Why Today's Occupiers are Tomorrow's Tea Partiers

21 posts / 0 new
Last post
Growingtrees
Growingtrees's picture

I felt inspired to post this headline by ripping it from this PJ Media article. Probably the most important theme I'd like to emphasize is that it is not money that is the root of the problem - It is is how the government wields its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. In my view, when people start demanding that the government do more and more with money, they lose the time and ability to carry out their duties as citizens supervising the government's use of its monopoly on legitimate violence. Then you get people getting put in jail for violating regulations, not for violating laws, and growing corruption. When we allow the government to collect more and more money, and direct to whom that money goes, you see those who want money suddenly realizing the power of aligning the government's monopoly on violence to their interests. That is the root enabler of corruption, and it's unavoidable no matter how lofty, pure, and well-motivated the official goals of having that money in the government's hands are. And it's that reason why the size of government should be minimized as much as possible.

Let's keep power separated as much as possible, specifically the twin powers of money and violence. 

Comments

Choco
Choco's picture
The government is supposed to

The government is supposed to be a body of elected people who represent the people. The government is looked at with such disdain because it (they) are largley inept, corrupt, self serving, quid pro quo. This is because this body of people are not statesmen as they should be, but corporate front men. It's like a professional football draft. Each year the corporations draft their favorite front men. The solution to this corporate corupt system, according to the right, is to eliminate and reduce the government (accountabilty to the people) leaving a vacuum to be filled by pure unacountable corporate rule. Cut to the present.

Growingtrees
Growingtrees's picture
Where does the government's

Where does the government's monopoly on the use of legitimate violence fit in?

 

 

Do you see any problem with putting the power of money and the power of legitimate violence in the same institution (government)? What about separation of powers?

ah2
I get so exhausted of

I get so exhausted of refuting the inane logic of the libertarian ideology over and over.  Here it is in two sentences:

If you get rid of democratic governance, you do not eliminate "the power of the gun" or "legitimate violence" or w/e you want to call it.  That power is siezed by plutocrats in the absence of democracy and what you get is either dictatorship or warlords that wield absolute power of the gun with no democratic process at all.

This is such a blatantly obvious outcome that you have to basically be an idiot to not see it and to suspend disbelief long enough to pretend that a true Libertarian "society" could ever really sustain itself.  The moment you attempt it, it would dissolve into a system that no longer sustains protections of human rights - freedom, property, etc.

Growingtrees
Growingtrees's picture
Um, who's advocating getting

Um, who's advocating getting rid of demcratic governance? I'm a libertarian, and I'm not. Way to create a straw man! Go illogical arguments!

"Minimizing" the size of government is not the same thing as getting rid of government all together (that's called anarchism, in case you didn't know, and it seems that you didn't, and I am most definitely not an anarchist). I say we should fully fund the government's ability to wield its monopoly on the use of violence in a way that promotes justice, including enforcing rules of  fair competition between economic actors, but that critically does not require that the outcomes be fair. And by focusing on the government's wielding of its monopoly on violence (rather than being distracted by how much dough they can get from sugar daddy gov), citizens can make sure that that's done in as close a way to actual implementation of justice as possible.

I haven't thought this through fully enough, and I welcome input, but I also advocate the expansion of public/community trust funds like the Alaska Permanent Fund and the Sky Trust proposal in order that those who out of their own failure or inability to contribute much to the economy may still receive at least a minimum degree of resources sufficient to sustain a minimally decent standard of living (i.e. access to shelter, food, and healthcare). If they squander their own dividend payments from such trust funds, well, what do we do then? I don't know.

chilidog
Growingtrees wrote: And by

Growingtrees wrote:

And by focusing on the government's wielding of its monopoly on violence (rather than being distracted by how much dough they can get from sugar daddy gov), citizens can make sure that 

FAIL

Growingtrees
Growingtrees's picture
Ouch 

Ouch 

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
 How can fair competion have

 How can fair competion have an unfair result?

mdhess
mdhess's picture
I'm not following your

I'm not following your logic.  Why are today's occupiers tomorrow's tea partiers?  Are you going to make the argument that corrupt government bureaucracy is the root of the problem? 

polycarp2
Personally, I can't imagine

Personally, I can't imagine myself or any other person I've met in the Occupy Movement joining the tea party. However, I can imagine tea partiers joining the Occupy Movement if tea partiers ever come to their senses..

Whenever any society encourages large concentrations of wealth,...... the holders of wealth ultimately capture government either through paid violence or corruption. When in history has that not been so?

Complaining about corruption while maintaining a system that assures it is rather foolhardy.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

captbebops
captbebops's picture
I would really like to know

I would really like to know what occupations the majority of tea parties hold or held as well as the occupations of those against the occupy movement who are not rich nor government officials?  My bet is most have or had occupations which didn't exactly require any or limited special training.   It seems this economic depression is taking it's toll on those whose career path required higher education  and/or a lot of experience.  Keeping people like that out of work is a recipe for revolution because they have the brains to throw one and win.

 

 

Growingtrees
Growingtrees's picture
@polycarp2 I seriously doubt

@polycarp2

I seriously doubt that Tea Partiers would ever be found at an Occupy rally, because Tea Partiers tend to shun:
1) uncleanliness, like Occupiers not cleaning up after themselves, while Tea Partiers clean up after their rallies
2) narcotics
3) criminality, Tea Partiers actually allow the police to enforce the rule of law
4) authoritarianism, which is still rampant among leftists in general and within the Occupy movement in particular
5) racism, like the anti-Semitic garbage that's rampant at Occupy rallies
6) anti-scientific attitudes, while Occupiers shut down research facilities in order to indulge in their supposedly non-ideological motivations

Your sign-off is ridiculous: Everyone has an ideology. Your statement against ideology in general is farcical. Of course you have an ideology. When you attempt to deny that you have an ideology, what you're really doing is passive-aggressively trying to assert the dominance of your own ideology without having to subject it to the public, rational debate and reflection.

