Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Worldwide Occupy Movement?
Options
Comments
-
You think politicians just decide to do all of this? Its just happening by accident or would have happened anyway!
Of course not its because many many people made it their business to Not claiming Occupy is responsible for all of it but it certainly played a role in encouraging it.
All of the things you listed, in relation to Ireland, were issues highlighted way before Occupy came to the scene late last year. The independent Citizens Assembly report has nothing to do with the Occupy movement what-so-ever. The public "discussion" about the "democracy in the eurozone" further proceeds this. The proposed constitutional changes were put the people in the general election early last year. The feeling about corruption is hardly anything new. I don't really see how Occupy contributed anything significant to any of those.
And crucially, none of it explains what Occupy means by "economic justice".0 -
All of the things you listed, in relation to Ireland, were issues highlighted way before Occupy came to the scene late last year. The independent Citizens Assembly report has nothing to do with the Occupy movement what-so-ever. The public "discussion" about the "democracy in the eurozone" further proceeds this. The proposed constitutional changes were put the people in the general election early last year. The feeling about corruption is hardly anything new. I don't really see how Occupy contributed anything significant to any of those.
And crucially, none of it explains what Occupy means by "economic justice".
So you agree that Occupy has made significant impact in the US then at least.
I was giving examples of how increasing awareness of issues and campaigning is used to achieve tangible results. You think some politician dreamed up the citizens assembly? It was due to a lot of people campaigning, organising and putting in a lot of work. They still are btw. Think Enda just decided to make Nama accountable to the freedom of information act over breakfast one morning? Again it is a lot of people campaigning to achieve this.
If two words are confusing you adding more will just make it worse I think.0 -
A question. If Occupy can't define what economic justice is how does it know that the people who they claim support it are talking about the same thing and want the same result as Occupy?
Its an ambigous term and depending on the person could lead to very different results all in the name of economic justice. Obama and Alan Dukes could potenially both support that ideal but produce very different solutions neither of which might be to Occupys liking.
Why do you need it defined?
Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.0 -
Why do you need it defined?
Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.
I need defined because. I could argue for economic justice more than one way. I'll give you two very different examples.
One - I could say that we all should be responsible for our own decisions and that if there was economic justice there would be no welfare state minimum wage etc.
Or
Two - I could say we are all human and fundementally the same and that if there was economic justice we would all earn the same amount.
I could also argue plently of other things in the name of economic justice.
Its just two words and is wide open to interpretation. What does Occupy think it means?(Not anyone else)
Also if don't define your goal how can you work towards it. How do you know you are moving towards it?0 -
I need defined because. I could argue for economic justice more than one way. I'll give you two very different examples.
One - I could say that we all should be responsible for our own decisions and that if there was economic justice there would be no welfare state minimum wage etc.
Or
Two - I could say we are all human and fundementally the same and that if there was economic justice we would all earn the same amount.
I could also argue plently of other things in the name of economic justice.
Its just two words and is wide open to interpretation. What does Occupy think it means?(Not anyone else)
Also if don't define your goal how can you work towards it. How do you know you are moving towards it?
I see now why you might need it defined. I was assuming an average level of comprehansion and use of context. You clearly have no interest in it and are just playing semantics or whatever, at this stage its boring.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was giving examples of how increasing awareness of issues and campaigning is used to achieve tangible results.
Which ironically only serves to highlight the failures of Occupy. The Citizens Assembly for example, set out its aims, carried out its actions based on achieving those aims, and reported on the results - validating whether those aims had been met. It has been presented in a clear, easy to access unambiguous document.
Occupy has sat in tents and doesn't tell anyone why.If two words are confusing you adding more will just make it worse I think.
Is it really that hard a question to answer?Why do you need it defined?
Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.
No it's not "sure" because Occupy seem reluctant to articulate exactly what this cause is. You can't just put out loose, arbitrary statements that are open to any kind of interpretation and expect people to support it unconditionally.
