Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
How dare he mock the movement?!? He doesn't smell like shit, piss or weed.
Occupy thread!
- Thread starter vodkazvictim
- Start date
-
- Tags
- occupy wall street
How dare he mock the movement?!? He doesn't smell like shit, piss or weed.
Seriously, man. What are you expecting? Most guys on here are cops, beer drinkers and tea party reactionaries. They LIKE their lives as couch potatoes and do not want change EVEN if their mortgage is killing them. Because, for people like Jack "0" Bauer or Thomas O´Malley there is nothing worse than change and progress...
I can't tell if this is genuine or not. Police are assaulting protesters, not the other way around.
but hey look at all these violent, doped up, anti-american hippies being a cause for threat...fuckin hippies!
`
Mayhem
Banned
....
Sam Fisher
Banned
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
In order for the movement to be successful which I don't believe it will be. They need a clear outline of their actual goals which I bet they don't have, likely as diverse and divisive over how things should be fixed like everything fucking else.
Otherwise I say no to communism. Instead a complete re-hall of the parties is required. People instead of complaining should step up to it if they don't believe their current parties are handling the job adequately. Instead of just bitching about it and voting for the same two choices they need to do something about, Surely they aren't what the right like to label them. Uneducated jobless yobs. I'd be in favour of this here in Europe too to be honest. Stagnant systems, Stagnant.
Trim Bureaucracy, Make federal government smaller. Parties should be answerable to the majority not the 1 per cent. Let the big banks fail, Tax payers should not have bailed them out only for them same cunts awarding themselves bonuses and claps on the back. Capitalism yea but start from scratch, up root the current corruption. Hold those accountable for their crimes.
Yes it will all happen again but at least this current generation will see some measure of justice.
Otherwise I say no to communism. Instead a complete re-hall of the parties is required. People instead of complaining should step up to it if they don't believe their current parties are handling the job adequately. Instead of just bitching about it and voting for the same two choices they need to do something about, Surely they aren't what the right like to label them. Uneducated jobless yobs. I'd be in favour of this here in Europe too to be honest. Stagnant systems, Stagnant.
Trim Bureaucracy, Make federal government smaller. Parties should be answerable to the majority not the 1 per cent. Let the big banks fail, Tax payers should not have bailed them out only for them same cunts awarding themselves bonuses and claps on the back. Capitalism yea but start from scratch, up root the current corruption. Hold those accountable for their crimes.
Yes it will all happen again but at least this current generation will see some measure of justice.
Is anyone still buying this whole "THEY HAVE NO GOALS" bullshit?
Oh, please.
ukey:ukey:Sam Fisher
Banned
Pete, you're a hippy aren't you?
Sam Fisher
Banned
How about this answer?
Last edited by a moderator:
If being a hippie means being thoughtful and aware, then yes, I'm a hippie.
That's hilarious, Freedom is the last thing those guys are "fighting" for, not my freedom, your freedom, or their own freedom. They are slaves fighting to ensalve others.
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
I'm going before Congress tomorrow and ask that they declare Jenkum a vegetable.
One can only hope.
How about this answer?
lol so now the tea party are trying to poach votes from the useless hippy wasters. Ahh it's too rich.
Sam Fisher
Banned
Hey Slick....News Flash! The TEA PARTY was around three years before the Occupiers were even a thought in Soros' head. Most of them were still sophomores in high school. And another thing, The Tea Party has always been against large government and NEVER against Capitalism.
OK I'll try to formulate a few answers (don't worry, I wear flame resistant clothing).
Should we elect a prime minister, or should a council of 7 (no ties unless somebody abstains) rule in the place of a single leader?
With "the leader" you mean the prime minister? Well, the prime minister doesn't lead alone, he's got al his ministers with him. We could think about who should be in the charge: the members of parliament or the government? This is a question that deals with the trade-off between efficiency and democracy, and the question if the parliament somehow represents the elusive "will of the people".
I won't go down that road, but perhaps we can think of other option. When you google Governance 2.0 you will find a lot of people who're trying to use the internet for more direct representation of citizens. Perhaps this is a road we should take. (But be careful: Advocates of Governance 2.0 have utopian tendencies, so don't believe everything they say.)
What do we think of the idea of passing a law forbidding a company to open more than one outlet in a city in order to aid smaller businesses? (Think how many Starbucks' are preventing the rise of local cafes).
