FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Well, it's now official: The Occupy movement is now throughout the US: From Austin to Boston to New York to California. People are taking a stand, united only in their knowledge that things are not currently right. I frankly have no idea what this'll turn in to, but the government has to be aware that when New York and Austin have found common ground in the political sphere and protests have now become nationwide, something is brewing. What, I don't know. But congratulations to them. They've surprisingly unified a wide variety of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan117 Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 The richest 400 people in the US have more money than the bottom 100,000,000 combined. Does that seem right to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 The richest 400 people in the US have more money than the bottom 100,000,000 combined. Does that seem right to you?Depends. What's the solution? I honestly wasn't knocking the movement. I'm impressed, but since you asked:No. I'm all for equal opportunities, which clearly don't exist. So what's the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 What, I don't know. But congratulations to them. They've surprisingly unified a wide variety of people.United under what though? Its easy to say "things should be different..." "We want change..." Its easy to mouth generic platitudes. They haven't gotten to the brass tacks of detailing what needs to be different or changed and more important how to change it.Trust me... what they've done so far is easy compared to what needs to come next in order for them to get the change they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan117 Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Depends. What's the solution? I honestly wasn't knocking the movement. I'm impressed, but since you asked:No. I'm all for equal opportunities, which clearly don't exist. So what's the solution?Well, right now the solution seems to be a camping trip to Wall St. I support the movement, I like that people are getting up and doing something. They don't know what to do either, and I don't think they've figured out how the occupation will solve anything, but the simple fact that people are finally giving a crap about something is astonishing. And I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Well, right now the solution seems to be a camping trip to Wall St. I support the movement, I like that people are getting up and doing something. They don't know what to do either, and I don't think they've figured out how the occupation will solve anything, but the simple fact that people are finally giving a crap about something is astonishing. And I love it. I'm still trying to form an opinion. On one hand, I agree with you. I think a lot of things aren't being right and I do like the idea of a protest--if not all of the people and claims. I may actually prefer those who prefer those who admit they have no clear goals. It's the one that are saying "We want generic good things to happen right now!" that are bugging me. Edited October 12, 2011 by Backroads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Well, right now the solution seems to be a camping trip to Wall St. I support the movement, I like that people are getting up and doing something. They don't know what to do either, and I don't think they've figured out how the occupation will solve anything, but the simple fact that people are finally giving a crap about something is astonishing. And I love it. I have to admit. I have a lot of respect for this. I'm not sure how effective it's going to be, but it sure indicates something's in the pipeline. What, we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spartan117 Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Maybe a month from now there will be so many people camping on Wall St that Wall St will shut down for a day. Then 2. Or in a month people abandon the occupation to by the new Halo game it's forgotten. Like you said, we just don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 The richest 400 people in the US have more money than the bottom 100,000,000 combined. Does that seem right to you?Why is that wrong? I'm gathering from various members of this site that it is morally wrong to be wealthy. Why is it morally wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'll go as far as to say "this might eventually turn into something". Unfortunately, I'm not happy with what it might turn into. My marxist facebook buddy figures the movement is comprised of a bunch of "useful idiots" to forward his Bakuninite/Anarcho-marxist/libertarian-socialist agenda. Here's what he has to say about them:Without a major news network, multi-million dollar PR firms, and several billionaire patrons, it's harder to develop a clear message than other recent movements. I think that combined with the fact that the majority of people involved are inexperienced, naive liberals that haven't been taught the basics of how social change happens explains the lameness of the messaging.Fortunately, people with some knowledge of organizing are getting involved, and if/when the occupy protests fizzle, there will hopefully be something more solid and goal-oriented built-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Why is that wrong? I'm gathering from various members of this site that it is morally wrong to be wealthy. Why is it morally wrong?The problem is apparent when we apply that to any other resource:Let's apply this to, for instance, food:"The top 400 people in the USA have more food than the bottom 100, 000, 000 combined."