You're painting the entire movement with the broadbrush of one person. As Jamie already pointed out, the movement does have goals. But let's speak plainly, you think greed, injustice, and suffering are natural, inevitable and probably even good things, so no matter what their goals are, you'll continue to paint everyone as loafers and "leeches" because they're not aspiring middle managers and coupon clippers like your colleagues.

-I'm painting the movement by the stated goals of the group itself, which is to eliminate greed globally and to eliminate lobbying in D.C.

Both goals are pie-in-the-sky, especially the first, and unrealistic and rhetoric.

-"you think greed, injustice, and suffering are natural, inevitable and probably even good things"

Wrong.

I think greed/self-interest has a role IN justice, ergo, I am *not* in favor of injustice...

You're just putting words in my mouth because you disagree with my half-Greek, half-Modernist view of ethics and justice, and it conflicts directly with your view.

You're Locke arguing Hobbes is absolutely unjustified in his claims.

Remember--it's a BALANCE of Locke and Hobbes that make a successful government...

Too much Hobbes and you get North Korea, and too much Locke and you get self-contradictory communal governments that advocate private freedom but espouse public rights and property (not to mention the whole "Everyone is created equal...except the slaves...and Native Americans...and the folks who don't agree with our views..." Locke devotes a whole CHAPTER to why slavery is OK, he's no saint, either.)

Obi the complacent suburban white kid who wonders why everyone in the world cant live a complacent suburban life strikes again. All they have to do is behave right?

BTW every time I watch those rallies I start humming Weezers Pink Triangle and break out audibly in

"I'm Dumb Shes a Lesbian
But I thought She was the One"

Hobbes and Locke are irrelevant. Two liberals who didn't have the foggiest clue about how property rights or government came to exist.

"Both goals are pie-in-the-sky, especially the first, and unrealistic and rhetoric."

They have general goals and more specific ones. Changing the culture and ideology of greed being good is possible, but it requires lots of structural changes. It has been done before, it can be done again. Lobbying restrictions and campaign finance reform are absolutely possible, and have been done in other countries. Heck Obama himself implemented restrictions on lobbyists in the executive branch. You're just a cynic.

As an example, self interest, at least on the surface, was stigmatized in the Early Republic. Now it has been made into a sacred cow. There is nothing "Human Nature" about it

Thanks for not responding to any of my comments, obiwan...

@obi
"Dear Occupy Wall Street Protestors:
Get a job"

you shame yourself

Feels weird to say, but +1 obi for the thread.

And draug, if you're waiting to be improved by rational discussion with Putin, it's going to need commitment and a long, long time.

Finally, I'm with goldfinger (at least partially). It's disingenuous to say "My generation screwed things up, at least let's support these kids trying to fix things." That's just more of your generation screwing things up. If you really feel bad about the mess your generation made, then just be quiet and let us properly berate the morons in our generation so they don't do the same thing.

Or, better, just keep generational nonsense out of it and analyze ideas for what they are.

And what's wrong with the ideas of these protesters, semck83?

Obi, your oresmie seems flawed to me.

Greed may in fact be one aspect of human nature, but greed can lead to civil war, for example.

The inability for members of society to trust each other will lead to social unrest and civil disturbances. Why? because greed is not the only motivation which affects people.

If a society can be reshaped then it will be done in the streets by people standing up for what they believe, trying to make things better because they see an unfair system. That is something which all humans have in common, the ability to judge a fair deal.

Now you are complaining that some people see an unjust society. There are people in your country who think that society is unfair, and you don't want them to try and change it? To me that rings of you ignoring a basic human behaviour... The very thing which you accuse them of... well done sir.

Putin, I am new here, but I find myself not in the least bit shocked that you are a MLer.

No wonder you disagree with everything I say...lol

@jamie,

I understand that they support the following:

- Presidential Commission to investigate the influence on elected representatives of lobbyists funded by banks and big corporations, and to look at how this influence can be curbed.

- An increase in taxes for the rich.

- An increase in taxes for corporations.

- Support for trade unions

I think one would have to be benighted to do so, especially the latter.

