Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtTW72F8xo0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I close by telling you a simple little story that I have often told my friends in British Columbia. I sat in the House of Commons for some years and my desk mate was a big husky miner from Caper Breton Island, Clary Gillis who went to work when he was 13 years of age and worked all his life in the coalmines until he came to Parliament. And Clary used to tell an interesting little story when he was trying to illustrate what I have been trying to say. He used to tell the story of Mouse Land: Mouse Land was a quiet place where all the little mice lived and they were very much like people. They had their good days and their bad days. Just like the rest of us, they had a tough time making a living. They were like us in other respects, too. They had a parliament and a government in Mouse Land. And On election day all the little mice used to tog to the polls. They used to elect a government of -big, fat black cats. Now, you might think it strange that mice would have government of cats. But if you take a look at Canada and the United States over a period of years, you will not see that mice are any stupider than men. I don't want you to think that these black cats were very nasty or dirty cats. They were very nice cats. Very clean. Very circumspect. And they gave good government. They passed good laws-good laws for cats. One of the laws they passed that a mouse hole had to be big enough so that a cat could get his paw in! They passed another law to say that in the mornings mice could only travel at a certain speed, so a cat could get his breakfast without too much trouble and. All the laws that the cats passed were good laws. They were good for cats, but, oh they were tough on the mice! And the mice kept getting fewer and fewer in number, and were fed up with it. So they said: "We have had enough of this." And the next election they went to the polls and they threw the black cats out and they put the white cats in!(Laughter and applause) The white cats of course, had put on a terrific campaign-television, radio, and billposters. And the white cats said, "The trouble with Mouse Land lies in those mouse holes. Those round mouse holes. They are no good. We should have square mouse holes." And when they got in, they kept their promise. They put in square mouse holes. The square mouse holes were twice as big as the round mouse hole, and now a cat could get both his paw in. And more mice disappeared than ever. So the next election they went back to black cats They could not stand them any more and so they went back to white cats -. Then the black cats, then the white cats, And one time they even tried a government of half white cats and half black cats, It didn't make a bit of difference. Their trouble wasn't whether they were black, or white. Their trouble was that they were cats. Well, there was one little guy who had an idea, and he got on the soapbox and he said: "Look, fellow mice! Why do we want to keep having a government of cats?" "Why don't we have a government of mice?" "Oh," they said, "He's a Bolshevik! Lock him up! Lock him up!" And they locked him up and they kept him there, and he died. But I want to remind you, you can kill mice and you can kill men-but you can't kill and idea

!

[Lagslayer]

Yup.

Let's make the panopticon even bigger, guys!  Then surely there'll be enough checks and balances and power dispersal for everyone!

Scrap the fucking system.  Rule of majority is ridiculous.

This has no affect on actions somebody can legally do, just what information may be legally hidden. And by your logic, the big greedy government and coorporations are the only ones capable of hiding this stuff and get away with it. And by that logic, at the worst, this law will do nothing; no loss, no gain, and this assumes the public would still have no drive to watch what the politicians are doing. And did you miss the whole part of it applying specifically to elected government officials?

I'm sorry, maybe it's just the way you phrased your response looks like you picked out the point I was making and focused on the one negative aspect without any context.

[Vester]

Let's make the panopticon even bigger, guys!  Then surely there'll be enough checks and balances and power dispersal for everyone!

Sometimes the panopticon just up and happens on its own, though. Power relations are weird that way.

[SalmonGod]

There was an almost verbatim scandal in Spain, with several officers relishing in facebook the chance to exert violence upon peaceful protesters.

Let me just drop this link again.  It's a good one.

Wouldn't work. They will always find some way to give gifts under the radar or as technically legal. I propose that all elected officials (at least on the federal level) have absolutely all of their finances open to the public.

The problem is that property is power.  If you have something that someone else wants/needs, then you have leverage.  Give a little and get more in return.  Those who are greedy will put more effort into leveraging their property than those who are not.  By this mechanism, wealth accumulates over time into the hands of the greedy.  Eventually this minority of greedy people controls the majority of stuff that everyone else wants or needs.  This is power that can be used to influence anybody who isn't just as wealthy, including government officials.  They have wants/needs just like anybody, and their access to whatever those things are is at the mercy of the handful of greedy who control it all.  The world today is at a very advanced stage of this process.

So we band together to demand regulation over these transactions.  Limit gifts/donations.  Make them transparent.  But who enforces these regulations?  Who prevents their erosion?  The... government?  That doesn't make any sense.  The fundamental problem is that property has influence over law.  So we pass a law to prevent the law from being influenced.  What makes that law so special that it is immune to that original fundamental problem?

If the public remains vigilant on the matter, it can work... but cultural consciousness is fickle.  People pay attention to issues that present an immediate problem to them.  After whatever law is passed that is supposed to fix the interaction of wealth and law, the majority of the population will check that issue off in their head and fail to notice the gradual return of the problem until it's too late.  Besides, all it takes is the proper distraction, and any legislation can be slipped into the books under the table.  This is why we have repeating cycles of prosperity, desperation, and revolution throughout history. 

