Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Valmont

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm not sure your question makes sense. In what sense is the state corrupting the corporation? What function does the corporation have that the state would stand to gain by preventing it from accomplishing...

This exchange implies that western governments and corporations are separate entities; I would tend to think of them as one and the same. Although I suppose there are some corporations less welded to the state than others.

Eliot Rosewater

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Does that make me some sort of communist?

Of course not, and your explanation of your support has merit. I think though that you're in a very small minority of Shell To Sea supporters. From my standpoint it seems Shell To Sea is just another manifestation of the "resource nationalist" hard-left whose opposition to Shell here is just a part of their overall opposition to natural resources in Irish territory being mined for profit by private companies.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I support it, but ironically enough I support it based on a RIGHT WING ideal, not a left wing one. That of private property.

If the right believes so strongly in private property why don't they oppose the idea of nationalizing someone's private land without their permission? If I own a field, you can't f*cking build something in it without my permission.

Note that I DON'T want this thread to disintegrate into a ridiculous shell to sea debate so let's keep this one short. Shell 2 sea has absolutely nothing to do with why I support Occupy, and indeed I have always fet that mixing and muddying the waters between protest movements is an incredibly stupid move, as evidenced here. But the point does stand. My opposition to the corrib pipeline has no agenda behind it other than the fact that I don't believe in confiscating people's private property, no matter how supposedly worthwhile the cause is, and certainly not without massive compensation.

Does that make me some sort of communist?

So the taxpayer owned NAMA should give the Jurys site back to Sean Dunne because it is interfering with his property rights?

And Quinn Insurance which was sold from under Sean Quinn should be handed back to him and his family? After all, he built it up for years for his children and they should be allowed benefit from it.

The bank shareholders in Anglo, AIB, and especially Irish Life and Permanent should be compensated massively for their bank shares being taken off them?

Many landowners complained about the motorway network splitting their farms and ruining their livelihood, should the motorways have been made curve and bend dangerously around their land?

Funny thing is, I don't see you having a problem with all those interferences with individual property rights? Where you protesting outside NAMA offices when they put all those property developers out of business, especially those that maintained they could still work through the recession? Don't think so, maybe when you get some more life experience, you and less than a full euro will learn how difficult it is to hold fast to rigid ideological positions such as the sanctity of private property.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I proposed an implementation plan several pages back, how would you react to it?

Banning all corporate donations whatsoever, and thoroughly regulating and investigation all lobbying by corporations / financial institutions.
Secondly, chasing down and vigorously punishing corporate corruption and wrongdoing, a la Anglo Irish. Let's call a spade a spade here:
Either FitzPatrick & co's loans were illegal or they weren't. Either the Golden Circle was illegal or it wasn't.
If it was, those people should be up in front of a judge ASAP and facing very serious consequences for what they did.
If it wasn't, then it should be and this government should draft high priority legislation immediately to ensure no such corruption is ever allowed to take place again inside the borders of this state.

Is that a clear enough plan, for starters I have other ideas regarding communications of ministers, cabinet minutes etc but let's do this slowly, what do you think of the above?

Yes, you did and I explained to you several pages ago following a specific request from you the sequence of events and happenings that showed that there was no clear evidence of any corruption and it was due to stupid decisions by a now defeated FF government. You, of course, had no answer and ran away from the debate. Here it is again below for you, in case you have forgotten.

I would say to you that illegal activity happens all the time, be it individuals, corporations or others but there is no evidence at all of corruption (that involves government, remember). So stop calling it corruption, call it possible illegal activity. And then present some evidence to show it was illegal and I don't mean something from some conspiracy theory site.

Godge wrote: »

Yes, I think you have asked me before and I think I have answered but in case it is lost here goes.

The Irish financial crisis (and this is the one that affects us) was partly caused by the global events. However, and this is the important point, most of it is down to domestic events. Firstly, there was the stupidly over-confident David Drumm and Sean Fitzpatrick who believed they could build a third force in Irish banking and who convinced thousands of shareholders, investers, government ministers and officials and loan customers, mostly businessmen that their stupid foolish dream could come true.

Secondly, there was the stupid reaction of the other banks who saw the Anglo model, and under pressure from shareholders and borrowers followed suit. They were supported in this endeavour by weak regulation from the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator which were retirement homes for former Department of Finance officials.

Thirdly, there was the reaction of the average gombeen Irishman who saw a chance to make a buck through property. The result of all of that was an unsustainable property boom in Ireland. When the financial markets went wallop we were at the top of the boom, the closest analogy I can think of is that Coyote character in the Road Runner cartoon who keeps running after the cliff has run out and suddently realises there is a long way to fall.