- When that bottom 100, 000, 000 people are struggling with food and finding difficulty with the amount of food they do have, would you expect a struggle?Or, let's apply this to members of the opposite sex(Let's say we're in China and everyone wanted to have a son/daughter, so there were a mysterious bunch of disappearances):"The top 400 people in the USA have more husbands/wives than the bottom 100, 000, 000 combined."Try it with oxygen, or any other vital item, and suggest that the bottom 100, 000, 000 were struggling. Wouldn't you expect there to be riots?There is nothing inherently wrong with wealth. What is inherently wrong is that wealth perpetuates itself, meaning that a truly wealthy individual will always have far more opportunities than someone who wasn't born wealthy. This means that the wealthier get wealthier and the poor are faced with near insurmountable obstacles.What it all boils down to is:There is a power imbalance. People don't like power imbalances.I have no solution, but I do understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 From what I can tell, since Adam & Eve got the boot from the garden, a few things have remained universally true about everything we humans have done since. * We organize ourselves into nations. * Nations are defined as that which has an economy, a military, and a political class - and people therein believe they are part of a nation. * The people running the nations are a few elite members of the economy/military/political class, in varying quantities and amounts. Your nation's mileage may vary - but it plays by this rule too. Universally true, for every nation there has ever been. Can anyone find an exception? Constitutional republics allow the people to chose the elite rulers, who allegedly serve at their whim. So, sitting back and saying a few rich folk got all the stuff, isn't really news, since there's never been any other way the humans have ever done it ever, anywhere. Not even in the USSR, or North Korea, or Switzerland, or the UK, or Canada, or ancient Rome, or modern Greece. As to the seeming inherent unfairness of it all, I'd direct them to Article of Faith 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Totally true, Loudmouth. I should also point out that there have been revolutions caused by these things since time began, since we're pointing out these things.Heck - Didn't Satan rebel because he wanted what God had? That's earlier than Adam and Eve getting the boot from the garden.From what I can tell, since Adam & Eve got the boot from the garden, a few things have remained universally true about everything we humans have done since.* We organize ourselves into nations.* Nations are defined as that which has an economy, a military, and a political class - and people therein believe they are part of a nation.* The people running the nations are a few elite members of the economy/military/political class, in varying quantities and amounts. Your nation's mileage may vary - but it plays by this rule too.Universally true, for every nation there has ever been. Can anyone find an exception? Constitutional republics allow the people to chose the elite rulers, who allegedly serve at their whim. So, sitting back and saying a few rich folk got all the stuff, isn't really news, since there's never been any other way the humans have ever done it ever, anywhere. Not even in the USSR, or North Korea, or Switzerland, or the UK, or Canada, or ancient Rome, or modern Greece.As to the seeming inherent unfairness of it all, I'd direct them to Article of Faith 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler90AZ Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Per Occupy Together Facebook:At least 118 active, ongoing Occupations and 1,367 communities in some stage of planning or preparation. Hundreds more will be active or begin Occupations on October 15th.Were sitting at about 2,500 signed up to protest in Phoenix.... Which starts October 15th.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 What are you protesting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler90AZ Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) What are you protesting?I stated why I am protesting multiple times on different threads. You can also search google for general information on protesters. Edited October 12, 2011 by Tyler90AZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 The richest 400 people in the US have more money than the bottom 100,000,000 combined. Does that seem right to you?From what I understand about the protesters, I don't think they're protesting against rich people being rich, I think they're protesting about the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class have stayed stagnant. So, it's not that being rich is morally wrong, but the rich being self-serving (according to them) is morally wrong. For example:Now, the fact that this phenomenon is occurring isn't really controversial: it's really an economic fact at this point. The question is, then, whether this phenomenon is wrong (and therefore something we should seek to correct) or whether it is good and normal.I'm still trying to form an opinion. On one hand, I agree with you. I think a lot of things aren't being right and I do like the idea of a protest--if not all of the people and claims. I may actually prefer those who prefer those who admit they have no clear goals. It's the one that are saying "We want generic good things to happen right now!" that are bugging me.Speaking of figuring out what the protesters actually want, I've found by somebody in the OWS protests. It's very obviously biased because it's made by somebody in the OWS movement, but it's well made (and loud, you might want to turn your volume down a little before you watch it) and does a good job at explaining the reasoning behind some of the demands of the OWS movement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Mormon Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 From what I understand about the protesters, I don't think they're protesting against rich people being rich, I think they're protesting about the rich getting richer while the poor and middle class have stayed stagnant. So, it's not that being rich is morally wrong, but the rich being self-serving (according to them) is morally wrong. For