up the gray area in language that allows government to be exploited.

The first step to disentangling government and business is the repeal of Citizens United. Corporations are, by definition, not people. People are people. It's a huge leap in logic to associate corporations in their present form with the literal word 'people.' We shouldn't be taking liberties in re-defining such a simple and unconfusing word, codifying it in the legal lexicon of our highest authority. This is a good example of making government less simple, to the detriment of us all. It conflates meanings and produces a gray area of worthless words that are ripe to be raped by anyone powerful enough to do so. A law is only as powerful or incorruptible or enforceable as the words used to describe it.

As distasteful as it is to say it, "What is government if words have no meaning?"

2/3/2012 11:50:37 AM

Quote :

"If we stop regulating air, water, food, stocks, drilling, etc, etc, etc, do you need to even question that the large corporations would become more powerful?"

If we actually enforced property law the way we used to, perhaps not. I have not been able to find the original article I read on it, but this one here explains how we used to account for stuff like this in the past:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/11/10/epa-jackboots

and how bigger government has made the situation worse:

Quote :

"When Illinois sued on Chicago's behalf, the Supreme Court issued an injunction against Milwaukee saying, "[A] State with high water quality standards may well ask... that it not be compelled to lower itself to the more degrading standards of a neighbor." The Clean Water Act changed all that by granting the EPA the exclusive authority to regulate. After it passed, the Supreme Court vacated its order, and Milwaukee continued to pollute."

If I can find the first article I read, I'll post it because it makes the point much better than the more biased one I linked above.

Quote :

"The first step to disentangling government and business is the repeal of Citizens United. Corporations are, by definition, not people. People are people."

I wonder then what fines would be appropriate to levy against Google, Wikipedia and all the other corporations that participated in that SOPA protest. After all, corporations aren't people and they have no right to freedom of speech in connection to the political process.

2/3/2012 1:01:54 PM

I don't think it's necessary to fine Google for lobbying and educating the American people on an issue that would greatly affect them and encouraging them to individually contact their representatives.

I think it is necessary to remove the backroom dealings media and Hollywood companies had with politicians to create the legislation in the first place though.

2/3/2012 1:10:31 PM

Why do anti-libertarians always use this argument...?

"But if we take away government regulations, giant corporations will be even more powerful..."

Do they not understand that the government's role in a libertarian society is to protect life, liberty, and personal property.

Real estate (aka environment) falls under property, and any pollution or harmful actions will be punished by the government. Corporations and individuals can be punished through fines, damages, jail etc. depending on the severity of the infringements on rights.

If it saves a company $X to dump toxic waste, but they will get sued for $X^2... They probably will not be dumping if they are savvy.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ;]

2/3/2012 1:21:18 PM

I'm not really at issue with property laws. I think those are further down the road.

But the entire premise of the American political system is based largely on the free market system. In the early days of American history, it was very hard for one entity to manipulate and control an entire market do to simple logistics. It was virtually impossible for one group to create and transport goods quickly enough to influence the entire market. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, factories and railroads made this a possibility. It only took a couple of decades for major players to accumulate enough money to make Bill Gates and Warren Buffett look like paupers in comparison. There was a huge populist backlash against this because these guys were distorting the free market system, going against core American values. It was only through government regulation and breaking these monolithic monopolies apart that order was restored. The same principle applies today.

I don't understand how libertarians who laud the virtues of the free market don't understand some of the basic principles of a free market. A free market isn't free if it's controlled by any one entity, be it government or business. I don't think the government is doing even a remotely adequate job at the moment. But at least I know the primary motivations, if applied correctly, of our government are not to make gobs of money by any means necessary which is what would happen if businesses had their way. It's happened before and, if allowed, it will happen again.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 1:37 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 1:36:31 PM

With the industrial revolution, what you saw in front of you, your neighbor told you, or what you read in a book/newspaper was all you knew of the world.

IMO, with that lack of information, it was much easier to amass capital and control markets through monopoly. With rapid communication and dissemination of information courtesy of technology/the internet, this is no longer an issue.

The barriers to entry in to business and providing services globally are much, much lower. Technology allows scaling at an incredible rate.

Why does this matter? I think the little guy has much more of a shot because they can collaborate and interact on a much more efficient and global scale, allowing them to produce opportunities that were impossible back then unless you had $texas capital.

2/3/2012 1:59:19 PM

I think the barriers to entry are extremely high. Especially among the industries that make the most money. Google, Facebook, and software companies are the exception. What new cars companies have risen in the last 40 years? What new airplane companies, chemical manufacturers, media corporations, oil companies? The vast majority of the big products we use the most have been controlled by the same corporations for decades. Partly because any competitor that shows any signs of upsetting the status quo are quickly bought up by the larger companies.

