People Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

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.

---

Riiiight. Look at both movements with a critical eye, and you will see they are the same in organization and affiliation. It's just that one is on the left and one is on the right. Oh and one is involved in violence, rapes, hatred, and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

And that is why continuing this way will not have a happy end, and that's a thought I would rather not think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

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?

---

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.

---

Is that a defeatist attitude there? I'm shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

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.

---

I would agree with this. And I bet millions of people on the left and the right would also agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

All we need is some politicians who want to make it work, and this is where the difficult part starts.

---

Why is it difficult? And just because it's difficult we souldn't try? Or should we just protest with no plan to change anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

---

The free market works in politics just as well as it does in economics. If there is so much demand for a particular voice (in this case one that isn't tied to corportations), then a candidate will eventually show up to fill that demand. Why doesn't one of the leaders/organizers of OWS step up and run for office?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

And that is why continuing this way will not have a happy end, and that's a thought I would rather not think about.

---

Ok. So what is your plan to avoid this un-happy end?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Is that a defeatist attitude there? I'm shocked.

---

Far from defeatist. I believe in a truly free market, one where governments have the bare minimum of influence. That free market will allow those with the desire to avoid poverty, bad education, and poor healthcare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I would agree with this. And I bet millions of people on the left and the right would also agree.

---

They would, and do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Riiiight. Look at both movements with a critical eye, and you will see they are the same in organization and affiliation. It's just that one is on the left and one is on the right. Oh and one is involved in violence, rapes, hatred, and so on.

---

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Why is it difficult? And just because it's difficult we souldn't try? Or should we just protest with no plan to change anything?

---

I never said we should give up, just that it is very difficult and maybe protests are what is needed to make politicians responsible again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Ok. So what is your plan to avoid this un-happy end?

---

Change, a fair and enforced tax system, I think this is the 2nd time I answer this question on this very page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

I believe in a truly free market, one where governments have the bare minimum of influence.

---

Someone needs to set and enforce the rules of the game, and it has to be someone elected by the many who are the base of said market. You can't let the players make the rules as the game develops, we all see what that means in the end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

That free market will allow those with the desire to avoid poverty, bad education, and poor healthcare.

---

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

---

Right, they are only affiliated to the common need for a change in better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

---

And the imposition of the free market in education and healthcare does not guarantee improvement either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

You can not legislate away any of those issues. Nor can any altruistc mumbo-jumbo eliminate them.

---

But can you explain how the economic issues we are discussing differ from other inequality issues that have been addressed by protests, sometimes violence & direct action, and ultimately legislation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

No, chuck, you are wrong. This statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the Occupy protests. They are simply not affiliated to a single party in the manner of the TEA Party members.

---

And that statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the T.E.A. Party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And that statement betrays your complete lack of awareness of the sort of people engaged in the T.E.A. Party.

---

What proportion of TEA Party members are Republicans and what proportion Democrats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

I never said we should give up, just that it is very difficult and maybe protests are what is needed to make politicians responsible again.

---

So these protests are asking politicians to be responsible? Then why didn't these people join the T.E.A. party? Why are they Occupying Wall Street instead of Capital Hill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Change, a fair and enforced tax system, I think this is the 2nd time I answer this question on this very page.

---

So all that you are asking for is the elimination of tax loopholes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

Someone needs to set and enforce the rules of the game, and it has to be someone elected by the many who are the base of said market. You can't let the players make the rules as the game develops, we all see what that means in the end.

---

Exaclty. that is what I mean by a government that has a bare minimum of influence. If the government wasn't giving out tax breaks and bailouts and sweetheart deals and the like, corporations wouldn't have so much influence. Government needs to be like an umpire, there to make sure the rules are followed, but not to make new ones that favor one team over the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

There is free market and it doesn't stop poverty, bad education and poor healthcare. Maybe this free market isn't that great after all?

---

Name me one system that will stop any of those things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

And the imposition of the free market in education and healthcare does not guarantee improvement either.

---

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

---

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

But can you explain how the economic issues we are discussing differ from other inequality issues that have been addressed by protests, sometimes violence & direct action, and ultimately legislation?

---

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

---

Nor do I, for it seems to suggest in one breath that the private sector would both lead to improvements in education and healthcare, and not do away with poor provision.

I'm afraid that as soon as I read of involving the private sector in education, I think of the kid who was suspended from school in the USA for daring to wear a Pepsi T-shirt while a photo was being taken during his school's 'Coke In Education' day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

Because in a free market system everyone has the opportunity to advance, however some will fail. The other inequality issues such as discrimination, slavery, etc. mean that one has been denied access to the free market.

---

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by race aficionado

chuck . . . . I don't understand this statement . . .

---

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Is that how you view the imposition of systems such as apartheid, then — nothing more important than the denial to black people of access to the free market?