example:Now, the fact that this phenomenon is occurring isn't really controversial: it's really an economic fact at this point. The question is, then, whether this phenomenon is wrong (and therefore something we should seek to correct) or whether it is good and normal.Speaking of figuring out what the protesters actually want, I've found by somebody in the OWS protests. It's very obviously biased because it's made by somebody in the OWS movement, but it's well made (and loud, you might want to turn your volume down a little before you watch it) and does a good job at explaining the reasoning behind some of the demands of the OWS movement.So they're protesting thr rich being rich, yet the other day they welcomed Kanye West (rich music performer), Russel Symmonds (the guy who started Def Jam records, also rich), and Reverend Al Sharpton (who's not hurting financially). Seems a little hypocritical to me. If these people want to increase their wealth, do what millions of others do......go out and create it yourself. I wasn't happy with the ammount of money I was making a few years ago, so I went back to school and changed careers. Now I'm making double what I was before. I didn't sit around in a park and complain that others were getting rich.These are my opinions. Feel free to state yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 So they're protesting thr rich being rich, yet the other day they welcomed Kanye West (rich music performer), Russel Symmonds (the guy who started Def Jam records, also rich), and Reverend Al Sharpton (who's not hurting financially). Seems a little hypocritical to me. If these people want to increase their wealth, do what millions of others do......go out and create it yourself. I wasn't happy with the ammount of money I was making a few years ago, so I went back to school and changed careers. Now I'm making double what I was before. I didn't sit around in a park and complain that others were getting rich.These are my opinions. Feel free to state yours.Don't you think you're oversimplifying things a bit, Canuck?I suspect you might not get why they're actually protesting based on what you just said, but I want to see if you were being facetious before I make that judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Mormon Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Don't you think you're oversimplifying things a bit, Canuck?I suspect you might not get why they're actually protesting based on what you just said, but I want to see if you were being facetious before I make that judgment.Nope, not being facetious. What are they protesting then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyTown Posted October 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 Nope, not being facetious. What are they protesting then?A power imbalance that results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.I'm now waiting for you to say that's the same thing. If you do, I will point out the difference, but I am going to give you more credit than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Mormon Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 A power imbalance that results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.I'm now waiting for you to say that's the same thing. If you do, I will point out the difference, but I am going to give you more credit than that.I understand that. I had a friend who said it was harder to earn his first million that it was to earn his second million. But he worked his butt off to get that first million. Yes, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but camping out and complaining about it isn't going to make it go away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 So they're protesting thr rich being rich, yet the other day they welcomed Kanye West (rich music performer), Russel Symmonds (the guy who started Def Jam records, also rich), and Reverend Al Sharpton (who's not hurting financially). Seems a little hypocritical to me. If these people want to increase their wealth, do what millions of others do......go out and create it yourself..The point of my post was to show that the protesters aren't protesting the rich being rich, but they are protesting the rich growing more rich while the middle class and the poor stay stagnant (i.e. the increase of economic inequality). It's also important to note that the same people that are often identified as the 1% are the people who the OWS protesters blame for the recession: wall street executives. In other words, they view as immoral that the same people who they say cause the crisis have rarely been prosecuted and are making more money now than ever before despite the economy being trashed. This sort of moral quandary is what I believe the OWS movements is protesting against.These are my opinions. Feel free to state yours.I'm still forming my opinions. I'm trying to first understand the OWS movement thoroughly before I form a set opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 A power imbalance that results in the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.I'm now waiting for you to say that's the same thing. If you do, I will point out the difference, but I am going to give you more credit than that.So what differs between the power imbalance and the people who are merely successful enough to be making lots of money? Is it possible to be making millions fairly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windseeker Posted October 12, 2011 Report Share Posted October 12, 2011 (edited) Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street” After the bail out of Fannie and Freddie, Banks, Auto Companies, Wall Street and Big G' handing out our money to all their friends, I would think if people were concerned with the Rich getting Richer they would be staging protests against The White House and Congress and State Capitals. Edited October 14, 2011 by estradling75 Political Candidates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts