Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

"i dont understand"

So my sister just told me that the reason why Occupy isn't catching on like Egypt, is because we are protesting about too many things. According to NPR, it was a bad idea for Occupy members to protest concerning environmental issues.

Apparently all these different reasons, according to some, are confusing Americans. An Egyptian revolutionary even argued, that the occupy movement will be much stronger if we simplify our reasons for protesting to one reason. That we should focus and rally people on one problem - and only one problem.

Sis also argued we don't have numbers because we are not offering a solution. And that apparently you shouldn't protest over what you think is a crime against humanity unless you have a clearly written out resolution. Sis claims she understands the Occupy movement and that it is we who don't understand. Yet sis had never even heard of our number one slogan - We are the 99%. Neither did she know that we have already made demands.

But this is what I don't understand.

How are we not projecting that we have ONE problem?

Hasn't the occupy movement since day one named who the ONE problem is? The 1% right? That is why the slogan is we are the 99%, because we are fighting the greed of the 1%. That is the ONE problem. And its a problem creating a multitude of problems. From homes being illegally taken away, to crippling student debt, to a corrupt banking system, to regulators regulating themselves, which in turn creates an environmental problem. (FDA and EPA)

I don't understand how anyone can ask the Occupy movement to be fools and rally behind only one issue, as if only solving one issue will solve anything in this web of lies. People don't want to join us because its all so complicated? Tough. It is complicated. Its a fucked up system and its a complicated mess. Its not simple and its not easy. No one ever said it was.

To that Egyptian Revolutionary, are you going to tell me, that you opposed Mubarak - for one reason? And one reason only? I'm not Egyptian so I can be over stepping my voice, but last I remember people were fed up with Mubarak for a MULTITUDE of reasons.

And we in the Occupy movement recognize a multitude of problems created by merely the 1%. All of these different problems are not so different and they are all tied and interconnected. The environmental issues are tied back to corporate greed and corrupt government officials. Just as the economic issues are tied back to corporate greed and corrupt government officials. And guess what, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ARE TIED TO ECONOMIC ISSUES! Whether someone is out there for environmental or economic issues they both MUTUALLY understand they are fighting the SAME enemy.

So I don't understand..........................

WHAT IS NOT TO UNDERSTAND!!!

So please explain to me DV members who for some insane reason oppose occupy, why do you not understand how all of these problems are interconnected? What did you think, that the problems Americans face are - unrelated?

No, lets take this a step further.

Did you think the reason why Occupy is happening across the Globe - is for unrelated issues?

I think I need to restrict my "likes", lest I come across as putting the other posts I liked on the same level as yours juroara.

That really was great.

I do agree with your sister too. That is the reason it's not catching on so much, as well as most mainstream news stations.
People just aren't smart enough, or don't care enough. Probably both.

And I was listening to an Alan Watts talk (I think it was him, I wish I could find it right now to type it exactly right) recently and he said "This is why children don't care anymore, because there are so many problems: War, famine, disease, greed, corruption, environmental destruction, the a-bomb.... and any one of those problems taken alone is insurmountable".

I think that is why people just.... give up. And why people don't want to think about it when you're showing them everything at once. Even though it NEEDS to be done. Not everything is pleasant.

Originally Posted by cmind

You seem to be implying that conservatives think it would be okay to make money by means of fraud or theft or some other criminal means. Please clarify your position.

My position is unaffected, strengthened even, if you remove the line you highlighted. I'll retract it, but only in the context of this particular argument. I argued that economic inequality at face value (so, regardless of the causes of said inequality, legal or otherwise) is reason enough to take action. This at face value condemnation of economic inequality is supported by evidence presented in the video I linked. Have I been clarified?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

My position is unaffected, strengthened even, if you remove the line you highlighted. I'll retract it, but only in the context of this particular argument. I argued that economic inequality at face value (so, regardless of the causes of said inequality, legal or otherwise) is reason enough to take action. This at face value condemnation of economic inequality is supported by evidence presented in the video I linked. Have I been clarified?

Why is it bad for some people to have more money than others, given the assumption that you apparently agreed to, which is that they got that money by providing goods and services that others found valuable?

Originally Posted by cmind

Why is it bad for some people to have more money than others,

Watch the TED video.. that question is exactly what it's about. One of the points demonstrated (with evidence) is that quality of life for both ends of the economic spectrum is higher when there's less difference between them.

Originally Posted by cmind

given the assumption that you apparently agreed to, which is that they got that money by providing goods and services that others found valuable?