If I told you I was going to start a campaign to fight for £)%("!(%((%£!, and refused to explain what I meant by £)%("!(%((%£! (assuming it was self-explanatory), would you be much tempted to join or support the £)%("!(%((%£! cause? Particularly if it involved an action as obtuse as sitting in a tent. It may seem like an exaggeration but that is how unclear the aims of Occupy are.
It seems you are trying to find an ulterior motive for people asking the simple question, "hey, what do you actually mean by that?"0 -
Seriously: this is why people say the movement has no coherent message.I see now why you might need it defined. I was assuming an average level of comprehansion and use of context. You clearly have no interest in it and are just playing semantics or whatever, at this stage its boring.
When asked what the goal is, the answer varies from "the same thing Obama, Bernanke, Honohan and Dukes want" to "if you don't know, I'm not telling you".
If you had to write a business plan, would it consist of more than a single paragraph?0 -
There have been multiple warnings on this thread to keep it civil, and they have been ignored.
20cent, don't post on this thread again.
SSR0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »The problem with that argument is that it carefully circumvents the actual point being made.
The actual point being made is that there are structures in place to deal with bad apples in police forces. Those structures function to greater or lesser extents, but in all cases the existence of the structures illustrates that there is at least a commitment to eliminating misbehaviour in police forces.
The question, then, is: what structures are in place to ensure that anti-social or other destructive behaviours are systematically dealt with within the Occupy movement?
The police.
No one is suggesting that the police shouldn't arrest those involved in actual criminal behavior and vandalism, we are suggesting that (a) they should not use excessive violence to do so, (b) standing in the street holding a banner is not a crime, and (c) even if it is, it is not a VIOLENT one and does not warrant the drawing of batons, the firing of tear gas, the macing of unarmed bystanders, the use of flash bangs and tasers, etc.
From the reaction of the police, you'd swear they were trying to stop a mass murder in progress, not a peaceful protest.If it has such structures, they should be easy to outline. If it doesn't have such structures, then it is tacitly accepting misbehaviour in its ranks just as a police force would if it didn't have the appropriate structures in place.
"It" doesn't have them just as the police doesn't have them either - did you miss the part where the ombudsman was independent, and where there ARE "internal" police complaints units they nearly always whitewash everything?
I never suggested the police shouldn't do their jobs, the argument is about what their job actually is, and how they conduct themselves whilst performing it.On a superficial level it's a noble goal, but it needs an awful lot of flesh on the bones. For starters, you need to clarify whom you mean by "gamblers", and ideally describe them in less pejorative terms.
If I go into a bookies and bet on a losing horse, I can't just go out and rob every bystander on the street, as bank bondholders are doing to the general public. It was their choice, their risk, THEIR loss. Why should I pay them back for their own decisions? Nobody bails ME out if I make a stupid investment decision...?
Every single cent owed to Anglo Irish bondholders is something I had no involvement in creating and should have no involvement in repaying. It's their problem, and the decision to transfer that (and other bank debts in other countries) to the ordinary citizenry while the people who created the banking mess take the money and run, is scandalous, despicable, and heads need to roll over it. So far, not one actually has.Then you need to explain in detail how society can restructure itself around not financing national debts through privately-issued bonds.
I'm not sure what you mean by this? Where did I suggest doing such a thing?
On the first hand, I wasn't talking of national bonds but bank bonds. A bank is a private company, their problems are not my problems and should not be transferred to the taxpayer.
On the second hand, I'm talking about a radical reform of what money actually is and how it circulates, right down at the very lowest and earliest level. The whole concept that all money is debt, and more of it is "created" by borrowing more and storing up future repayment issues is complete lunacy. The only winners in that scenario are central banks.
It's like a game of musical chairs in which there are never enough chairs for everyone. A sane financial system would have the right numbers of chairs so that it wouldn't fall apart at the drop of a single hat.Finally, you need to explain how camping on a public street is going to get governments to do anything of the sort.
In exactly the same way as marching in the street would. It's a PROTEST. It's the first step to a drive for change. Would you ask Martin Luther King the same question? The function of a protest is (a) to raise awareness, and (b) to send a warning shot to those in power.0 -
Why do you need it defined?
