People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Again, not putting words into his mouth ... But perhaps he just sees his parents as simple failures. Perhaps he doesn't need to blame anyone other than them. Not wanting to disrespect his parents or anything like that, just offering one possibility.

---

Of course, though the application of 'blame' in such circumstances I find problematic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Who said government doesn't have to be involved?

---

You did.

post #714

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Exactly.

ioan, we may sometimes have some vehement disagreements, but I genuinely applaud your sense of social conscience.

---

Thanks. I used to have rather polarizing views, and in some aspects of life I still have them (as we know :) ) however lots of things happen in life that change one's views bit by bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Who said government doesn't have to be involved?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

it's about a system that will not need governments giving food for free

---

post #714

---

Because governments only hand out free food?!

You are bending reality too much there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, no, no. You are reading into our views what you wish to read into them. Hardly at all has it been accurate. All I have been saying is that I want to see the gap between richest and poorest narrowing, something which does not, I have to tell you, have to entail making the rich poorer. And even that only concerns those whose sole obsession is money, of whom there appear to be several here.

---

:up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Such laws are generally enacted on the basis of governments wanting to be 'business-friendly'. Or they are not properly enforced.

---

That was exactly my point. Government has set up the system that allows for corporations to pay little or no tax. They would be foolish to pay more. And the people at Occupy Wall Street have their anger misplaced. It should be directed at D.C. and the politicians that have allowed this system to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do you not believe in taking personal responsibility? If you do, you should also feel that these corporations should take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should, and do the decent thing.

---

I do believe strongly in personal resonsibilty.

"failure to pay as much as they should". According to who? According to the law, they payed exactly as much as they should have. That is except for Warren Buffett (one of the world's richest men, and one of the loudest voices advocating for taxing the rich), he is apparently about $1Billion behind in his legal obligation to pay taxes, and he's fighting that in court. Funny that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I would say that they are 'taking advantage of legislation enacted by governments that happen to' be made for them. And this is the problem. They can buy pretty much anyone in order to suit their agendas and I hope it isn't to late to stop this, before their stronghold on the legislative will not be to strong for anything but war to change it.

---

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You did.

post #714

---

Am I alone in thinking that ioan meant to write 'Who said government has to be involved'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Because governments only hand out free food?!

You are bending reality too much there.

---

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

---

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That was exactly my point. Government has set up the system that allows for corporations to pay little or no tax. They would be foolish to pay more. And the people at Occupy Wall Street have their anger misplaced. It should be directed at D.C. and the politicians that have allowed this system to be.

---

Ah, yes, that old get-out — 'it's the system that's at fault', as used by many British MPs in the aftermath of being found out over their expenses claims:

Alan Duncan MP - Embarrassing U-Turn on MP's expenses - YouTube

If you believe in personal responsibility being taken, such an attitude is inherently contradictory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That is except for Warren Buffett (one of the world's richest men, and one of the loudest voices advocating for taxing the rich), he is apparently about $1Billion behind in his legal obligation to pay taxes, and he's fighting that in court. Funny that. :D

---

Advocating higher taxes does not, surely, mean that one whould just automatically pay if one feels one has been taxed wrongly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

---

Because all mainstream parties now advocate the same 'business-friendly' (i.e. sucking up to the rich) approach, offering voters none of the choice they otherwise espouse. Funny, that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Am I alone in thinking that ioan meant to write 'Who said government has to be involved'?

---

Again, if we are speaking of charities, and not governments. Then I'm with you. I would support a movement asking "the rich" to give more, as Bill Gates has for just one example. But that is not what I have seen from the OWS people. If that really is their central message then I will change my mind about them. But you guys are going to have to do a lot of intellectual cartwheels to make me believe that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

---

Donating to charity does not stop one from being a dreadful person. (That statement is absolutely not directed at you, by the way.) Nor does it absolve companies from criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If you talking about charities, I'm all for them. I personally donate heavily to them. Many of the "hated rich" do as well. So again why protest Wall Street?