This might even damage small business in my view. Think about how the small businesses (and anyone actually) are dependent upon large scale mass production. From simple nuts and bolts to microchips, mass production is very efficient. It would be wise to translate this dependency is some form of power. The first idea that pops up in my mind is something like a democratic system within economic sectors. Perhaps we could create some system that forces big businesses to answer to the small businesses in their sector. An economist might think that the supply/demand system would be enough for this (because the big business supplies the smaller ones with certain goods) but I don't think so. VV perhaps you can think of some form of institutional arrangement?
Should we attempt to bring in genuine Communism?
Well I think it would be a good idea for the US to get a more European system. (because I think our system is a better safeguard for the positive freedom of the citizens). Genuine Communism is, and will always be imho, an utopia. This is because communism needs superabundance. There needs to be enough of everything so that no one has to worry about getting enough. Marx idea was that if everyone would be free from the struggle to survive, only then would we be free as humans. But superabundance will never be reached. No matter how much we have of good X, it will always be a real number. That means it will always be less then infinity and usage of the good by person A will always decrease the amount person B can use.
Should we head for anarchy rather than government?
Nope. Anarchy as I know it means unregulated social interaction. The problem with this system is that the only limits placed on anyone's behavior are internal. It's only the morality of the person which regulates his conduct with others. But no two conceptions of the good have to be the same. There must be some form of organization to regulate the battling conceptions of the good. (If you're interested in this topic: Rawls writes a great deal about the priority of justice (our overlapping consensus about what would be a good society) over the the good (an individuals conception of what would be a good life)). Answered negatively: Violence is a natural monopoly, to have certain authorities who both have dominance in the field of violence (say, private protection bureau's instead of government) would mean war until one remains. (This then would be what we now call: the government). This alarmes us to the fact that governement didn't come to power trough just ways or anything, it was merely the right of the strongest.
The best we van do is to keep this monopolist of violence in check as much a we can, and use it to further our common conception of justice.
What should we do with the IMF? They've kept Africa poor and are maneuvering the rest of the world into the same situation.
The problem is that it is very hard to do something with the IMF. But if you want to believe realist international relations theory, a change will come. They explain the rise, fall and change of international organizations by the amount of great powers in the system. Right now we're in an hegemonic system (meaning: the US is the only great power). But, as everyone knows, other countries are rising in power.
The theory about the rise and behavior of international organizations is as follows: The hegemon (sole great power) has the greatest interest in keeping the system at the status-quo, therefore it will try to promote peace (and subordination) everywhere. This is best done with international organizations because the hegemon has the most resources to set up these things and edit the rules in there favor. When you take a look at the IMF, it's obvious it's been build to promote american interests. Considering the change of system in the near future (with multiple great powers).
The IMF will either become a fossil of the past or change with the changing distribution of power. What will it look like? I don;t know, any ideas?
Should we eliminate money?
I don't think so. Money isn't the root of all evil. It's the expression of a want present in all of us: the want to sustain ourselves and further our conception of the good. We'll need resources for this, wether it is money or simple trade stock like sheep and cattle. The problem of overacquiring money is an institutional problem. I believe that humans responds to there environment in such an extent that system can be created that promote selfless behavior. To do that, the selfless behavior has to be in the interest of the one doing it. (This sounds paradoxal, but what it actually means is that the personal interest coincides with the social interest). For a long time, and even now, a lot of economist think the perfect market will create this kind of system. But the worsening crises all over the world show that either the perfect market is a utopia that we will never reach, or it's an utopia not worth persuing. Some more limited form of the market, with more institutional checks and balances, will have to be created imho.
Should prostitution be legal?
Insofar as it is within the limits of justice: yes. But wether you answer yes or no, I believe the key point is to diminish the amount of suffering of prostitutes. Either by bettering their economic status (so prostitution becomes a profession one chooses rather then a profession of necessity) or by a more efficient crime reducing system in this sector.
Should every single policy be put to public vote?
I don't think so. Hard working citizens have more important matters (for themselves) on their minds then the abstract guiding of the state. I do believe our only option is some form of representation. (Think of people who can't read, are retarded, are disabled so they can't vote on a normal way etc.) But it could be more direct. (Think about Governance 2.0).
Should we move to a republic form of government?
More direct representation would not only allow every person the be more involved with politics, it would also put the moral duty on them to do so. I define a republic (res publica: public matters) by the quality that it places the duty on it's citizens to be actively involved in politics.
By this definition we will go to a more republic kind of government if we succeed in making our representative system more direct.
Should Co-Operatives be the only form of business allowed?
I think that will make market acces very difficult. This raises the bar for small, one person business to compete. Thus I think this rule will benefit only larger companies. And that's something we don't want, because they already have an power advantage.
I hope a lot of people will disargee with me so that we can debate. Enjoy!
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Similar threads