Surely anything that moves the cause in a forward direction is a good thing whoever comes up with it.
Interesting, I googled economic justice because as an ignorant simpleton I did not know what it means.
The Wikipedia entry redirected me to social justice which is surely not the same thing? Even they don't know enough about it to distinguish it from social justice, maybe I am not such an ignorant simpleton, just a simpleton.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economic_justice&redirect=no
Found another definition here:
http://www.cesj.org/thirdway/economicjustice-defined.htm
Some interesting concepts. One caught my eye.
The Principle of Distribution
[FONT=Times,Times,serif]Many confuse the distributive principles of justice with those of charity. Charity involves the concept "to each according to his needs," whereas "distributive justice" is based on the idea "to each according to his contribution." Confusing these principles leads to endless conflict and scarcity, forcing government to intervene excessively to maintain social order.[/FONT]
Now that is interesting - "to each according to his contribution". Well let us say we have a bank. A number of people contribute to financing that bank, a small amount by shareholders, a large amount by depositers and a significant amount by bondholders. In turn, that bank lends money to customers to buy things. Now down the road, the bank runs into trouble because suddenly the nice customers who borrowed money can't pay it back, oops, they are turning nasty but the principle of economic justice outlined above suggests that they must pay back every penny. One thing is clear - no help for mortgage-holders. Now, the government steps in and on behalf of the taxpayers says that the bondholders and depositers who financed the bank deserves their money back. Hey what about the shareholders? The government just took their money and they lost everything. That must be against economic justice, they should be paid back their contribution, like everyone else. So another couple of things are clear - pay back the bondholders and pay back the shareholders as well.
See what happens when you put up a motherhood and apple pie slogan as an objective that nobody could possibly disagree with, say world peace or economic justice, a simpleton like me comes along and says that's a great idea, it means
(1) no bailout for mortgage-holders
(2) pay back the bondholders
(3) compensate the shareholders as well
What's the problem?
Seriously, (and the above was tongue-in-cheek to those that missed it), putting up a slogan like world peace or economic justice makes the Occupy Movement look silly. We all fuzzily want things like that but lots of us have a different picture of what that slogan means. "More democracy" "World Peace" "Economic Jutice" " Give us back our oil", they are all empty slogans (some a little more empty than others as technically we don't have any oil). When are we going to get some idea from one of the Occupy people as to what the Occupy Movement (especially the Irish one) actually stands for?0 -
Advertisement
-
I was claiming that there are structures in place - including the gardai themselves and the Garda Ombudsman - that deal with miscreants within the Gardai. I also pointed to how the Gardai have referred cases themselves to the Ombudsman. See below link to garda ombudsman report and extract. I provided these several pages ago but they were ignored. So the undisputed factual evidence is that there are structures in place to deal with miscreants in the Gardai and these, according to the Garda Ombudsman Commission in its own reports are actually used by the gardai. No amount of anecdotal she said this or he saw that or twisting the facts of a newspaper story can contradict the official report. So not only is there a commitment to dealing with miscreants, not only is there a structure in place to deal with them, but the official reports demonstrate that they have been used by the Gardai themselves.
I pointed out that there are some cases where they help cover up their colleagues actions, just as there are some cases where they do not.
What I'm tired of arguing is this part: "There are structures in place to deal with miscreants". They are INDEPENDENT STRUCTURES. The police force itself is the independent structure in place to deal with non police criminals, so does that not suffice as far as Occupy goes, for INDEPENDENT policing?My question is can the Occupy Movement demonstrate the same commitment, structures and reports that show they deal with their miscreants?
Occupy is not an organization, so obviously they don't have reports and books, etc. I know the Dublin one doesn't tolerate actual crime, they don't even tolerate drinking on site and they WILL expel you from the camp for doing so, which I've seen happen numerous times.
http://www.occupydamestreet.org/images/2011/11/SSPcolourblu.jpg
"Occupy Dame Street endorses a policy of non-violent direct action. While recognizing the right to self-defence, the camp will attempt wherever possible to use non violent techniques to diffuse violent situations.