Of course it's actually a little hard to pin down their positions on anything, apart from their being mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. Perhaps the most charitable thing is to take them at their word, that all they want is the Presidential commission they ask for. Of course, any legislative plans such a commission might create have already been ruled unconstitutional, so they could only propose an amendment to the constitution -- one that would, itself, be absurd and misguided.

(Because politics requires money from somebody -- it requires speech, and to speak to 300 million requires wealth. It is only a question of the form of wealth, and whose wealth, and whether it will be out in the open as it is now, or hidden behind a mask of regulations and power players).

(@jamie, you'll note I removed "corporate subsidies." I agree on this one).

to speak to 300 million requires wealth?

why? i mean, 150 years ago it took a lot of money to setup a printing press and publish a newspaper to put your views across to a wide audience.

It was a big thing which only larger corporations could afford to do.

Today, using just the internet and social tools to promote the stories which people actually care about, you can not only allow any person to promote their own story, you can also have those stories auto-filtered, by viewers, to see which are the best/most interesting.

Why *should* it take lots of wealth to make oneself heard?

People, don't even give Putin the time of day. Listening to a communist talk about freedom is like listening to the French talk about military deterrence.

The airwaves are also public, by law. So if the government wanted to it could give every access to them and it wouldn't cost anything. Instead they hand over airwaves to private corporations for free, who in turn profit from control over them.

@ Jamiet99uk - Well, first off, of the protester's demands you stated, I agree with every one but the trade unions. I honestly think the unions hijacked this and the protesters initially didn't give two shits about the unions. But then again, it could just be my bias against unions, which is neither here nor there.

Also, you got me, because yes, peaceful protest is part of the "system." I was just referring to legal powers, such as referendum and recall - which given today's social media could easily be done - as better alternatives to this. I mean, think of all the money being squandered because of these protests. If they go on, they'll end up hurting the very people they're trying to support. Does NYC have enough money to put that many cops out on the street every day? What about the losses of the protesters? Surely they could be doing something to better themselves or the economy rather than being there. For a movement that, in my eyes will achieve nothing, they're just making their condition worse. By issuing a referendum online, linking people to it via facebook or something, and getting the e-signatures needed, they could have the same possibility of getting something done, but without the economic loss.

Also, a lot of the situation could be fixed by increasing the capital gains tax at its higher levels (because we everyday people *don't* want it raised for our investments) and revamping our corporate tax law.

But, as I have said before, I think that many of the arguments of the protesters are valid, and in fact are inevitable when you leave corporate systems to themselves. This right here is the result of having neoclassical economists in charge of our country and policy for the last few decades (or corporations corrupting politicians. Both bad things, so it really doesn't matter). We need to improve government controls over corporations, and streamline our taxation and regulation rules. Doing both of those could do wonders to our economy.

@SC:
"Obi the complacent suburban white kid who wonders why everyone in the world cant live a complacent suburban life strikes again. All they have to do is behave right?"

...

What the hell?

I'm arguing that they SHOULDN'T act like white suburbanites and ACCEPT the greed and unfairness of life as...well, part of life, and maybe by setting actual goals they might someday organize and do something with their lazy asses, but instead they're pitching tents and walking around moaning for "an end to global greed" and other such bullshit while OTHERS have to pick up their slack as they leech off society.

I'm *condemning* that!

How is my condemning that compacent or unrealistic or "let's all get along"-ish?

Have you mixed me up with Putin and his Communal Fantasy Land?

@Putin:

"Hobbes and Locke are irrelevant. Two liberals who didn't have the foggiest clue about how property rights or government came to exist."

Riiiiight...

1. Hobbes was *not* at all a liberal, he was pretty conservative, he was an atheist, yes, but in politics, he's as right-wing as they come.
2. Locke's philosophy is literally built into our US government via Jefferson...so hyeah, both are relevant, Locke and Hobbes...you fail Poly Sci and political understanding in general with that statement, Putin.
3. I think they BOTH have good ideas of property--Hobbes: "Everyone's in it for themselves, so if you can take it, take it, man, unless taking it will bring about something even worse nfor you, like jail time." Locke: "Everyone has an inalienable right to the fruits of their labor, but that being said, of you have so much its going to waste and you have starving neighbors...you'd do well to throw them an apple or two..." Sounds reasonable to me...

@orathic:

"Greed may in fact be one aspect of human nature, but greed can lead to civil war, for example."

Well, like any good thing, greed is only good in moderation...too much greed and, yes, you have a problem.

That being said, I'm not throwing in with this crowd's "Greed is bad all the time ever in any circumstance...how DARE you keep your money and not spread it around to every last corner of the Earth!" philosophy.

My personal view of self-interest and money comes from Locke's Apple Tree example, which I'm very fond of:

Suppose you have an apple tree.
You've worked hard to plant and tend to it, and you pick the apples yourself.
Now, you have a pretty damn abundant tree.
You ahve a lot of apples.
So many, in fact, that even after you put some in storage for years to come, you have plenty.
IF these excess apples will spoil before you eat them, THAT may be called waste.
Waste is bad.
You also have very hungry neighbors.
Hungry neighbors--for more than one reason--are bad.
Thus, the logical and moral thing for you to do is to give/sell your excess apples.
HOWEVER, that massive store of apples you have that you WILL eat...you earned them, so there is absolutely 0 shame in "greedily" keeping them all for yourself if you so wish.

Greed/self-interest's good, up until the point where things "spoil," and then you take your excess and use it to create a surplus of happiness and help others with those extra-extra resources, while you keep your resources and save your extra resources in case of an emergency.

One more thing I feel I should note:

Self-interest *can* and, in my view, *does mean your interest in others, including family and friends.*

It is very much in your elf-interest to see your family and friends fed...

So if you feed your family and friends with your excess apples, and the family down the street still starves...

That's sad, but I wouldn't call it your fault or call you a miserable miser of a bastard, after all, you used all your apples up, nothing was wasted; that being said, if you offered them an apple or two, that's great, too, but I'm just saying, as long as the apples/money doesn't go to "waste," you shouldn't have to feel guilty about your surplus, YOU WORKED FOR IT.

Don't let these people get to you obiwanobiwan. This hipster rally represents the 5% of the most cartoonish lefties. Tops.

"- Presidential Commission to investigate the influence on elected representatives of lobbyists funded by banks and big corporations, and to look at how this influence can be curbed.

- An increase in taxes for the rich.

- An increase in taxes for corporations.

- A reduction in corporate subsidies.

- Support for trade unions"

Let's just say that those are the goals as Jamiet99uk says.

-The presidential commission demand shows these people's ignorance. First of all, Obama got oodles and oodles of money from Wall Street people in 2008. It's like asking a horse thief to pick the guards at the stable. Even if the president were squeaky clean here a simple commission would be an exercise on futility. All kinds of thigns could happen. The members could be bought off. The findings could be tampered with. And even if something is found (though what could surprise us after scandals like Solyndra and the like) it would not have the force of law. These kids just think Obama can fix everything if only he knew what was going on and we all beleived in him enough. If anything they're not cynical enough.

-As for increases in personal and corporate taxes, that's probably just about as far as they thought it through. We gotta tax the rich and corporations, MAAAAAAAAN! There's a real conversation to be had about tax levels and tax reform. The people to have this conversation are our elected officials working with information provided by a wide selection of economists and experts in various fields, not rabble in the street. Call me elitist, but I don't want policy determined by the kind of people I see in the news reports of what's going on there. Who the hell elected these people?

-Unions. Yeah, unions have an important place. My grandpa was a Teamster. But there is a serious serous issue with the pensions coming due for public sector unionized employees. This needs to be addressed, and I have a feeling "support for unions" for these people means not facing up to the fact that decades ago politicians made promises which are impossible to keep. Hopefully all sides can come together and reach a deal. If not the markets will force one with the bankruptcies of state governments. Just look into what's happenign in Illinois where I live. We may not have two years left.

oh, and I do agree corporate subsidies should be reduced. We just need to keep in mind that this really doesn't represent very much money. Still get rid of it, but don't think it'll make all that much of a difference.

@Gunfighter

"People, don't even give Putin the time of day. Listening to a communist talk about freedom is like listening to the French talk about military deterrence."

