Arrests at Wall Street Protests

hush said:
I'm constantly trying to fathom why people can't see that by improving the situations of others their efforts would come back to them and benefit their own existence, creating a mutual system of support.
Click to expand...

Sounds great when you put aside practicality. The problem is that people will work to the benefit of those they are close to; their family, their friends and themselves. They don't work for the good of people they don't know or to be forced to give to those they have no interest in.

If all of the individuals are weak and only try to support each other then no-one can stand on their own 2 feet and have the ability to give out their surplus to those they value. They are weak because of the above effect, simply put; they don't see value in improvement.

As I pointed out to my lodger. I only work overtime when I have to because I'm not working just to give 66% of my efforts to people I don't care about. As far as I'm concerned what I already give is enough and I don't have the ability to say 'no more'.
 
InvisibleJim said:
Sounds great when you put aside practicality. The problem is that people will work to the benefit of those they are close to; their family, their friends and themselves. They don't work for the good of people they don't know or to be forced to give to those they have no interest in.
Click to expand...

I guess the problem is that I am interested in everyone, so if I gave to anyone it wouldn't be forced. Despite this I know it's unrealistic to give to everyone, but if I weren't the only one doing so the burden on my shoulders and the shoulders of those who give would be lessened - because all would be doing their part.

I understand all too well that people will only work to benefit those close to them. I suppose I just maintain the dream that if everyone could extend themselves just a little bit past their tightly-knit circle, then no one would have to overextend themselves and compromise the well-being of their family, friends & themselves.

It's not about putting into question one's ability to provide for oneself, just about pitching in a little. We've gotten so far off course that even "pitching in a little" would be better than what we have now.
 
hush said:
It's not about putting into question one's ability to provide for oneself, just about pitching in a little. We've gotten so far off course that even "pitching in a little" would be better than what we have now.
Click to expand...

The problem is that those that pitch the most are those that pitch the tightest.

There an awful lot of people who want to spend the generated wealth of those who work for their family and friends. It's little more than greed given the badge of communal 'betterment'.

And yes, I'm happy to work and give some of that to the disabled. I'm not willing to work to give it to the lazy people who have had the same opportunities as I have had and just didn't bother. I think they should get a grip and get to work: problem solved.
 
InvisibleJim said:
The problem is that those that pitch the most are those that pitch the tightest.

There an awful lot of people who want to spend the generated wealth of those who work for their family and friends. It's little more than greed given the badge of communal 'betterment'.

And yes, I'm happy to work and give some of that to the disabled. I'm not willing to work to give it to the lazy people who have had the same opportunities as I have had and just didn't bother. I think they should get a grip and get to work: problem solved.
Click to expand...

It does have the potential of exploiting hard-earned wealth.

And no, you're right, there's no sense in essentially working for both yourself and those who are lazy and couldn't compel themselves to support their own lives. The problem is in distinguishing between who's simply lazy, and who actually needs help, is working hard, but still falls short. Basically impossible to do, especially since the first thing lazy people would do would be to concoct some story to justify their inaction that would then lead others to pity them and give accordingly.

I don't know how I can still maintain some shred of hope in humanity, that others wouldn't exploit my generosity as a means to maintain their existences without having to do any work themselves... Even with my experiences of giving more than I get being taken advantage of, since I was a child (which has certainly affected my views on giving without restraint, I just still have my compulsions to give freely to everyone even though I don't really trust others enough to open myself up sufficiently to do so anymore). I think to myself, no one would have to "pitch the most" if we pitched equally, but then I have to remind myself that there are those who would be quite content to sit back and not pitch in at all.
 
hush said:
I think to myself, no one would have to "pitch the most" if we pitched equally, but then I have to remind myself that there are those who would be quite content to sit back and not pitch in at all.
Click to expand...

This is the reason I have long been in favour of a flat tax rate... *controversy ensues*.
 
InvisibleJim said:
This is the reason I have long been in favour of a flat tax rate... *controversy ensues*.
Click to expand...

As much as it troubles me to not aid in the formation of controversy, the great architect of debate...

*agrees; no controversy ensues*
Though, someone else might voice their protest. *sits back expectantly* :pop2:
 
Okay, random thoughts in regard to this thread:

1. This WAS on the news this morning (I listen to KFI in the mornings).

2. I think it's a stupid protest. It's the idea that "corporate america is GREEEEEEEDY and the rest of us aren't." Nonsense.

3. There are always protesters who take it too far and that's why we have to have riot police.

4. There are always cops who get scared and over-react even when things are not yet out of control.

5. The media will always look for the one single most sensational moment.

6. Stuff goes on by protesters that is DIFFERENT when the media is there than when it is not. (I remember a protest against Israel where I heard them shouting "Back to the gas chambers" -- but never when the media was there.