Fourthly, there was the incredible stupidity of Cowen, McCreevy, Ahern and Lenihan who attached our government finances both expenditure and tax on to the back of the property boom and said "let the good times roll". Their approach to regulation also played a huge part. What's more, despite being warned about them, the stupid Irish voters (nearly half of them) re-elected this crowd in 2007.

So most of the mess was created by ourselves which we then proceeded to make even worse by our response to the crisis. The bank guarantee introduced by Brian Lenihan in September 2008 was the single most stupid decision ever taken in the history of the state. There were other solutions available (letting Anglo and Irish Nationwide go bust and take AIB and BOI into state ownership) that would have cost less but it seems that Lenihan was influenced by advice he got from David Mcwilliams (google McWilliams own accounts of their meetings) though the media economist tends to distance himself from that advice these days (wouldn't you?)

Well, the bank guarantee didn't work, our EU partners were furious with us - read the UK reaction at the time, and already faced with a collapse in property tax revenue and an increasing social welfare bill leaving us with a huge hole in our public finances, we now had added on a bank recapitalisation bill (though this is smaller than the structural deficit problem). As a result of that the country was in sh1t and eventually we had to call in the IMF and the EU to bail us out.

So who do I blame? I blame the incompetence and stupidity of bankers, politicians, regulators, shareholders, civil servants, borrowers and also the Irish people themselves. We made this mess, the onus is on us to clean it up. Harsh truth but reality. There is nobody who lived in Ireland who didn't benefit from the boom. The kids got higher child benefit than anywhere in Europe, the pensioners got higher pensions, the civil servants got higher pay, anyone on social welfare got better benefits than anywhere else, we had lower income taxes. We all benefitted and joined in apart from a few who warned about the dangers. Those that didn't accepted the democratic outcome and the legitimacy of the decisions made by FF governments - where were the protesters in 2005, 2006 and 2007 about the increases in social welfare and the cuts in taxation? Too busy protesting about snails in Kildare or a couple of kms of pipeline in Mayo. You dropped the ball on the real issues, lads.

Was there corruption? No, I don't think so in regard to the major decisions. We elected the politicians who took the disastorous decisions on tax and spending, we then re-elected the same crowd with a few Greens and they took the bank guarantee decision. Those are the things that made the mess, nothing corrupt about that.

Was there something going on in the banks? The Quinn loans, the director loans in Anglo, Fingleton in Irish Nationwide, there may have been breaches of company and/or fraud law in these cases, let us wait and see but I very much doubt that the major decisions that caused the problem were corrupt. They were made by stupid incompetent politicians (or their appointees) who the electorate stupidly elected.

So yes, I am very angry about what happened, but I also realise that we have made our bed in this situation and we have to sleep in it, uncomfortable and all as that is. What annoys me about the people who end up in groups like the ULA, PfP and ODS, is their point-blank refusal as Irishmen and Irishwomen to accept that this is our own fault and instead of protesting and crying and looking around for someone else to blame, we should just get on with the task on rebuilding this country and economy, something I believe is eminently possible.

Rant over.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

Ronald Reagan, in 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter


"I believe with all my heart that our first priority must be world peace, and that use of force is always and only a last resort, when everything else has failed, and then only with regard to our national security."

I think that proves my point, that world peace is something everyone can sign up to, just like the hippies. Probably even a Hitler quote out there calling for world peace.

Maybe next time you want to call me out, you could do a little google search first. Took me less than ten seconds to find that quote.

so now world peace is the same as america's national security?
do you understand the difference?

if you think that the occupy movement is like hitler ... fair enough, though i think you're on your own there ... but if they start rounding up minorities and invading poland, i'll admit i was wrong.

maybe the next time you say something silly, stop and think about it rather than waste everyone's time ....

davoxx

PeadarCo wrote: »

The thing is you have no intention of clearing up any misconception I have because you won't answer my questions. I asked if were you serious because if someone wanted to discredit the Occupy movement I don't think they could have done a better job than the one you've done yourself. Its very different from OWS that inspired this. What ever your views on it, it has been successful at some level and it has some clearly identifable goals(whether you agree with them is a different story).

i'm sorry that you feel that way, i'm not sure which question you are referring to, though i guess that you got the answer and did not like it.

yeah, yeah, sure i'm discrediting it ... i'm sure that is possible, i didn't think that anyone would say that, but then again it easier than actually discrediting the movement.

well like i said, ows is a part of the occupy movement, it has it's own specific goals, which i'm sure tie into the main occupy movement.
i'm happy that you agree that is is making a difference.