---

No I am not for charities, not from you and not from the governments, I am for a system that doesn't need charity, where each healthy individual can make a living and where the less healthy ones can be supported by the healthy ones.
This is not possible with 20% of the population owning 80% of the resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Let's see. What are the chances to have someone on the list that is better than what they have now?
Or to put it clearer, what are the chances for the rotten political parties to propose candidates that will actually do what is right for the many and not only for the few they are part of?
The chances are slim to zero.

---

So you have given up? Excuse me for not being as defeated as you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you have given up? Excuse me for not being as defeated as you.

---

Come on, be realistic here. Room for alternative views in mainstream politics has never been less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Donating to charity does not stop one from being a dreadful person. (That statement is absolutely not directed at you, by the way.) Nor does it absolve companies from criticism.

---

Donating for charity has become another way of dodging some taxes and improve the image for most big corporations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Come on, be realistic here. Room for alternative views in mainstream politics has never been less.

---

Oh, and I should add that when room for alternative views is found, it seems only to be for right-wing nutcases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Ah, yes, that old get-out — 'it's the system that's at fault', as used by many British MPs in the aftermath of being found out over their expenses claims:

Alan Duncan MP - Embarrassing U-Turn on MP's expenses - YouTube

If you believe in personal responsibility being taken, such an attitude is inherently contradictory.

---

Didn't follow the expenses scandal. The little bit I heard about it, makes me think those MP's are dirty b@stards. You won't find me supporting them. But nice little diversion from the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Advocating higher taxes does not, surely, mean that one whould just automatically pay if one feels one has been taxed wrongly?

---

But if you have been all over the media saying "I want to pay more taxes", why would you fight not to pay more taxes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you have given up? Excuse me for not being as defeated as you.

---

Given up? Hell no, I went to all the elections since I have had the right to, sometime traveling thousands of kms, and have always elected a new more promising one and will keep doing so. Still we have to be realistic, how can 80% with 20% resources even the balance against 20% with 80% resources?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

No I am not for charities, not from you and not from the governments, I am for a system that doesn't need charity, where each healthy individual can make a living and where the less healthy ones can be supported by the healthy ones.
This is not possible with 20% of the population owning 80% of the resources.

---

Then we're back to square 1. How do you change the ratio?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Am I alone in thinking that ioan meant to write 'Who said government has to be involved'?

---

I might have misunderstood chuck's points are I didn't make myself crystal clear.
My point is that we don't want a society where the government is reduced to giving social aids, we need one where government is there to level things out to benefit everyone. Not sure if this makes it clearer, but I don't think I have the patience to further work on semantics now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Then we're back to square 1. How do you change the ratio?

---

Go back 3 pages and read again, and let's hope that 3 pages later you will not get back to the same point where you are now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Come on, be realistic here. Room for alternative views in mainstream politics has never been less.

---

This is basically what the T.E.A. party is about, demanding something better from our politicians, holding them accountable, etc. There is enough weight behind the T.E.A. party that if they chose to they could start a fairly viable 3rd party. But they seem to have chosen to try to change the Republican Party from the inside. Same with the OWS people. There are probably enough of them that if they really wanted to they could start a 3rd party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Oh, and I should add that when room for alternative views is found, it seems only to be for right-wing nutcases.

---

So you are calling Occupy Wall Street "right-wing nutcases"? Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Given up? Hell no, I went to all the elections since I have had the right to, sometime traveling thousands of kms, and have always elected a new more promising one and will keep doing so. Still we have to be realistic, how can 80% with 20% resources even the balance against 20% with 80% resources?

---

I'll keep asking. What is your proposal for changing this ratio?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Didn't follow the expenses scandal. The little bit I heard about it, makes me think those MP's are dirty b@stards. You won't find me supporting them. But nice little diversion from the point.

---

Er... one made in direct response to one of your own. If you don't want me to offer anything in reply, do say so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But if you have been all over the media saying "I want to pay more taxes", why would you fight not to pay more taxes?

---

Because at the moment one should only have to pay tax according to the rates laid down, so if you believe you are being asked to pay too much, it is only natural to contest it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So you are calling Occupy Wall Street "right-wing nutcases"? Interesting.