7. In America we have the right to protest for any stupid reason imaginable. I love that. But the social activists that participate do it with the intent of going to jail. I know, my brother is one of them. THEY PLAN civil disobedience to FORCE an arrest. And when they do that, we have an OBLIGATION to arrest them.
 
GracieRuth said:
Okay, random thoughts in regard to this thread:

1. This WAS on the news this morning (I listen to KFI in the mornings).

2. I think it's a stupid protest. It's the idea that "corporate america is GREEEEEEEDY and the rest of us aren't." Nonsense.
Click to expand...

True, all are greedy. But, corporations take it to the next level. If you'd like to understand how this came pass, just consider this: "In 1886 the Supreme Court declared that corporations were persons entitled to the constitutional rights protected by the 14th Amendment," much of the mind-boggling expansion of corporations stems from this.

3. There are always protesters who take it too far and that's why we have to have riot police.
Click to expand...

True. Though, historically, riot police haven't exactly been saints...
4. There are always cops who get scared and over-react even when things are not yet out of control.
Click to expand...

Yep.

5. The media will always look for the one single most sensational moment.
Click to expand...

They sure do. :/
6. Stuff goes on by protesters that is DIFFERENT when the media is there than when it is not. (I remember a protest against Israel where I heard them shouting "Back to the gas chambers" -- but never when the media was there.
Click to expand...

Definitely, the media's absent at the most convenient times.

7. In America we have the right to protest for any stupid reason imaginable. I love that. But the social activists that participate do it with the intent of going to jail. I know, my brother is one of them. THEY PLAN civil disobedience to FORCE an arrest. And when they do that, we have an OBLIGATION to arrest them.
Click to expand...

I would hope that many social activists do it with the intent of NOT going to jail, as their social activism isn't quite as useful behind bars. Instead, I'd imagine that they'd do it to open people's eyes to the reality of our shortcomings, to the issues that rage around us - but that others would remain blind and consequently throw them into jail with their continued inability to admit to or understand what the activists are trying to say. Depends on how the activism manifests itself.

What's funny is when I see things like social activists fighting against, silly, stupid outdated reasons to throw people in jail and then subsequently getting thrown in jail for questioning what should verily be questioned.

If you're just being a jackass, though, then yeah, I guess you could use some time in jail to chill and cool your head.
 
Last edited:
If you are enjoying the debate spurned by occupywallstreet, you'll enjoy this article regarding the 'off the balance sheet' US Budget. Link
 
I think the police mistreatment of non violent protestors is very revealing, even if they peacefully broke the law. I think the key issue is the use of unnecessary violence. I think its also quite telling that it seems to be the white shirted senior police rather than the regular police who sprayed people.

Some times protestors with a real grievance break the law. When this is done in a non violent way I think arrest and removal is appropriate, but unnecessary violence is not. If we saw this going on in China or Syria what would the reaction of the western media be?
 
James said:
I think the police mistreatment of non violent protestors is very revealing, even if they peacefully broke the law. I think the key issue is the use of unnecessary violence. I think its also quite telling that it seems to be the white shirted senior police rather than the regular police who sprayed people.

Some times protestors with a real grievance break the law. When this is done in a non violent way I think arrest and removal is appropriate, but unnecessary violence is not. If we saw this going on in China or Syria what would the reaction of the western media be?
Click to expand...
Or basically anywhere else:
[video=youtube;RGRXCgMdz9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A&feature=channel_video_title[/video]

Bloomberg said earlier this week that the protestors could stay, "indefinitely." Now, all of a sudden, the city needs to clean Zuccotti Park, and that they aren't allowed to return with their equipment or lay down... Of course people are refusing to leave and have begun their own clean up efforts. There will be even more arrests, and the movement will grow even more as a result. Police in Boston have beaten Veterans for Peace for refusing to leave public property... and have said that they did so to ensure that park shrubbery wasn't damaged.....

The more they push, the more it grows. "Small town Indiana" is organizing.. And Gary Indiana is readying itself to organize. I know that about 1400 other cities across the country are protesting and organizing, people of different ages and backgrounds: look for the live internet coverage of it by people who are there.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount these protests as a bunch of people with nothing better to do than get arrested... Go on the Occupy Wall St. page and read their Good Neighbor policy.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's what someone said! The post and the times both covered it as well!
 
[video=youtube;1SQqjTxI3vc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SQqjTxI3vc[/video]
 
I made it to Page 2! In some countries that would mean I am an attractive woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: acd
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top