"In the case of any physical or sexual harrassment or assault, we recognize the offended person's full right to immediately inform whichever authorities they see fit, or to have someone do so on their behalf.
No alcohol or drugs are to be consumed in this space - out of respect for the camp and the wider public. working in any tole on the camp while under the influence of alcohol or drugs will not be tolerated. No smoking in indoor communal areas. Be aware that although you may be comfortable working under the influence of any such substances, others may not be comfortable with this. Any violation of these policies will be challenged, and people will be actively supported in challenging such violations."If they can, they are similar to the gardai, if not, they are different and they do not show any commitment to dealing with miscreants and are condoning violence through inaction.
Condoning violence through inaction? I was about to agree with your general tone but this line killed it - are you therefore condoning fraud and bank bailouts through the "inaction" of not protesting against them? Ridiculous accusation to make.
You can't apply the structure of an organization to Occupy because it's not an organization. I know I'd report a theft or assault if I saw one, and I'm pretty sure most other occupiers I know would as well.0 -
This post had been deleted.
Eradicate the government-corporate axis.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. Numerous polls, opinion pieces and articles, which I have linked to in this thread, have showed that the #1 goal among occupiers is the ending of the political elite, or to borrow a phrase from the original wall street movement, simply "Get corporate money out of politics".
Other goals may indeed be ambiguos, but if you look at the various worldwide occupy movements, this one is almost universal.0 -
Maybe I am stupid but after reading all of these threads the only goals I am clear about are:
(1) Give us back our oil
(2) World Peace
(3) Something incoherent about equality
I will admit that at the start I thought they had no goals but that the posters on these threads have made me aware of the above three.
Now I can understand where Permabear and others are coming from because my responses to the above three are:
(1) What oil?
(2) Who doesn't claim to want world peace (even if it is only their own definition of world peace)? I mean the Israelis think that bombing Iran may help preserve world peace but the Russians don't agree but they all state (including Iran) that they want world peace.
(3) Equality of what exactly?
Why do you continually ignore the issue of bank bailouts, and the general situation of government making policy to benefit their wealthy friends instead of to benefit the general population?
I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.
I'd be a bit more frank about it. "Bankers: Your f*ck ups, YOUR problems".
ODS has a poster which says "Banks didn't share their profits, why should we share their losses?"
As long as you continue to ignore this huge elephant in the room from your point of view, your arguments will look ridiculous.
How about this. I will go home and stop protesting when the government burns Anglo's bondholders and takes the golden circle to court for breaking insider trading rules, and Seanie Fitz for misrepresenting the company's accounts each year to hide his spiralling loan book.
Obviously it's about much more than that, but I'm going to take this one step at a time since you're so determined to ignore this aspect of Occupy.
When those who made this mess in the banking sector are forced to pay for their own mistakes before turning to the rest of the population for help, and when those who committed genuine crimes are held accountable for them, I will consider Occupy a huge success, and provided this is a real and permanent change, I will strongly consider leaving. The broader question of revolutionizing the monetary system can come later, for the moment I would be satisfied with that.
If you choose to ignore that aspect of the Occupy movement, I will start choosing to ignore your posts. Your choice.
Get corporate influence out of politics.
Stop bailing out banks which made their own messes through their own stupidity.
Stop covering up abuses and turning a blind eye to them.
Stop telling us we must "all pull together" unless that genuinely does mean ALL.0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Your stupid investment decisions don't have systemic implications for the wider economy. If they did, you'd probably get a bailout.hatrickpatrick wrote: »If I go into a bookies and bet on a losing horse, I can't just go out and rob every bystander on the street, as bank bondholders are doing to the general public. It was their choice, their risk, THEIR loss. Why should I pay them back for their own decisions? Nobody bails ME out if I make a stupid investment decision...?
You can argue over whether or not bondholders' decisions should be allowed to become systemic to the wider economy, but that discussion is taking a back seat to the rather moot question of whether or not we need to prevent the existing edifice from collapsing on top of us.
No, it's our problem. Returning to the collapsing edifice metaphor, if you're trapped in a building whose foundations have been damaged by someone else's stupidity, you are entitled to refuse to contribute to the effort to re-stabilise it, on the grounds that it's a problem you had no involvement in creating. There isn't necessarily anything noble about such a stance, however.Every single cent owed to Anglo Irish bondholders is something I had no involvement in creating and should have no involvement in repaying. It's their problem...
Banks are systemic to our financial system. It's a convenient fiction to believe that you could allow every single bank to implode without any impact on the wider economy by drawing an arbitrary distinction between bank and national bonds, but - for better or worse - those lines have been blurred.I'm not sure what you mean by this? Where did I suggest doing such a thing?
On the first hand, I wasn't talking of national bonds but bank bonds. A bank is a private company, their problems are not my problems and should not be transferred to the taxpayer.
If you want those lines to be sharply delineated again, a couple of steps are necessary: revoking all deposit guarantees by governments of bank deposits, and finding somewhere that governments can borrow money other than private corporate lenders. I don't know that the first is a good idea, and I have no idea where to start with the second.
Yes, I've seen the argument against fiat currency before.On the second hand, I'm talking about a radical reform of what money actually is and how it circulates, right down at the very lowest and earliest level. The whole concept that all money is debt, and more of it is "created" by borrowing more and storing up future repayment issues is complete lunacy. The only winners in that scenario are central banks.
The problem with that argument is that if you have a problem with the ability to arbitrarily create money, then you are arguing for a world in which there is a finite and fixed amount of money. In such a world, every transaction is a zero-sum game, and anybody who increases his wealth can only do so by making someone else poorer. It's also a world where economic growth is a logical impossibility.
I'm not clear on why that's such a laudable goal.
A warning shot is effective only as a message that the next shot will be on target.In exactly the same way as marching in the street would. It's a PROTEST. It's the first step to a drive for change. Would you ask Martin Luther King the same question? The function of a protest is (a) to raise awareness, and (b) to send a warning shot to those in power.
If this warning shot is ignored, what form will the shot on target take?
You can clarify what that soundbite means. I asked questions earlier of someone who proposed regulating lobbying, and I didn't get any answers.hatrickpatrick wrote: »Eradicate the government-corporate axis.
I don't know how much more clear I can be.
Can you put some flesh on those bones?0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »Why do you continually ignore the issue of bank bailouts, and the general situation of government making policy to benefit their wealthy friends instead of to benefit the general population?
I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.
I'd be a bit more frank about it. "Bankers: Your f*ck ups, YOUR problems".
ODS has a poster which says "Banks didn't share their profits, why should we share their losses?"
As long as you continue to ignore this huge elephant in the room from your point of view, your arguments will look ridiculous.
How about this. I will go home and stop protesting when the government burns Anglo's bondholders and takes the golden circle to court for breaking insider trading rules, and Seanie Fitz for misrepresenting the company's accounts each year to hide his spiralling loan book.
Obviously it's about much more than that, but I'm going to take this one step at a time since you're so determined to ignore this aspect of Occupy.
When those who made this mess in the banking sector are forced to pay for their own mistakes before turning to the rest of the population for help, and when those who committed genuine crimes are held accountable for them, I will consider Occupy a huge success, and provided this is a real and permanent change, I will strongly consider leaving. The broader question of revolutionizing the monetary system can come later, for the moment I would be satisfied with that.
If you choose to ignore that aspect of the Occupy movement, I will start choosing to ignore your posts. Your choice.
Get corporate influence out of politics.
Stop bailing out banks which made their own messes through their own stupidity.
Stop covering up abuses and turning a blind eye to them.
Stop telling us we must "all pull together" unless that genuinely does mean ALL.
Sorry, if you feel I have ignored the points made on the bailout but I have made my views on this issue clear time and again. Below is a simplified version of events.