Technology is the great equalizer, but what happens when the companies who are already on top own all the technology? Individuals these days rarely develop patents on their own. There are no more Thomas Edisons or Nikola Teslas. And if an individual does develop a revolutionary patent then you can guarantee it will be sold to the corporation that stands the most to lose from not owning it. This is our free market at work. And it's all bought and paid for by legally sanctioned government sponsorship.

2/3/2012 2:13:04 PM

The problem is that we don't really have a free market. With have a government who is crony to the highest bidder, and politicians who are shills to special interests, the market gets regulated in favor of whoever wants to spend the most.

The argument is that reducing the scope of the government down to protecting the liberty of individuals should level the playing field for competition, may be not completely, but a lot more than it is now.

Capital will always matter. If you have the most resources, you have the best position. That's pretty much how the world will always work. However if your liberty is protected, you stand a better fighting chance to build what you want for yourself. If liberty is not protected, and you're burdened and coerced in to abiding by what the government sees fit, you are limited and oppressed.

Do I want a total free for all, zero regulation, greed driven cluster fuck? No.
I want to be able to do what I want, within the boundary of not infringing on others' liberty, and not be stalled by some bureaucratic red tape that maintains the status quo.

2/3/2012 2:34:34 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that we don't really have a free market. With have a government who is crony to the highest bidder, and politicians who are shills to special interests, the market gets regulated in favor of whoever wants to spend the most."

We're both on the same page here

Quote :

"The argument is that reducing the scope of the government down to protecting the liberty of individuals should level the playing field for competition, may be not completely, but a lot more than it is now."

I understand that argument and I completely disagree with it. I think it's been shown historically that without proper government regulation, large businesses will game the entire market in their favor. There is nothing inherently different about corporations now than at the turn of the 20th century when these things were taking place. They are still interested in nothing but making as much profit as possible at any cost. This can include pricing out competitors, owning enough market share to corner the market, suppress worker wages, collusion with their competitors, etc... I agree though that one of the duties of government is to create conditions conducive to a free market. For this to happen, they must utilize their power. Obviously the opportunity to use this power carries great risks but to quote Uncle Ben, "with great power comes great responsibility." I think that is the duty of a vigilant public and with the internet it is easier than ever to know what goes on in government.

Quote :

"Capital will always matter. If you have the most resources, you have the best position. That's pretty much how the world will always work. However if your liberty is protected, you stand a better fighting chance to build what you want for yourself. If liberty is not protected, and you're burdened and coerced in to abiding by what the government sees fit, you are limited and oppressed. Do I want a total free for all, zero regulation, greed driven cluster fuck? No. I want to be able to do what I want, within the boundary of not infringing on others' liberty, and not be stalled by some bureaucratic red tape that maintains the status quo."

I'm not trying to argue that having capital should be a bad thing. Is it unfair? By definition, yes. Know what else is fair? Fucking life. I'm not trying to legislate fairness, I'm trying to legislate an equal playing field. I happen to think corporations are a wonderful invention and I recognize that they have helped to create immense wealth that would not otherwise be possible. But I also see the danger in their nature. There is something fundamentally wrong with their social institution in today's world. Regulating them until their eyes bleed is a terrible idea. I think watching them closely with the knowledge that they potentially have the motivation and ability to cause great social harm is possible without infringing on the vague notion of liberty you speak of.

2/3/2012 2:52:50 PM

The U.S. federal government is probably one of the most powerful governments that has existed. Corporatism now runs rampant and arguably defines our entire system. How good of a job is government doing at protecting the "little guy"?

I understand the argument, but in reality, when you give a government the power to regulate commerce without clear boundaries, they will be lobbied and we'll have regulatory capture. The Supreme Court did not overturn a single case involving the commerce clause from 1937 to 1995. Not a single one.

We will not have good, honest government in the United States. It's wishful thinking. It's as if we created the biggest gun in the world to fight corporate influence, and when corporations gained control over the gun, you suggest we need a bigger or more accurate gun, and we should also expect them to turn the gun on themselves.

2/3/2012 3:06:33 PM

How do you propose to maintain the sanctity and purity of the government?

Do you think the majority can make the best decision for you, and/or the minority?

IMO, Unfortunately, the average person is a dunce. When you get a swath of dunces together you get the general public. The public is easily manipulated by propaganda, fear and marketing...

When the general public has the power to make decisions and then coerce you to follow them, the powers that be can influence how legislation is made.

This is where we differ:

You think the general public, or the government, can make better decisions than individuals can for themselves. (correct me if I am wrong)

I feel that when individuals are responsible for themselves, but have a government protecting their rights/liberties/property, the cumulative result will be a playing field that anyone with the gumption can compete and thrive on.

2/3/2012 3:07:30 PM

Yeah, sadly without better minority protection mob rule will always be the way of things in a democracy or it's many modified forms (representative democracy, republic, etc.).