For the first time in all human history, people have instant access to most of humanity's collective knowledge, and they still seem determined to continue repeating the same cycle.  We should know better by now.

I say it's nonsense.  We need to deeply re-think the structure of modern society, not polish surface details.  We need to dismantle the mechanisms by which a handful of people can become so powerful that they can fuck up everything for everyone.

[Lagslayer]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

There was an almost verbatim scandal in Spain, with several officers relishing in facebook the chance to exert violence upon peaceful protesters.

Let me just drop this link again.  It's a good one.

Wouldn't work. They will always find some way to give gifts under the radar or as technically legal. I propose that all elected officials (at least on the federal level) have absolutely all of their finances open to the public.

The problem is that property is power.  If you have something that someone else wants/needs, then you have leverage.  Give a little and get more in return.  Those who are greedy will put more effort into leveraging their property than those who are not.  By this mechanism, wealth accumulates over time into the hands of the greedy.  Eventually this minority of greedy people controls the majority of stuff that everyone else wants or needs.  This is power that can be used to influence anybody who isn't just as wealthy, including government officials.  They have wants/needs just like anybody, and their access to whatever those things are is at the mercy of the handful of greedy who control it all.  The world today is at a very advanced stage of this process.

So we band together to demand regulation over these transactions.  Limit gifts/donations.  Make them transparent.  But who enforces these regulations?  Who prevents their erosion?  The... government?  That doesn't make any sense.  The fundamental problem is that property has influence over law.  So we pass a law to prevent the law from being influenced.  What makes that law so special that it is immune to that original fundamental problem?

If the public remains vigilant on the matter, it can work... but cultural consciousness is fickle.  People pay attention to issues that present an immediate problem to them.  After whatever law is passed that is supposed to fix the interaction of wealth and law, the majority of the population will check that issue off in their head and fail to notice the gradual return of the problem until it's too late.  Besides, all it takes is the proper distraction, and any legislation can be slipped into the books under the table.  This is why we have repeating cycles of prosperity, desperation, and revolution throughout history. 

For the first time in all human history, people have instant access to most of humanity's collective knowledge, and they still seem determined to continue repeating the same cycle.  We should know better by now.

I say it's nonsense.  We need to deeply re-think the structure of modern society, not polish surface details.  We need to dismantle the mechanisms by which a handful of people can become so powerful that they can fuck up everything for everyone.

It's not immune to the original problem. Money, property, and influence still equals power, and people are greedy. Nothing is going to change this. The difference is that the public is (in theory) more likely to notice the dealings of their elected officials. If they are dealing with people perceived to be negative, then the public would know and could vote them out of office, removing their legitimacy.

[Reiina]

Just watched "Mr Smith goes to Washington" a few weeks ago.
It's funny how it's still relevant today(the movie is from 1939), in fact I would argue that not much has changed.

Of course in reality there is no Mr Smith, and there is no good ending .

[SalmonGod]

people are greedy.

I do not believe this.  Some people are greedy, and the structure of our society selects a combination of greed, luck, and talent to be the most powerful.  The appearance of greed in most people is a product of growing up in a culture where one is constantly immersed in advertising of cheap, shallow luxuries, while necessities are hopelessly expensive by comparison, and everyone's lives revolve around serving and idolizing the rich.

Nothing is going to change this.

Of course not if we take a defeatist attitude about it.  Our species is miserable because it is not wired to be this way.  Property is a viral concept that has only characterized our species' social behaviors for about 2% of its history.  We need to return our culture to a state where the idea of a person owning something that doesn't directly relate to their well-being is bizarre (because it really is).  It should not be acceptable for anyone to control access to something that they do not use or depend on themselves, and the reality is that the vast majority of people do not actually want anything beyond that.

The difference is that the public is (in theory) more likely to notice the dealings of their elected officials. If they are dealing with people perceived to be negative, then the public would know and could vote them out of office, removing their legitimacy.

In theory.  It's possible.  The far more likely reality is that a handful of conscientious people will be better able to keep track of the dealings of their elected officials, while everyone else will be too engrossed in their own lives as always to realize that their information is coming from a media that is feeding them information as directed by the wealthy.

[Lagslayer]

I do not believe this.  Some people are greedy, and the structure of our society selects a combination of greed, luck, and talent to be the most powerful.  The appearance of greed in most people is a product of growing up in a culture where one is constantly immersed in advertising of cheap, shallow luxuries, while necessities are hopelessly expensive by comparison, and everyone's lives revolve around serving and idolizing the rich.