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

so now world peace is the same as america's national security?
do you understand the difference?

if you think that the occupy movement is like hitler ... fair enough, though i think you're on your own there ... but if they start rounding up minorities and invading poland, i'll admit i was wrong.

maybe the next time you say something silly, stop and think about it rather than waste everyone's time ....

You called me out on Ronald Reagan. I got you a quote, "our first priority must be world peace", which bit of that do you have a problem with?

Look, you called me out and asked for a quote, I provided a genuine accurate quote, the least you could do is accept that you were wrong and acknowledge that.

My central point remains, we can all support the goal of world peace, ODS, Ronald Reagan, hippies, Enda Kenny, etc. The Occupy Movement is nothing special by claiming to support world peace and that certainly isn't a credible goal for the movement. Try again.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

You called me out on Ronald Reagan. I got you a quote, "our first priority must be world peace", which bit of that do you have a problem with?

well the rest of the quote, you know context, as in the context is the qualifier ...

do you understand the difference between "i want world peace" and "i want world peace, only for americans"?

and then stop and think to yourself, can you have world peace only for americans? is that even world peace?

we both know the answer to that, though i'm sure you'll say they are the same ...

Godge wrote: »

Look, you called me out and asked for a quote, I provided a genuine accurate quote, the least you could do is accept that you were wrong and acknowledge that.

no the least i could is not mock you for showing a bad example of regan saying he wanted world peace.
instead i tried to educate you on the context of the quote, the least you could do is learn from it and admit that you were wrong.

Godge wrote: »

My central point remains, we can all support the goal of world peace, ODS, Ronald Reagan, hippies, Enda Kenny, etc. The Occupy Movement is nothing special by claiming to support world peace and that certainly isn't a credible goal for the movement. Try again.

i agree, anyone can claim they are for world peace, this is different that actually supporting it. actions do speak louder than words.

but like i said before, world peace eh? there is nothing wrong with that as a goal. and it is a credible goal.

don't try again, seriously, don't. every point you've made has been countered, and all you've done is run away from it and try to muddle your argument, going from agreeing that it is a goal to it is not ...

to conclude:
i've shown that they have a goal.
i've proven that it is a valid goal.

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

well the rest of the quote, you know context, as in the context is the qualifier ...

do you understand the difference between "i want world peace" and "i want world peace, only for americans"?

and then stop and think to yourself, can you have world peace only for americans? is that even world peace?

we both know the answer to that, though i'm sure you'll say they are the same ...


no the least i could is not mock you for showing a bad example of regan saying he wanted world peace.
instead i tried to educate you on the context of the quote, the least you could do is learn from it and admit that you were wrong.


i agree, anyone can claim they are for world peace, this is different that actually supporting it. actions do speak louder than words.

but like i said before, world peace eh? there is nothing wrong with that as a goal. and it is a credible goal.

don't try again, seriously, don't. every point you've made has been countered, and all you've done is run away from it and try to muddle your argument, going from agreeing that it is a goal to it is not ...

to conclude:
i've shown that they have a goal.
i've proven that it is a valid goal.

LOL, well, we will have to agree to disagree then.

Good luck with the world peace objective, the Iranians want it too, they just need the evil Satan Americans and their pet Israelis to back down and we will have world peace. You should find common ground with them. Or does their version of world peace not find agreement with you either? Maybe the Taliban version or the Chinese version then?

Seriously, if you deem world peace as a credible goal of the movement/protest, you only expose your own lack of credibility.

oscarBravo

davoxx wrote: »

it's not a bad goal, no doubt other capitalist icon have had similar goals ...

I note that you have focused on the goal, and completely ignored the bit that makes the goal unattainable. That wouldn't be an example of blatant confirmation bias on your part, would it?

yes that would be the correct assumption (unless she explains that she likes the goal), since she is not sharing your goal.

No, it wouldn't necessarily be the correct assumption. It would be the assumption that would back up your view that it's perfectly valid to have a goal without a plan to achieve it; but it may not be correct.

you could also infer that she does not share your goal as she is planing on leaving you for a better person ... to assume that it is the lack of a plan is pointless, and realistically an excuse.

So assuming something that agrees with your perspective is correct, but assuming anything else is pointless and an excuse?

It's really tiresome arguing with someone who seems to constantly mistake logical fallacy for clever rhetoric, and - worse still - comes across as smug while doing it.

Here's a simple thought exercise for you: let's assume two "capitalist icons" have the same goal of retiring early to an island paradise with a private jet. One has a detailed plan to achieve this goal; the other doesn't. Ceteris paribus, which of them is more likely to get there?

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Banning all corporate donations whatsoever, and thoroughly regulating and investigation all lobbying by corporations / financial institutions.

It's an idea with merit, but it needs to be greatly fleshed out. For example, would you ban political donations from trade unions? Farmers' organisations? Voluntary organisations? Corporate executives?

As for regulating lobbying, how? I've written to my TDs on behalf of my company: how should such communication be regulated?

Secondly, chasing down and vigorously punishing corporate corruption and wrongdoing, a la Anglo Irish. Let's call a spade a spade here:
Either FitzPatrick & co's loans were illegal or they weren't. Either the Golden Circle was illegal or it wasn't.
If it was, those people should be up in front of a judge ASAP and facing very serious consequences for what they did.
If it wasn't, then it should be and this government should draft high priority legislation immediately to ensure no such corruption is ever allowed to take place again inside the borders of this state.

You're conflating corruption with other illegal activities. If someone does something illegal, they should be punished to the full extent of the law. If the government fails to regulate effectively, the government should be punished by the electorate for that failure (any examples of that recently?) and the replacement government should fix the broken regulations.

I'm not convinced we need anyone camping on Dame Street to achieve any of the above.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

LOL, well, we will have to agree to disagree then.

psml, yeah you believe that, i'll go with your excuses being wrong, lol

Godge wrote: »

Good luck with the world peace objective, the Iranians want it too, they just need the evil Satan Americans and their pet Israelis to back down and we will have world peace. You should find common ground with them. Or does their version of world peace not find agreement with you either? Maybe the Taliban version or the Chinese version then?

sorry, did not know that when you meant "world peace" you meant "where only the rich elite own the world and are at peace while the poor starve" ...

i have no idea what you are trying to imply by dragging the iraninas and chinese in this, maybe understanding the goal "world peace" would be a start for you ...

Godge wrote: »

Seriously, if you deem world peace as a credible goal of the movement/protest, you only expose your own lack of credibility.

and if you deem it incredible, you highlight your own ignorance ... but thanks for the rant ...

davoxx

oscarBravo wrote: »

davoxx wrote: »

it's not a bad goal, no doubt other capitalist icon have had similar goals ...

I note that you have focused on the goal, and completely ignored the bit that makes the goal unattainable. That wouldn't be an example of blatant confirmation bias on your part, would it?

huh? what is there something wrong with the goal? or is there something wrong with the method to achieve the goal ... they are not equivalent.

oscarBravo wrote: »

yes that would be the correct assumption (unless she explains that she likes the goal), since she is not sharing your goal.

No, it wouldn't necessarily be the correct assumption. It would be the assumption that would back up your view that it's perfectly valid to have a goal without a plan to achieve it; but it may not be correct.

actually, from how you phrased it, it would be a correct assumption. you are inferring information that is not there ... you know confirmation bias.

oscarBravo wrote: »

you could also infer that she does not share your goal as she is planing on leaving you for a better person ... to assume that it is the lack of a plan is pointless, and realistically an excuse.

So assuming something that agrees with your perspective is correct, but assuming anything else is pointless and an excuse?

no, what i said was, you could also infer a different fact, which is a fair.
i don't see how you can claim that i said that assuming something that agrees with my perceptive is correct.
my perspective was not that she is going to leave you for a better person because of your lack of planning for your goal. you incorrectly assumed this.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's really tiresome arguing with someone who seems to constantly mistake logical fallacy for clever rhetoric, and - worse still - comes across as smug while doing it.

tell me about it, i have to deal with this and then get "blatant confirmation bias" thrown around incorrectly

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a simple thought exercise for you: let's assume two "capitalist icons" have the same goal of retiring early to an island paradise with a private jet. One has a detailed plan to achieve this goal; the other doesn't. Ceteris paribus, which of them is more likely to get there?

depends on the plan ... i know it may have slipped your mind, but people can work towards a goal without a plan ...

so here's a simpler mental exercise for you: let's assume only one of the "capitalist icons" has the goal of retiring early to an island paradise with a private jet. the other has no such goal ... all things the same (because i don't feel the need to use a dead language), who is most likely to get there?
.

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

sorry, did not know that when you meant "world peace" you meant "where only the rich elite own the world and are at peace while the poor starve" ...

i have no idea what you are trying to imply by dragging the iraninas and chinese in this, maybe understanding the goal "world peace" would be a start for you ...