I'm confused. Are you saying communists are pioneers of freedom? It sounds like it, since the French had one of the most successful military leaders in history.

@ Abge, i think he is referring to the past hundred years or so of French History, or all of it if you exclude the Emperor.

Well thats hardly fair! The France under Louis XIV was the most formidable nation in Europe!

Until the end, when it became monetarily unstable anyways...

Well, minus Louis: Part 14 (Louis' Revenge) and Napoleon Bonawesomeparte (sorry, I have an admitation of the man...great leader and he emancipated the Jews in France from the ghettoes)...

France in recent history hasn't exactly been a military dynamo...

WWI: Stuck in trenches with everyone else
WWII: Vive le surrender!
Vietnam: ...yeah...I'm in no position to criticize others there as an American, am I? ;)



Here is Putin's logic:

Good=Russian Communism, France, Communism, Leninism, Marxism, and anything anti-American, English, Hobbesian, Lockian, Platonic, or anyone who in any way puts realism before ideology and actual achievements before beautiful, unfulfilled dreams.

Bad=America, England, Israel, Capitalism, and any viewpoints that are not Communist, Marxist, or otherwise conforming to his idealized fantasy of what the world should be rather than what the world is...

For Putin, the world is 2-dimensional, black and white, good or evil, wright or wrong, greedy or generous, full stop, and if you dare put a toe across the dichotomy Putin dosn't care for, you're instantly a cardboard cutout of a poor greedy bastard who "just doesn't get it" and needs, of course, to be properly "educated" in Putinism.

For the REST of the world, problems and people are 3-dimensional, though, there far too often isn't a clear-cut right or wrong answer, and right and wrong may not even always apply, and so there's room for differing views and the ownership of ideas and self-advancement in a diversified world...

And diversity of ideas and self-advancement are two of the chief no-no's of Putinism.

(AND of those whiners down there loitering and moaning without aim or direction in tents near Wall Street...

Over-simplified problems for over-simplified people, and they make the whole of the :Left look so moronic that REAL minds and movers, you know, people with more than ideas, that is, ideas and the resources to back it up and the common sense and experience to refine those ideas...yeah, now they look bad jsut by standing on the Left, and so we'll now see a move to the Right by such people to distance themselves from theese loonies as it's nearly election time again.

Thank you, Putin and Party People of Operation Waste People's Time!

You've succeeded at hurting your side's chances even more!

Congratulations!

You accomplished something...for the RIGHT!

And we'll see how much THEY care about greed and corporate responsibility when it comes to the environment and social works and all those lovely ideas you go on trumpeting...)

@obi

"Get a job or, failing that, get a LIFE."

Was this for effect, or are you more ignorant than I thought?

What exactly do you want these people to do? What jobs are they supposed to get? People aren't hiring, so protesting doesn't seem to be a particularly bad waste of time.

I agree that it probably won't amount to much, but if it accomplishes anything, isn't that better than nothing?

If all these people had jobs to go to, there wouldn't be much to protest about, now would there?

IIRC, Putin is pro-Israel. Also, the French bore the brunt of WW1 on the Western Front, in both WW1 and WW2 the UK was protected by the English Channel.

"People, don't even give Putin the time of day. Listening to a communist talk about freedom is like listening to the French talk about military deterrence. "

Nice, sorry to hear that the USSR decriminalised abortion and homosexuality, made divorces easier to get and allowed workers to take control of the means of production. (Yes, I know this lasted for a short time, but what can you do against a civil war that destroyed the country and a nut like Stalin?) Of course, the above is coming from a police officer, someone who is there to protect the state and its class interests.

How can you say these protestors have no aim or direction? How dare they stand on the sidewalk and fight for something different than the status quo. I don't see how they are making the right look good, except to people on the right (who wouldn't care about the Occupy movement anyway). These protests show that a large section of the population are annoyed at the lack of employment and the support large corporations have been getting. Companies are making huge profits yet unemployment is still high. Tax payer money was poured into bailouts, bankers then just took that money in bonuses. Yet these people are dirty, lazy hippies who should just suck it up.