That's irrelevant to the scope of the presentation: that's what I keep getting at by saying at face value. "economic inequality at face value regardless of the causes of said inequality".

Dispute the arguments put forth in the presentation if you want but stick with what has actually been presented.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Watch the TED video.. that question is exactly what it's about. One of the points demonstrated (with evidence) is that quality of life for both ends of the economic spectrum is higher when there's less difference between them.

That's an assertion. And it's clearly a correlation/causation fallacy. Also, I think any notions of using force (which you seem to tacitly advocate) to "equalize" the distribution of wealth will both fail (who watches the watchers?) and make everyone less happy because of the nature of the solution, ie. violence. If you were trying to convince the rich to voluntarily give to charity, which some do, then I'd be on your side. But you clearly want to point guns at them and force them to give to charity. And not just any charity, YOUR charity.

I'm waiting for an intelligent thought from you.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

That's irrelevant to the scope of the presentation: that's what I keep getting at by saying at face value. "economic inequality at face value regardless of the causes of said inequality".

I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?

There is something wrong when the wealthiest people use tax refunds to get all their money back.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's an assertion. And it's clearly a correlation/causation fallacy. Also, I think any notions of using force (which you seem to tacitly advocate) to "equalize" the distribution of wealth will both fail (who watches the watchers?) and make everyone less happy because of the nature of the solution, ie. violence. If you were trying to convince the rich to voluntarily give to charity, which some do, then I'd be on your side. But you clearly want to point guns at them and force them to give to charity. And not just any charity, YOUR charity.

I'm waiting for an intelligent thought from you.




I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?

Ask as many times as you want, but I already answered that question. I answered it directly in my last post when I said 'here's what's wrong with it...watch this presentation'. Yes, there is something wrong with economic inequality, even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people. The problematic aspects are magnified by the degree of the inequality. I really can't tell if you've even watched the presentation yet because you are not addressing it's argument.

In fact there is a part where he compares Sweden to Japan, two countries with low margins between the wealth of the richest and the poorest... but Sweden uses redistributive tax programs, whereas in Japan, people simply make more equal earnings to begin with. The point is that it redistributive or not, it doesn't matter. Countries with low economic inequality have higher overall quality of living for everyone (so your accusing me of simply advocating "violent" redistribution is simplistic.) And it's not just a single correlation presented... he draws a whole range or correlations of many kinds ways of measuring living standards from a rich body of data. A single correlation does not imply causation but when enough of them are pulled together that corroborate each other, a picture starts to get painted.

...still working on that intelligent thought I apparently owe you, but I can't force such things.

Originally Posted by cmind

I will keep asking this until you answer: Is there anything wrong with some people being richer than others, assuming they got rich through voluntary trade interactions with other people?

The problem with your question is that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What you are asking is akin to me asking, "is there anything wrong with some people killing others, assuming the others were trying to kill them?" in regards to a Ted Bundy case, and using the answer to justify his actions. The answer might be yes, but it doesn't really prove anything because it doesn't apply (I realize the question itself is not similar but it's irrelevance is). Ignoring that, such a simple question is grossly limited in scope and does not adequately cover the specificities of the situation. What are you getting at here? No one here is mad because the 1% are richer than themselves, they are mad because of the way they acquired the wealth and how, through corruption backed by the government, they continually have the money they lose placed right back into their hands.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Ask as many times as you want, but I already answered that question. I answered it directly in my last post when I said 'here's what's wrong with it...watch this presentation'. Yes, there is something wrong with economic inequality, even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people. The problematic aspects are magnified by the degree of the inequality. I really can't tell if you've even watched the presentation yet because you are not addressing it's argument.

What is wrong with getting rich off voluntary trade? The more profit, the more people you satisfy in voluntary exchanges. The more people you help that in some manner show by that very trade that their lives are now better. That is the whole point of trade. Giving up something you desire less for what you desire more. Improving your state of being or environment. Removing a felt unease. I just do not get this. You are mad at an institution that states that the more people you help, the better off you are. Is that not a just system? Is that not a system to promotes abundance? Would you not applaud a system that promotes the general welfare of the masses?

On the topic of the correlation/causation fallacy, it does not matter if you continually increase the fallacy. Committing the fallacy more and more does not make the fallacy go away.