/...

This is heading for thread of the day, it is so funny.

I never said the goal of the Occupy movement was world peace - you did!!!!!

Do you not think that the Chinese and Iranians support world peace? Are they warmongers?

When you realised that even Ronald Reagan and the Taliban supported world peace, you moved the goalposts again and made up your own definition of world peace.

do you know something? A little bit of me envies you and hatrick and less than a full euro (20 cent) because you have a bit of innocence and idealism about you that many others have lost. Unfortunately, your idealism is just naivety and ignorance, a pity, but there you go. Most of us have to live in the reality.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

This is heading for thread of the day, it is so funny.

I never said the goal of the Occupy movement was world peace - you did!!!!!

well that's not entirely true, you said it was (based on what i stated the common goal to be, and even then i paraphrased it from them), you even said that other groups had the same goal, then you went on an tangent saying that regan wanted world peace. you need to keep your facts straight.

you've been changing whether they have a goal or not, but, and this is the point, you did say that regans world peace was world peace, which in the context of his speech, it was not.

Godge wrote: »

Do you not think that the Chinese and Iranians support world peace? Are they warmongers?

i never said either way. you were implying that they would not.

Godge wrote: »

When you realised that even Ronald Reagan and the Taliban supported world peace,

no they did not. you keep avoiding that "world peace" is not equal to "world peace for americans" ...
that is the crux of the issue.

Godge wrote: »

you moved the goalposts again and made up your own definition of world peace.

and then you try to muddle it ... i think i am correct in the definition of world peace, you know it includes the whole world, not just a certain country.

Godge wrote: »

do you know something? A little bit of me envies you and hatrick and less than a full euro (20 cent) because you have a bit of innocence and idealism about you that many others have lost.

no, it's not innocence, it is being unbiased and unprejudiced, and being able to listen without preconceptions ...

Godge wrote: »

Unfortunately, your idealism is just naivety and ignorance, a pity, but there you go.

well unfortunately for you, it is not naivety, dunno where you got that from, and as i have shown you, it certainly is not ignorance.

on your side, you've misunderstood basic facts, twisted words and tried changing your attack again and again, and yet you still can't make a valid point. you rehashed view is based on incorrect information and your own inability to comprehend the basic difference in many concepts.
but there you are, the correct facts.

Godge wrote: »

Most of us have to live in the reality.

we do, but while some of us have our eyes open, other choose to close them tightly and shout "la la la, i'm not listening"

i'd welcome you to reality, but i have a feeling you would not like it here ...

Godge

davoxx wrote: »

well that's not entirely true, you said it was (based on what i stated the common goal to be, and even then i paraphrased it from them), you even said that other groups had the same goal, then you went on an tangent saying that regan wanted world peace. you need to keep your facts straight.

you've been changing whether they have a goal or not, but, and this is the point, you did say that regans world peace was world peace, which in the context of his speech, it was not.




no they did not. you keep avoiding that "world peace" is not equal to "world peace for americans" ...
that is the crux of the issue.


and then you try to muddle it ... i think i am correct in the definition of world peace, you know it includes the whole world, not just a certain country.

...

But if world peace is only what you define it to be, you can arbitrarily decide who fits in with that goal and who does not, that is hardly objective in nature.

If you want to say that the goal of the Occupy movement is world peace but you also want to say that it is different from the world peace goal of Reagan or Kim-Il-sung or the Chinese or the Iranians, then the onus is on you to define what you actually mean. My point that an ambiguous goal of world peace is open to a wide interpretation remains until you tightly define what you mean by world peace.

Given the stance you have taken to date, it is likely that you will define it in anti-American terms which is an ideological position. That brings us back around to the naivety and innocence of your position.

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

But if world peace is only what you define it to be, you can arbitrarily decide who fits in with that goal and who does not, that is hardly objective in nature.

If you want to say that the goal of the Occupy movement is world peace but you also want to say that it is different from the world peace goal of Reagan or Kim-Il-sung or the Chinese or the Iranians, then the onus is on you to define what you actually mean. My point that an ambiguous goal of world peace is open to a wide interpretation remains until you tightly define what you mean by world peace.