---

In mainstream politics, I said — i.e. within the mainstream parties in the world of elected politics. I would have thought this was clear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I might have misunderstood chuck's points are I didn't make myself crystal clear.
My point is that we don't want a society where the government is reduced to giving social aids, we need one where government is there to level things out to benefit everyone. Not sure if this makes it clearer, but I don't think I have the patience to further work on semantics now.

---

How do you propose the government "levels things out to benefit everyone"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Go back 3 pages and read again, and let's hope that 3 pages later you will not get back to the same point where you are now.

---

I don't need to go back 3 pages. Your last post stated that you wanted government to level things out. How do you propose that works?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

In mainstream politics, I said — i.e. within the mainstream parties in the world of elected politics. I would have thought this was clear.

---

But your veiled reference to the T.E.A. Party (ie right-wing nutcases) means that you think they are somehow "mainstream", yet OWS is not. Why is that? What is stopping a left-leaning type of T.E.A. party if OWS is not it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

This is basically what the T.E.A. party is about, demanding something better from our politicians, holding them accountable, etc. There is enough weight behind the T.E.A. party that if they chose to they could start a fairly viable 3rd party. But they seem to have chosen to try to change the Republican Party from the inside. Same with the OWS people. There are probably enough of them that if they really wanted to they could start a 3rd party.

---

That's what I am mostly afraid of, the weight behind the political parties is nowadays corporations who are rubbing their hands at the thought of shiny new laws tailor made to suit them.

You'd need to put some filthy rich, smart and altruist people in charge to make it 100% sure that the laws will be changed for good and enforced. Very difficult task.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

But your veiled reference to the T.E.A. Party (ie right-wing nutcases) means that you think they are somehow "mainstream", yet OWS is not. Why is that? What is stopping a left-leaning type of T.E.A. party if OWS is not it.

---

I see almost no similarities at all. The TEA Party is, no matter how much you may wish to portray it as being an independent, non-partisan organisation, very specifically affiliated with one particular political party. This is simply not the case with the Occupy movements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

That's what I am mostly afraid of, the weight behind the political parties is nowadays corporations who are rubbing their hands at the thought of shiny new laws tailor made to suit them.

---

Do we think that a TEA Party government in the USA would be heroically independent of big business? I thought not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

No, a thousand times no.

---

Right, so how are economic inequalities that can result in poverty, a lack of education and poor health (all of which affect an individual's ability to fulfill their potential) any different?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't need to go back 3 pages. Your last post stated that you wanted government to level things out. How do you propose that works?

---

I think I posted the answer a few pages back.
Taxes need to be equal and enforced, no more loopholes, no more offshore business and similar crap. All we need is some politicians who want to make it work, and this is where the difficult part starts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What is wrong with the voting population demading a change at the ballot box?

---

Who do you vote for that will make any difference whatsoever? It's worse in the United States because you've voluntarily shouted out the left (largely as a result of McCarthyism) and now have no plurality of voices. You're given a choice of almost identical nitwits, both of which have proven that they're incapable of running the country and an entire economic system that's perfectly fine with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do we think that a TEA Party government in the USA would be heroically independent of big business? I thought not.

---

There is no party out there that isn't backed by someone, after all it's not like they can pay hundreds of millions needed for their electoral campaigns from their own pockets.
Heck even the Chinese Communist Party works on the same model nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Do you not believe in taking personal responsibility? If you do, you should also feel that these corporations should take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should, and do the decent thing.

---

Corporations will not take responsibility for their failure to pay as much as they should because of two main reasons:
1. Self-Interest - Adam Smith noted that every entity in economics acts for their own self-interest; in the case of a corporation that means turning a profit.
2. Genovese Syndrome - Otherwise called the "bystander effect". Collectively it operates with corporations in the same way as it does for individuals who not not offer help to a victim in an emergency when other people are present.

Taken together, if society becomes more uneven, it has a tendency to remain that way unless acted on by a major social or calamitous event. Basically, because a Corporation is a non-corporeal entity, it has no conscience and therefore acts as such. Also, I think it's kind of obvious that people generally are losing any sense of moral compass they once had for a number of reasons.

Society itself is become fuller of crud and the institutions like governments and corporations which it appoints are also becoming fuller of crud.