---

Basically when you brake it down, yes that is what it was. Certain people were denied access to the free market of housing. They were denied access to the free market of labor. They were denied access to the equal protection of the legal system.

It was also morally repugnant, but we are talking about issues outside of morality at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

If we turned over the education and healthcare systems tomorrow to the pure free market system, there will be a period of time where designing men will deny access or otherwise rip people off. I am under no illusion that the system is completely perfect. However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

---

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

What proportion of TEA Party members are Republicans and what proportion Democrats?

---

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What proportion of the protesters at OWS are Democrats and what proportion Republicans?

---

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Really? In every case? Experience tends to show otherwise. And given that you're always on at many of us to go into details, define 'better'.

---

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.

For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I have no idea — just as I assume you have no idea about the answer to the question I posed, hence your non-answer. The difference seems to be that I am willing to admit that I don't know.

---

I also do not know. I'm willing to admit that. Obviously at a T.E.A. party more people will self identify with the Republican party. Just as the opposite is true at OWS. However, you were implying that the T.E.A. Party was some arm of the Republican party. It is not, it has been in many cases co-opted by Republican politicians. The exact same is the case with OWS and the Democrat party. They are two sides of the same coin in that way, and that is my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

What experience? Where is there a free market for education and healthcare?

---

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

I was referring to other areas in which we have seen privatisation in the UK, such as, to mention it again, public transport.

---

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?


So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

And to mention it again, was that system truly a free market or was it a privatisation where private companies provided a specific service at the specific direction of the government?

---

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

So to address your question more precicely then ... To define "better" in the transportation market would mean getting me from point A to point B faster and at a lower cost.

---

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDunnell

It was a privatisation in the sense that the running of all passenger trains was passed to private companies. I do not know the details of the extent to which they were obliged to provide certain service levels, but such is only sensible when providing public transport. In any case, many of the companies concerned were utterly crap at it. So much for the inherent superiority of the private sector.

Well, the privatised railways in the UK have not done that.

---

You said it yourself, the privitized transportation was "obliged to provide certain service levels". That is not a free market. So you can not draw any conclusions about the superiority or lack thereof of the private sector from this example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

. . .
I suggest that perhaps those in Occupy Wall Street are occupying the wrong street. They might want to try Pennsylvania Ave. Or maybe instead of Zuccotti Park they should camp out on Capital Hill. Hmmm.... something to think about maybe?

---

I was at Zuckotti park this weekend and it was relatively empty . . . it's job has been fulfilled and now a different phase is in the making.
This is one of the events that is coming up:

Quote:

---

Dear MoveOn member,
Last week, a committed group of 99% protesters, with tired feet and exhilarated souls, arrived in Washington after a 230-mile march from Occupy Wall Street.

Next week these few marchers are getting some serious reinforcements, because we're joining with a coalition of community groups, unions, occupiers, and more to "Take Back the Capitol" from December 5 – 9.

By bus, plane, car, and train, thousands of unemployed and underemployed people, students, community activists, union members, healthcare advocates, and occupiers from coast to coast are coming to Washington for an incredible week of action.

From fanning out to visit congressional offices to swarming the offices of the K Street lobbyists who helped roll back taxes on corporations and the 1%, each day next week will involve a targeted action for the 99% to take back our government from the corporations.

We've seen the kind of attention and impact the 99% can have in cities across the country. Now we need to take that energy to the heart of political power. Click below to sign up for this exciting week of action targeting our political leaders and the K Street lobbyists, and we'll connect you with the organizers in your area helping get people to Washington:

---

pretty cool. :s mokin:



http://gallery.me.com/emeseditorials...&bgcolor=black


http://front.moveon.org/the%2Dsingle...316489-0bGnhHx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

In the short term, you are correct, there may not be any improvement. But over the long term there will be improvement. And no, poor education and poor healthcare will never go away no matter the system.

---

I was university educated in a state-run and owned university and when I tore my ACL, I was operated on in a state-run and owned hospital at zero end user cost to me. The country I live in does not have poor education and poor healthcare; quite on the contrary.

I live in a country that also happens outrank the United States in terms of life expectancy, literacy rates, quality-of-life index etc. The United States also happens to be the worst of the industrialised nations when it comes to infant mortality rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

For education I would define "better" as smarter, getting higher marks on standardized tests, heck in the US I'd settle for everyone graduating High School to be able to read all at a lower cost.
For healthcare I would define "better" as quicker access to doctors and treatments, lower cost treatments, etc. all at a lower cost.

---

So then to summarise. Using your criteria: the country I live in is better at providing education and healthcare. Your position based on the free-market providing better outcomes is therefore bunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chuck34

However over the long term those designing men will tend to go bankrupt as people turn away from their poor schemes, and develop better alternatives. Therefore in the long term, the system will work itself out to provide better service at a lower cost.

---

No. The system will produce a more profitable system and totally neglect anything which does not turn a profit.