Given the stance you have taken to date, it is likely that you will define it in anti-American terms which is an ideological position. That brings us back around to the naivety and innocence of your position.

if you want to twist it and say that everyone has a different definition of world peace, knock yourself out ... i'm sure you have your own definition for innocence as well ... you'd be wrong but then again you'd define wrong to be right or say that you never said it in the first place ...

if you think that based on my stance, that you can guess my definition will be anti american, you've confirmed that you are talking crap and can not back your silly attacks ... you've tried to make fun of previous posts to dismiss it, but that failed, so now you resort to misrepresenting me ...

if you wanna believe that having a goal of world peace is the same as not having a goal ... go ahead and live in your fantasy world.
if you wanna believe that world peace can be defined as only for certain countries ... go ahead and believe in your deluded words.

but as far as i am concerned i've destroyed your weak arguments and subsequent attempts to twist them ... so overall you've failed.

Black Swan

MOD COMMENT:
Please be advised that some recent posts have been getting a bit too personal. Please focus on making contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

Atlantis50

The protests have been hijacked by political operators and unions who are paying people to protest at their opponents gatherings. For instance, people were paid $60 to protest at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

Protesters at Friday’s “Occupy CPAC” event, organized by AFL-CIO and the Occupy DC movement, told The Daily Caller that they were paid “sixty bucks a head” to protest outside the Conservative [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Political[/COLOR][/COLOR] Action Conference in Washington, D.C.
One protester told TheDC that all the “Occupy” activists were being paid to protest, and that his union, Sheet Metal Workers Local 100, approached him about the money-making opportunity.
“I have nothing nice to say about Local 100. … They just told me ‘you wanna make sixty bucks? So c’mon,’” the protester said.
Other “Occupy CPAC” protesters were unwilling to speak on camera because they were unaware what they were protesting and what the CPAC event was about.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/10/occupy-cpac-protesters-paid-60-for-the-day/#ixzz1m2fNyvzv

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

So the taxpayer owned NAMA should give the Jurys site back to Sean Dunne because it is interfering with his property rights?

It depends, was it taken off him because he was insolvent / failing to pay everything back to the bank?
I've LONG argued that if someone isn't having difficulty in paying back their property loans, there's absolutely no reason for NAMA to intervene and put the taxpayer on the hook for it.

And Quinn Insurance which was sold from under Sean Quinn should be handed back to him and his family? After all, he built it up for years for his children and they should be allowed benefit from it.

Same as above, bankruptcy / insolvency is obviously a different case. There is no such reson for the pipeline people to lose their land except "The government decided to take it, so it's not ours anymore". Do you see the difference?

The bank shareholders in Anglo, AIB, and especially Irish Life and Permanent should be compensated massively for their bank shares being taken off them?

Actually yes. Not "massively", as you say - they should have been payed the exact value per share. So if you had 100 Anglo shares at the time of nationalization, you should have been paid about 20 euro for them (Assuming I'm correct in thinking the share price was 20 cent at the time?)
Nationalization as it happened essentially amounted to theft of those shares from the people who held them, UNLESS the current share price was 0, which IIRC it wasn't.

Many landowners complained about the motorway network splitting their farms and ruining their livelihood, should the motorways have been made curve and bend dangerously around their land?

If it was fasible, and if not, those farmers should have received major compensation for the confiscation of their land, as opposed to it simply being stolen from them.

Funny thing is, I don't see you having a problem with all those interferences with individual property rights? Where you protesting outside NAMA offices when they put all those property developers out of business, especially those that maintained they could still work through the recession?

When have you EVER seen me defending NAMA?! :eek:
IMO we'd all be far better off if that wretched organization had never been created, or at least if it had been created with a VASTLY different mandate. I completely agree, taking property off people who are totally capable of paying it back is insanity and yet another example of the Irish government having what could have been a good idea, and completely f*cking it up.

Don't think so, maybe when you get some more life experience, you and less than a full euro will learn how difficult it is to hold fast to rigid ideological positions such as the sanctity of private property.[/QUOTE]

Unless someone is bankrupt, insolvent, etc there is absolutely no excuse for stealing from them. If it's absolutely necessary to take someone's land for something genuinely important like electrification, they should be compensated fully for the inconvenience, in other words the land should be bought from them, not simply taken. Yes, that also applies to shares in nationalized banks, those who held shares should have been paid the final price of something like 20c a share, what actually happened in practice was theft, simple as.

Final note, Godge, re: Ronald Reagan. Can you not sense bullsh*t when you see it? It was a lie, pure and simple, a bit like how Bush claimed invading Iraq was about WMD first, then "freedom for ordinary Iraqis", when we all know he didn't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about anyone in that country.
Propaganda, you know? O_o

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Final note, Godge, re: Ronald Reagan. Can you not sense bullsh*t when you see it? It was a lie, pure and simple, a bit like how Bush claimed invading Iraq was about WMD first, then "freedom for ordinary Iraqis", when we all know he didn't give a pair of dingo's kidneys about anyone in that country.
Propaganda, you know? O_o

Irony.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If it was fasible, and if not, those farmers should have received major compensation for the confiscation of their land, as opposed to it simply being stolen from them.

Can you cite one single example in the history of the state where a farmer had land "stolen" for the purposes of building a road without being paid for it?

The clue is in the name: compulsory purchase.

If you're opposed to the idea of compulsory purchase, fair enough, as long as you're content to live in a country without infrastructure.

Inclusion

Occupy Galway fb admin revel in censorship:pac:

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Can you cite one single example in the history of the state where a farmer had land "stolen" for the purposes of building a road without being paid for it?

The clue is in the name: compulsory purchase.

If you're opposed to the idea of compulsory purchase, fair enough, as long as you're content to live in a country without infrastructure.

To be honest, there are many (not all) examples of compulsory purchase which I do absolutely oppose, many because they are handled so shockingly badly by Irish administration (so what else is new).

I had 70 shares in Anglo the day they nationalized it, for which I should have been paid €14 (assuming the value of the shares was 20c, which I rounded from 21 or 22 for simplicity's sake).
Sure, it's a ridiculously low amount of money, but the issue here is principle. The state effectively stole €14 from me, and no doubt stole far more from other investors at the time.

ARE the Corrib landowners being compensated by the acre for the amount of land being used to build the pipeline?

Finally, I'd like to point out the difference between compulsory purchase in the public interest to build something which benefits the public, eg power lines, and compulsory purchase for the sake of a private company's profits.
Now this is a point which can be up for debate, but I really don't think the pipeline qualifies as something which is going to benefit the general population, and therefore "national interest".

Anyway we are getting hopelessly sidetracked here, if we want to debate Shell let's move it into a different thread. It has nothing to do with my support for Occupy, and indeed I've long argued that mixing protests like that is obscenely counter productive.

My allegiance is to the motivation of the general worldwide movement, and that is anti financial system, anti cronyism, anti corporate influence on politics, and anti hypocrisy.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

My allegiance is to the motivation of the general worldwide movement, and that is anti financial system...

Are you opposed to the very concept of a financial system?

...anti cronyism, anti corporate influence on politics...

I won't disagree on those, but I don't agree that camping is going to help.

...and anti hypocrisy.

I'm not a fan of hypocrisy either, so if I was going to align myself with a movement I'd want to be very, very sure that it's not steeped in hypocrisy itself.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

ARE the Corrib landowners being compensated by the acre for the amount of land being used to build the pipeline?

Yes.

Finally, I'd like to point out the difference between compulsory purchase in the public interest to build something which benefits the public, eg power lines, and compulsory purchase for the sake of a private company's profits.
Now this is a point which can be up for debate, but I really don't think the pipeline qualifies as something which is going to benefit the general population, and therefore "national interest".

You can't know the rationale of the pipeline or any details which would be included in the registration of that land in the first place.

I, for one, have not seen the registry for the compulsorily purchased lands, haven't seen the offer, haven't seen any court proceedings or dail debates.
Until I see concrete evidence regarding the zoning of the land, any easements that may have existed, rights of way (either registered or historic) and/or the documentation regarding the CPO of the land I, nor you, can know the full details of the transaction.

It can easily be said that there is a lot more to CPOs than you realise... it's not just a matter of saying "we want this land, here's a few bob now feck off".

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you opposed to the very concept of a financial system?

I am opposed to the financial system we use at present, and when I say opposed, I don't mean it needs reform, I mean the entire structure of it is completely broken and an entirely new system of money circulation needs to be created.

It's absolutely mad that for profit institutions such as banks are the gatekeepers of an artificial concept which somehow trumps physical and intellectual capability. I have the material to build a car, I have the knowledge of how to build a car, there are people out there who want cars, and there are people out there who would be happy to have a job working for me helping me build the cars.
So therefore, I build the cars, I employ people to help me, and those who want them buy them. That's how it works, right? Supply and Demand?

But no, in a recession like this, the artificial concept we use to control that has been completely cocked up by those who control it - the banks - and because of that nothing works. If it's physically possible to build a car and there are people who want to work and who want to have a car, why should humanity be held back because some idiot in a private company screwed up?

The whole concept of total debt > money in existence just seems to make no sense, Guernsey uses a different system in which money actually equals the amount of goods being produced, and they haven't had a proper recession for something like 70 years. They don't give for profit companies the power to bring down society, nor do they allow them to hold governments hostage and say "either you bail us out or we go down and take everybody with us".

The system is completely nuts and it has to go.

I won't disagree on those, but I don't agree that camping is going to help.

It's a start. I'm sure there were those who suggested marching in Dun Laoghaire to stop the seafront skyscrapers was a waste of time too, but we did, and we stopped it.

I'm not a fan of hypocrisy either, so if I was going to align myself with a movement I'd want to be very, very sure that it's not steeped in hypocrisy itself.

I don't see Occupy as steeped in hypocrisy, I guess we have a disagreement of opinion there. It's not Occupy's fault if a whole bunch of other protest movements try to piggyback on its popularity, you need to look at the agenda of the original occupy protests in the US, chief among them being that the government / corporate axis be dismantled in favour of government for the people, and that those responsible for the 2008 crash be held accountable for what they have done, instead of being quietly ushered out the back door to avoid the angry crowd out front.

I simply don't agree with Godge's insistence that mistakes were to blame for this worldwide mess. There's nothing accidental about saying "I've had my fun, and that's all that matters".

I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that some of those 'banksters' set out to make it for themselves with the mindset of "f*ck anyone I hurt in the process", and I want to see those people face the consequences of their wrongdoing just like every ordinary person is facing them. Stop bailing them out. Stop whitewashing investigations. Stop allowing them to run and hide under technicalities. Stop covering up for them.

Effectively what I'm saying there is, I want government to stop aiding and abetting them and instead actually work on establishing who broke the law, and bringing them to justice. Arguably there has been a far greater cover up in the United States, but it would appear to be a universal phenomenon at this stage, government colluding in covering up crimes by their friends.
It has to stop, and I will support any protest movement which aims to stop it.

Inclusion

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

To be honest, there are many (not all) examples of compulsory purchase which I do absolutely oppose, many because they are handled so shockingly badly by Irish administration (so what else is new).

I had 70 shares in Anglo the day they nationalized it, for which I should have been paid €14 (assuming the value of the shares was 20c, which I rounded from 21 or 22 for simplicity's sake).
Sure, it's a ridiculously low amount of money, but the issue here is principle. The state effectively stole €14 from me, and no doubt stole far more from other investors at the time.

ARE the Corrib landowners being compensated by the acre for the amount of land being used to build the pipeline?

Finally, I'd like to point out the difference between compulsory purchase in the public interest to build something which benefits the public, eg power lines, and compulsory purchase for the sake of a private company's profits.
Now this is a point which can be up for debate, but I really don't think the pipeline qualifies as something which is going to benefit the general population, and therefore "national interest".

Anyway we are getting hopelessly sidetracked here, if we want to debate Shell let's move it into a different thread. It has nothing to do with my support for Occupy, and indeed I've long argued that mixing protests like that is obscenely counter productive.

My allegiance is to the motivation of the general worldwide movement, and that is anti financial system, anti cronyism, anti corporate influence on politics, and anti hypocrisy.

I have been in solidarity with the movement and its principles since Day 1, Occupy Galway have sullied these principles with its lack of transparency and outright self-serving motives. The hypocrisy coming from that camp is astounding and they have managed to split the 99%.
They refuse point blank to debate or discuss any of the issues, this is a valid means of gaining knowledge and provoking thought from people and instead of behaving like stroppy teenagers they ought to embrace debate as a means of learning for everybody.
There was a video on Youtube from the early days of OG showing a circle of people chanting about online governance - can't find it now funnily enough seems to have been taken down - why can't they employ this themselves and come on here to debate with respect and not resort to name-calling and insults??

One can only wonder what their true motives are - great free spot in Eyre Square for the Summer????

wearytraveller

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The protests have been hijacked by political operators and unions who are paying people to protest at their opponents gatherings. For instance, people were paid $60 to protest at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC):

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/10/occupy-cpac-protesters-paid-60-for-the-day/#ixzz1m2fNyvzv

sounds like anti-occupy propaganda to me. Either that or the protestors weren't occupy members at all, just protesting under their banner.

wearytraveller

wearytraveller wrote: »

sounds like anti-occupy propaganda to me. Either that or the protestors weren't occupy members at all, just protesting under their banner.

Having just done a bit of googling, it seems that the protests were organised by the unions, with Occupy DC going along to support the action. The protestor interviewed was a union member, so maybe the unions were paying their members to attend? Having read more, I think this is probably irrelevant to the occupy movement itself.