The FF Government decided on 30 September 2008 to guarantee the bondholders and depositers in Irish banks. It did that by virtue of the deomcratic mandate freely given to it by the Irish people in a democratic election to act on their behalf in such matters. So, as a result, legally, morally and financially, we, the Irish people, took on that debt that day and promised to repay it. Nearly everything that has happend since follows on from that decision.
Most of the bondholders have now been paid back. This is the bit that Occupy don't seem to get. The bank bondholders have got their money. They have been replaced by sovereign bondholders. What do we do? go after them to get it back? Is that possible or realistic? No. So, do we refuse to pay the sovereign bondholders and go into default? Seriously?
Now a few bank bondholders do remain.
It is arguable that these may not be covered by the original guarantee and should not be paid. However, it is also arguable that a failure to pay these few remaining bondholders would act as a destabiliser and put us in a position like Greece. On balance, I favour the latter argument. Read the article below which shows that paying bondholders is not the issue - for what it's worth, the article calculates the saving at €75m per year, which while not to be sneezed at, is not significant in the overall picture.
http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/01/is-repaying-bondholders-still-issue.html
From my point of view, listening to Occupy supporters calling on the Irish people to burn the bondholders is a bit like listening to Vietnam protesters calling on the US Government to end World War II. Eh, that was last week's protest objective.0 -
they are a good thing, for everyone but the greedy and corrupt people.What do you think of it and it's objectives?
it's objectives are aimed at improving the lives of everyone, not just the rich elite.
definitively, they only people who are against this are those that have vested interests.Should it be done more throughout Ireland?
only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.Personally I'm in favour of closing the social wealth gap in our society.
the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...
closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...
"the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"0 -
-
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I've almost had it up to here with this, you are ignoring the biggest issue, it was even part of ODS's original manifesto, "End the bailout of the financial sectors which got themselves into the mess they're in" or something along those lines.
The biggest issues are the deficit and job crises to which Occupy has no credible solutions. As Godge said, the bailout is done and dusted and Occupy need to move on. Instead of trying to get back money which won't be gotten back, they could suggest concrete ways in which this could be prevented in the future and more importantly; explain a viable alternative to the current policies that would lend even an ounce of credibility to the suggestion on their hideous and badly laid out website that: "the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stay out of our affairs".davoxx wrote:only the rich and greedy are against this.
I'm not rich, and I'm not greedy, and I'm against this.0 -
They are a good thing, for everyone but the greedy and corrupt people.
It's objectives are aimed at improving the lives of everyone, not just the rich elite.
Definitively, they only people who are against this are those that have vested interests.
Only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.
The rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
Those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...
Closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...
"the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"
Have to admit to spinning-head syndrome at this stage...:o
Perhaps it might be clearer to my po-folks brain if Davoxx or some of the Occupy spokespersons could just define the word "Rich" in an Irish context ?.....I'm kinda worried now that I might not be poor enough to matter ?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
only the rich and greedy are against this. you'll hear a lot of excuses like steve jobs made millions from nothing, but as with everything that those who oppose the occupy movement say, it's wrong.
the rich are rich because of history (ie born privileged = dirty back ground) or become rich from lying cheating and stealing.
those who win the lotto are the very rare lucky few ...
closing the gaps stops two their systems, and increasing living conditions for everyone except the rich elite that can no longer skip queues, abuse their power, and this scares them ...
"the worst thing you can do to a rich guy is make him poor"
Are you saying that this is the Occupy movement's objectives? Apart from being quite mad, they are communist in nature and I hadn't realised that was part of the Occupy proposals.0 -
since the occupy is a global movement, the rich elite is defined on a global level.Perhaps it might be clearer to my po-folks brain if Davoxx or some of the Occupy spokespersons could just define the word "Rich" in an Irish context ?.....I'm kinda worried now that I might not be poor enough to matter ?
but truthfully, i'd be more worried that you're not rich enough to count ...
why?I'm not rich, and I'm not greedy, and I'm against this.0 -
Since the occupy is a global movement, the rich elite is defined on a global level.
but truthfully, i'd be more worried that you're not rich enough to count ...
why?