Allow me to rephrase then. People are tribal. We evolved to live in small, close-knit communities, not to have huge national governments. If they aren't close to you, then they aren't all that important to you. There is some variation, of course but if someone in the US watches the news about a guy in china getting shot and killed, and they cry about it, doesn't that strike you as a bit unnatural? It is also in human nature to better themselves. This frequently, if not exclusively involves the accumulation of power of some sort. Knowledge, influence, and property (and by extension, money) are all power, and often go hand in hand. They may willingly share power with those closest to them, but rarely with strangers in large amounts. The root cause is an increasingly large scale economy and government, where people are forced to compete with more and more people from other "tribes". It was never absent, but it has become more noticeable, or at least more well documented.

Of course not if we take a defeatist attitude about it.  Our species is miserable because it is not wired to be this way.  Property is a viral concept that has only characterized our species' social behaviors for about 2% of its history.  We need to return our culture to a state where the idea of a person owning something that doesn't directly relate to their well-being is bizarre (because it really is).  It should not be acceptable for anyone to control access to something that they do not use or depend on themselves, and the reality is that the vast majority of people do not actually want anything beyond that.

It's not just societal, it's in our DNA. Even before anything resembling a primitive civilization, tribes of humans would go to war with eachother over resources. All species have this to some extent.

In theory.  It's possible.  The far more likely reality is that a handful of conscientious people will be better able to keep track of the dealings of their elected officials, while everyone else will be too engrossed in their own lives as always to realize that their information is coming from a media that is feeding them information as directed by the wealthy.

Isn't this already happening?

[micelus]

This is kinda old, but I didn't see any mention of it here. http://4closurefraud.org/2011/10/03/operation-invadewallstreet-a-message-to-the-media-on-october-10th-nyse-shall-be-erased-from-the-internet/

Do you think they'll actually do it?


On an unrelated note, it's a wonder what varied opinions you can find by just going on a different site.

[Urist Imiknorris]

We'll find out on Monday.

[Vector]

I'm sorry, maybe it's just the way you phrased your response looks like you picked out the point I was making and focused on the one negative aspect without any context.

That's mostly because I think there are ideas that are bad irrespective of context.

Also, apparently you missed the part where I wrote "scrap the fucking system."  Most of your rebuttal doesn't make much sense when we no longer have elected officials.

[sluissa]

Just watched "Mr Smith goes to Washington" a few weeks ago.
It's funny how it's still relevant today(the movie is from 1939), in fact I would argue that not much has changed.

Of course in reality there is no Mr Smith, and there is no good ending .

Slightly off topic, but I loved that movie when I was a kid. Watched it more recently and I just realized how much I should hate that movie. It's glamorizing a loophole in the system which is used, mostly, to stall progress and allowing one, or a few people to completely shut down the discussion in the Senate. I also seriously doubt it's been possible any time in the last 150 years for a Senator to get elected based simply upon the help of a few plucky young boys and a locally printed and hand delivered newspaper.

That movie is pure patriotic fantastical propaganda. An idealized version of what we want our government to look like without any basis in the reality of what it actually is.

[GlyphGryph]

Do note the filibuster he pulled in the movie and the filibuster most often discussed today are very different animals

[Truean]

My dad has decided, in his latest rant after listening to fox news, that Occupy Wall Street is all people calling for the death of the Jews.... No really, he believes this.... He heard it on Fox News Radio, and it seems they are according to Dad, "right 97% of the time. It's scary." Apparently, the thinking at Fox does something like this, "We don't like this Occupy Wall Street thing and since they won't make fools of themselves we have to discredit them. They don't like Wall St. and a horrible, popular stereotype is that Wall Street is full of Jewish Individuals, which is ... somehow bad? (In a screwed up application of the transitive property of mathematics) If Wall St. = Jews and this movement = doesn't like Wall St, then this movement = doesn't like Jews." So basically Fox News found someone who was against Jews or some anti-semitic audio and said it was from someone with Occupy Wall Street. Lovely little slander....

Dad just went off for an hour, because his overly authoritarian ego can't handle his massive anger in a positive way and he has been brainwashed by Fox. Apparently, he really believes himself more informed than I am because "the mainstream media doesn't cover these things." <--- standard slogan from Fox news implanted in his brain.... Never mind the fact that I read the court cases, which is where the money/will to fight goes and thus the real truth (corporations won't buy 6 figure lawsuits unless they really give a damn). He can't hold a coherent thought and when asked for specifics on anything at all, gives generalized statements on a completely different topic. Usually he wraps himself up in patriotic sentiment, accuses his foes of lacking it, and then avoids the question. I only trust my dad as an authority for what Fox News says; it is his religion.

What I said, all I said, was that he only has 24 hours a day and he can spend them productively trying to improve his life or ranting about how terrible individual politicians are.

In summation, Fox News, "fair and balanced," has decided to paint you guys as anti-semitic, semi neo nazis....

Edit: (Also placing source materials here as well)
http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/04/anti-semitism-occupy-wall-st
http://conservativehideout.com/wordpress/2011/10/05/anti-semitism-alert-occupy-wall-street-protester-lets-it-fly/
http://www.politicususa.com/en/occupy-wall-street-anti-semitic

[Levi]

Lol, that is pretty bizarre.