Originally Posted by snoop

The problem with your question is that it is irrelevant to the topic at hand. What you are asking is akin to me asking, "is there anything wrong with some people killing others, assuming the others were trying to kill them?" in regards to a Ted Bundy case, and using the answer to justify his actions. The answer might be yes, but it doesn't really prove anything because it doesn't apply (I realize the question itself is not similar but it's irrelevance is). Ignoring that, such a simple question is grossly limited in scope and does not adequately cover the specificities of the situation. What are you getting at here? No one here is mad because the 1% are richer than themselves, they are mad because of the way they acquired the wealth and how, through corruption backed by the government, they continually have the money they lose placed right back into their hands.

The question is very relevant because there is a section the OWS movement that believes that all 1%'ers are culpable and should be taxed into oblivion. So differentiating between those who achieved their revenue by helping others in voluntary exchanges and those who achieved their revenue through corporate welfarism/subsidies is a distinction worth pursuing. That is what cmind is trying to show and I think you start to pick up on it in your last sentence.

Protesters = haters

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What is wrong with getting rich off voluntary trade? The more profit, the more people you satisfy in voluntary exchanges. The more people you help that in some manner show by that very trade that their lives are now better. That is the whole point of trade. Giving up something you desire less for what you desire more. Improving your state of being or environment. Removing a felt unease. I just do not get this. You are mad at an institution that states that the more people you help, the better off you are. Is that not a just system? Is that not a system to promotes abundance? Would you not applaud a system that promotes the general welfare of the masses?

Again... that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the actual end state itself of wealth inequality. The line in my post "even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people" was a derivative of what I said to begin with, "regardless of cause", because cmind needed it spelled out for him. So... REGARDLESS OF CAUSE. In this argument I don't care if every single transaction that's taken place in the last century was abject robbery, or if every transaction was so honest and fair that god could come down and say, 'yep, I saw it all, and everything meets my holy righteous standards of weights and measures'. It doesn't matter, that's not what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

On the topic of the correlation/causation fallacy, it does not matter if you continually increase the fallacy. Committing the fallacy more and more does not make the fallacy go away.

So all correlations are useless? Are you saying that it's a fallacy to compile a large amount of blindly-selected data, look for trends, consider all possible interpretations, and then use the results to draw tentative conclusions? Because if you've seen the presentation and read my posts since I posted the TED link, I've suggested nothing more than that. I've asked cmind once and I'll ask you now... if you care to dispute the presentation itself, please do.

Originally Posted by tommo

And I was listening to an Alan Watts talk (I think it was him, I wish I could find it right now to type it exactly right) recently and he said "This is why children don't care anymore, because there are so many problems: War, famine, disease, greed, corruption, environmental destruction, the a-bomb.... and any one of those problems taken alone is insurmountable".

I think that is why people just.... give up. And why people don't want to think about it when you're showing them everything at once. Even though it NEEDS to be done. Not everything is pleasant.

Just found where I heard it and typed up the correct quote.
"A young person who is in the least bit thoughtful or sensitive today, sees no future.
Look at all the pile up of problems, any one of which taken alone would be appalling. There's population, famine, the bomb, pollution, destruction of the environment, deterioration of products…. you know…. we're basically eating plastic, wonder bread is undoubtedly plastic."

Originally Posted by tommo

we're basically eating plastic, wonder bread is undoubtedly plastic."

Glad to hear you picked a sane person.

Picked a sane person for what?

For listening to...

Originally Posted by Xei

For listening to...

Who Alan Watts? I've always found him very insightful...

Yes, he is. Xei just has a little trouble with lateral thinking.

I don't know who he is, I just know that he thinks bread has deteriorated into plastic and that the current level of warfare isn't historically low.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

The question is very relevant because there is a section the OWS movement that believes that all 1%'ers are culpable and should be taxed into oblivion. So differentiating between those who achieved their revenue by helping others in voluntary exchanges and those who achieved their revenue through corporate welfarism/subsidies is a distinction worth pursuing. That is what cmind is trying to show and I think you start to pick up on it in your last sentence.

One more time it must be repeated. All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share, not that they get taxed into Oblivion. Tax refunds enable them to make most of their money back.

And what a surprise Xei doesn't know what he's talking about...

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share,

You jelly?

Originally Posted by cmind

You jelly?

This is such a typical Republican attitude, that somehow, no matter what, the rich in this country deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor. As if everything works perfectly and everyone gets what they deserve. The fact is, there is no middle class anymore. The 1% are doing everything they can to make it impossible to move up, and keeping all the money to themselves, whether or not they earned it or worked at all for it (more likely stole through everyone else through fraud, tax cuts to the rich and bailouts). Most veterans and 9/11 firefighters are struggling to get by, that should tell you about who deserves to be poor/rich for their real work. It's a 1% brainwashing that they have earned what they have rightfully.