Ah right...I see now....so this "Richness" is a worldwide problem (?) and not just something specifically Irish ?
That itself is a relief to hear.
One minor impediment to the popularity of "Occupy" and similar redistributive movements is the inherent tendency of Human Nature to seek self-advancement,ie..a better lifestyle,bigger house,more goats,newer car,younger wife/husband/partner....and .....dare I say it....MORE money and associated possessions.
At some point,I fear,this "Worldwide" popular Occupy movement will find it necessary to impose it's peculiar view of how our societies organize themselves.....it's at this point that the fur (synthetic of course) will fly !Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
ahh you mean greed ...One minor impediment to the popularity of "Occupy" and similar redistributive movements is the inherent tendency of Human Nature to seek self-advancement,ie..a better lifestyle,bigger house,more goats,newer car,younger wife/husband/partner....and .....dare I say it....MORE money and associated possessions.
that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...
dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.0 -
-
ahh you mean greed ...
that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...
dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.
Greed is very much the wrong word.
Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed. It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.
*I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about. For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.0 -
it's a correct term, though what would you prefer?oscarBravo wrote: »That's a very pejorative term.
that's a loaded question right there.oscarBravo wrote: »Is there a particular reason you're trying hard to alienate people on behalf of the Occupy movement?
do you enjoy making up fictitious requirements for movements that scary you in an attempt to discredit them?
it this why you prefer using strawman arguments in an attempt to muddle the actual correct point?
see loaded questions are not much fun now are they ...0 -
ahh you mean greed ...
that is a human trait alright, but then again so is the desire to eat meat, but somehow people are changing.
it is possible to not be greedy, thought that depends if you want to change and/or want your offspring to change ...
dismissing greed as being part of human nature is similar to the people who are sexist/racist/bigoted explaining human nature ... it's just an excuse for their own issues.
SO....being rich (at whatever level you wish to define it) equates to being Greedy...is that an accurate reflection of your position Davoxx ?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Greed is very much the wrong word.
Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed. It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.
*I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about. For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.
Correct Godge.
I just find it somewhat stimulating to note the concerns of the various Occupiers for the State-of-the-Worlds-Nations.
However I also note,as Davoxx points out,that changing what these humans and their offspring aspire to,which in the main is Wealth,will not be an easy task,and will I venture involve blood,sweat and tears as well as Force.
If I were a hardworking poor person (and perhaps I am,as I still remain unaware of my Occupy wealth/greed score) in any part of the World,I might feel a tad patronized at some Occupiers on Dame Street/St Pauls/Wall st etc etc telling me that my aspirations were somehow threatening the Occupy vision of world order ....would that "poor person" be wrong to think that ?Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
Advertisement
-
did i say that they were? that should answer your question.Are you saying that this is the Occupy movement's objectives?
that's your opinion, though i have no idea what is your criteria for your definition of the concept mad.Apart from being quite mad
they are not communist in nature, though i have no idea what is your criteria for your definition of the word communism.they are communist in nature
are they? you went from asking if they were to assuming that they are.and I hadn't realised that was part of the Occupy proposals.
depends on how you define greed, though you define world peace in a weird way ...Greed is very much the wrong word.
i never said that what you described was.Aspring to better things, ambition, setting goals and objectives, seeking a better life for you and your family, hoping, dreaming, desiring, not standing still, anti-stagnation, there is something in us that drives humans on, it is not greed.
i was referring to the greed aspect.It is this facet of human nature that I think AlexSmart was referring to and that I think he believes davoxx's version* of Occupy is against.
it's a movement, there will be different interpretations of how to achieve the goals.*I am beginning to think that the defenders of Occupy have different views of the movement which is why it has been hard to get a sense of what exactly it is all about.
you have no idea what my views on redistribution are. period.For example, Hatrick's passionate defence of private property rights would be completely incompatible with Davoxx's views on resdistribution.
please do not bother replying to any on my posts, and please do not quote me, refer to me, reference me either directly or indirectly as you seem to make a habit of miss representing my views. thanks.0
Advertisement