The average person isn't very smart, that's why they're called average. I don't need my neighbor telling me what I can and can't do, making decisions about my money, or coercing me to do things I don't want to do. Unless I'm damaging someone else in a substantive way you can all just fuck off and leave me alone.

2/3/2012 3:16:41 PM

I consider myself to be quite individualistic. And I tend to agree with you guys on a lot of things in theory. I think we differ on levels of compassion and empathy. I absolutely despise Ayn Rand and I have a feeling you really agree with her. I think individualism is a great thing, but I also highly value altruism. I think that you should look out for and be able to take care of yourself first and foremost. But understanding other people and caring about what affects them is important too. I don't say these things in the hopes of persuading you, only to help understand where I'm coming from because I feel like these differences are creating the fundamental differences in our ideologies. The fact that we agree in theory means nothing when we apply our individual experiences to the real world.

Changing the government won't be easy. I happen to think the judicial branch is the most powerful of all, as long as its rulings are enforced. I also think the Supreme Court has become highly politicized to negative consequence. Some politicization is unavoidable, but for the branch that is supposed to be impartial and interpret the law I think they do a poor job.

First step as I've said would be to repeal Citizens United. Removing as much money as possible from the election process. Not allowing corporations to donate to political causes. Individuals who control those companies can donate as much of their own money as they wish, but corporations are not people. The role of lobbyists and special interest groups should be severely lessened. Their job is to provide information on specific issues to the legislature and nothing more. They should have little personal relationship with lawmakers. This leads to rampant corruption.

Honestly, I think that takes care of half of the problems right there and they're fairly simple things to do. The other half of the equation involves booting out politicians who don't work for their constituents. With the reduced role of lobbyists, it should be much easier to identify corruption. Not that it's particularly hard to spot right now, it's just that everyone engages in it.

All this takes is sufficient popular will to have it take place. If 65% of the population support these policies then it will become very clear which politicians are working for the people and which ones aren't. These are the biggest policy issues in my mind but they all deal with reforming the cozy lifestyles politicians have created for themselves. That's why they never get brought up. If the American people can show solidarity on these issues then real change might happen. Other issues can wait, the most important thing is removing corruption from government.

2/3/2012 3:46:53 PM

Penn Jillette on compassion:

Quote :

"It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness. People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 3:55:31 PM

Quote :

"People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them"

What happens when people aren't compassionate and don't help others be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered?

2/3/2012 4:00:10 PM

Where did I say anything about welfare programs? You don't know my views on those issues. You might think you do, but you don't. The compassion bit was more showing the level of faith I put in people. I think that contributes to the huge difference in the way we view government. "United we stand, divided we fall" kind of thing for me.

2/3/2012 4:19:50 PM

Quote :

"What happens when people aren't compassionate and don't help others be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered?"

Then humans suck and that's reality. No amount of government is going to change that. Power tends to bring the worst in people.

If everyone that bitched about how the government should provide more free services would actually get out there and volunteer on a regular basis, we wouldn't need welfare at all.

Quote :

"Where did I say anything about welfare programs? You don't know my views on those issues. You might think you do, but you don't. The compassion bit was more showing the level of faith I put in people. I think that contributes to the huge difference in the way we view government. "United we stand, divided we fall" kind of thing for me."

You say you value altruism, but people in general are not altruistic. People are self serving by nature. You can hate Ayn Rand all day, but people generally look out for themselves first and foremost, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you aren't looking out for yourself, you're going to get trampled on and taken advantage of.

[Edited on February 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ]

2/3/2012 4:29:36 PM

Altruism and being self-sufficient are not mutually exclusive.

2/3/2012 4:42:36 PM

Quote :

"Why do anti-libertarians always use this argument...? 'But if we take away government regulations, giant corporations will be even more powerful...' Do they not understand that the government's role in a libertarian society is to protect life, liberty, and personal property."

Oddly enough, I consider myself a libertarian. (Granted, I'm willing to shift my position in any direction, given a cogent argument.)

However, doesn't the freedom to have clean air and drinking water trump the freedom to pollute them? Whose right is more important?

Sure, we can sue the pants off of corporations for killing us, but doesn't our right to not die take priority over an owner's right to operate an unregulated business?

2/3/2012 5:22:07 PM

Yes.

It's not like Libertarians think that Dow should be able to dump their shit into the nearest lake. I don't understand why people seem to confuse libertarianism with anarchism.

2/3/2012 5:31:51 PM

Probably because the purest form of libertarianism is anarchism.

2/3/2012 5:42:11 PM

Quote :

"Then humans suck and that's reality. No amount of government is going to change that. Power tends to bring the worst in people."

In other words, fuck 'em.

2/3/2012 5:49:38 PM