Semi permeable ...
Semi permeable memebrain's picture
  Well apparently you are now

  Well apparently you are now trying to actually connect your title with what was in your first paragraph here on the thread. As other people here have pointed out the connection was, well, um, not very clear. So good luck with your constant ad hominem attacks, moronoc generalizations, and your refusals to respond to questions or support your facts. Ithink I get your screenname now however, something about not being able to see the forest through your ideological blinders?

polycarp2
Growingtrees

Growingtrees wrote:

@polycarp2

I seriously doubt that Tea Partiers would ever be found at an Occupy rally, because Tea Partiers tend to shun:
1) uncleanliness, like Occupiers not cleaning up after themselves, while Tea Partiers clean up after their rallies
2) narcotics
3) criminality, Tea Partiers actually allow the police to enforce the rule of law
4) authoritarianism, which is still rampant among leftists in general and within the Occupy movement in particular
5) racism, like the anti-Semitic garbage that's rampant at Occupy rallies
6) anti-scientific attitudes, while Occupiers shut down research facilities in order to indulge in their supposedly non-ideological motivations

Your sign-off is ridiculous: Everyone has an ideology. Your statement against ideology in general is farcical. Of course you have an ideology. When you attempt to deny that you have an ideology, what you're really doing is passive-aggressively trying to assert the dominance of your own ideology without having to subject it to the public, rational debate and reflection.

poly replies: Evidently you've never attended an Occupy Event.

As to ideologies:

Ideology (noun)

system of social beliefs: a closely organized system of beliefs, values, and ideas forming the basis of a social, economic, or political philosophy or program  Belief - Definition:

  1. acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty

 Truth - Definition:

  1. something factual: the thing that corresponds to fact or reality

Truths (what's actually so) and beliefs/ideologies aren't the same thing. People often think they are.

 

I tend to attempt to discern what's actually so and how things actually function.. Note that I disagree just as often with progressives as I do with right wing nuts. The sciences and empirical evidence are usually the deciding factors.

 

From the Miriam Webster online dictionary empirical means: 1 : originating in or based on observation or experience 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment

AND - From a Psychology dictionary : Derived from naturalistic observation of from experimental procedures.

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe

I've found Occupiers more open to examining their own ideologies and belief systems than I've found among the general population. That's what brought many of them to it. Tea partiers, not so much.

A society that functioned out of what's actually so rather than out of what it believes is so would probably function in a manner much more beneficial to human beings and all life on this planet than is currently the case. That's an untested hypothesis. Empirical and scientific evidence suggests a high probability that it is so.

Is it an ideology to want to test the hypothesis...or is it scientific and intellectual curiosity?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

,

Art
Art's picture
Quote:1) uncleanliness, like

Quote:
1) uncleanliness, like Occupiers not cleaning up after themselves, while Tea Partiers clean up after their rallies

2) narcotics
3) criminality, Tea Partiers actually allow the police to enforce the rule of law
4) authoritarianism, which is still rampant among leftists in general and within the Occupy movement in particular
5) racism, like the anti-Semitic garbage that's rampant at Occupy rallies
6) anti-scientific attitudes, while Occupiers shut down research facilities in order to indulge in their supposedly non-ideological motivations

An ideology.
Quote:
poly replies: Evidently you've never attended an Occupy Event.
Of course not. It's too obvious. Direct observation would inject a scientific observation. Not evident here. No attempt to analyze. No evidence of reason. Just belief. Wadayougonnado? No point arguing with a brick.

 

Art
Art's picture
Cool! A golden opportunity

Cool! A golden opportunity for Occupy critics who might like to get some idea of what they're talking about. Live streaming of Mayday events.

Quote:
Here are live streams of Occupy protests in:

New York and New York
Portland
Chicago
Los Angeles
San Francisco

Be sure to watch for trash, drugs, sex, violence, racism, etc., blah, blah, blah.

Art
Art's picture
Oh, and check out how filthy

Oh, and check out how filthy and smelly these people are.

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
http://forum.prisonplanet.com

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=223421.msg1320034#msg1320034

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
Art wrote: Cool! A golden

Art wrote:

Cool! A golden opportunity for Occupy critics who might like to get some idea of what they're talking about. Live streaming of Mayday events.

Quote:
Here are live streams of Occupy protests in:

New York and New York
Portland
Chicago
Los Angeles
San Francisco

Be sure to watch for trash, drugs, sex, violence, racism, etc., blah, blah, blah.

 

Versus someone like you who will just watch the UN tanks come in and watch martial law right before your eyes.  You won't believe in FEMA Camps until the day you are in one.

antikakistocrat
antikakistocrat's picture
Semi permeable memebrain

Semi permeable memebrain wrote:

 How can fair competion have an unfair result?

Simple one company operates better than another.  This happens all the time.  This is why we still drive Chevys and no longer drive Yugos.

Art
Art's picture
Quote:Versus someone like you

Quote:
Versus someone like you who will just watch the UN tanks come in and watch martial law right before your eyes.  You won't believe in FEMA Camps until the day you are in one.
What on earth do these imagined FEMA camps have to do with the Occupy events? I don't believe I've seen any live streaming links for UN tanks and martial law cameras. Your posts are becoming more and more non sequitur. Only barely coherent. Sort of a message-board-tourette's-syndrome kind of thing.