• Happy Birthday: The Occupy Movement One Year Later
    147 replies, posted
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692289]this is the problem they set out to try, they didn't set out to do.[/QUOTE] What the hell does that even mean?
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692289]this is the problem they set out to try, they didn't set out to do. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] why are you assuming that i agree with what ows is doing[/QUOTE] killing people makes things worse, not better [editline]edit[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;37692295]Immortal Technique is an expression of anger. As you can see, he's not exactly going out and murdering CEOs or anything. Also, this song is pretty dope. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeE3-rOG7i4[/media][/QUOTE] the third world is my favourite album of his [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH774jH3elk[/media]
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;37688823]you should probably read the international covenant on economic social and cultural rights employment is a human right, bro[/QUOTE] Oh it is? I demand that you hire me immediately to mow your lawn at $200/hour.
[QUOTE=Noble;37692337]Oh it is? I demand that you hire me immediately to mow your lawn at $200/hour.[/QUOTE] Yes, stretch it to hyperbole, that will surely prove your point.
[QUOTE=Noble;37692337]Oh it is? I demand that you hire me immediately to mow your lawn at $200/hour.[/QUOTE] ^ doesn't get human rights lol
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;37692305]This is bullshit and I'm sick of hearing it. To win an election, a politician has to get more votes than his opponent.[/quote] no they have to get more campaign money than the opposition [quote]You can't vote against a corporation; [B]as long as they have enough customers to make a profit[/B], they can and will do whatever the fuck they please if it makes them more money.[/quote] are you incapable of following a chain of reasoning if people boycott a company or simply realize it is shit and go to a competitor, then clearly they will have less customers and will thus be unable to make a profit [quote]Often companies will have a monopoly as well, or will attack other companies to drive away competition.[/quote] monopolies can be dealt with in many ways, such as new entrants to the market or government-mandated breakups [quote]If a corporation offers something other corporations can't and it does it through terrible, unethical means, "voting with your money" won't mean shit because enough people won't give a fuck that they'll still do it. That's the WHOLE FUCKING REASON we have laws.[/quote] but historically many corporations have bowed to public pressure and changed their practices [quote]Saying that corporations are more democratic than the government is downright moronic.[/QUOTE] oh come on do you actually think your vote makes a single lick of difference? [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafan;37692318]What the hell does that even mean?[/QUOTE] do or do not, there is no try
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37692241]From what I've read, Egyptian peasants were basically forced into "civic service" by government. That sounds quite a bit like slavery. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.[/QUOTE] It was more that they did it as a form of "tax".
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;37692366]It was more that they did it as a form of "tax".[/QUOTE] Labor as a form of tax is slavery. It's not much different than the plantation owner providing a shack and food in exchange for his "servant's" labor.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692353]do or do not, there is no try[/QUOTE] fyi just because you say something stupid and abstract that sounds cool doesn't mean it has any real meaning or reason behind it there is "try" no matter how much you desperately reiterate it
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37692393]Labor as a form of tax is slavery. It's not much different than the plantation owner providing a shack and food in exchange for his "servant's" labor.[/QUOTE] so if providing a service as tax is slavery, then what is providing the money-equivalent to that service as tax? theft? [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;37692404]fyi just because you say something stupid and abstract that sounds cool doesn't mean it has any real meaning or reason behind it there is "try" no matter how much you desperately reiterate it[/QUOTE] ugh i meant that the structure and actions of ows are at crosspurposes to its professed aims. it's optimizing for signaling and socializing
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692406]so if providing a service as tax is slavery, then what is providing the money-equivalent to that service as tax? theft?[/QUOTE] you would have only made that money thanks to the contributions of society as a whole, so for society to retain some of that money that it contributed to the production of, is not theft forcing you to engage in physical labor is unjustified because society has done nothing to deserve that contribution [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692406]ugh i meant that the structure and actions of ows are at crosspurposes to its professed aims. it's optimizing for signaling and socializing[/QUOTE] this means literally nothing its just more shitty vague posting so you can maintain a guise of intelligence and political savvy
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37692393]Labor as a form of tax is slavery. It's not much different than the plantation owner providing a shack and food in exchange for his "servant's" labor.[/QUOTE] They also got paid.
take your post and think "would the average person punch me in the face for being pretentious if i said this to them?", then rewrite or discard the post until you feel you have something worth sharing with the rest of us [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37692443]They also got paid.[/QUOTE] if you're forced to engage in labor its slavery regardless of whatever compensation they give you
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692406]ugh i meant that the structure and actions of ows are at crosspurposes to its professed aims. it's optimizing for signaling and socializing[/QUOTE] Can you perhaps be more vague? I feel like I'm understanding [I]too[/I] much.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692406]so if providing a service as tax is slavery, then what is providing the money-equivalent to that service as tax? theft?[/QUOTE] It is theft. Any form of authority forcefully taking your body or wealth in exchange for a basic standard of living is coercive and immoral. There is expediency to consider though. A social democracy is expedient because it mimics many of the functions of a socialist society while still providing a semi-capitalist system to distribute goods. It works a lot better than a pure capitalist system, or a pure central planning system. It is still immoral, however, because it doesn't allow for workers to own their work or voluntarily participate in direct democracy.
african american slaves were "compensated" and fed, they were still slaves dude
[quote]no they have to get more campaign money than the opposition[/quote] If a politician runs on a campaign of torturing baby seals it doesn't matter if they get more campaign money than the opposition, people aren't going to vote for them. If a corporation offers fried endangered animal faces on the market, and people buy them, there isn't shit you can do unless it's illegal. You can't vote against something you weren't going to buy to begin with. [quote]but historically many corporations have bowed to public pressure and changed their practices[/quote] Here's the different: "MANY" corporations have bowed to public pressure. ALL politicians bow to public pressure, and the ones that don't don't get any power. If a company will save more money than they'd lose from customers by doing something fucking terrible, or will offer something other companies can't by doing something terrible, it DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. If there's no law against it, they will do it, and there's not a damn thing you can do to stop them. You can't vote against them. [quote]are you incapable of following a chain of reasoning if people boycott a company or simply realize it is shit and go to a competitor, then clearly they will have less customers and will thus be unable to make a profit[/quote] Alright, let's say laws don't exist, and there is a thriving market on Child Pornography. How the fuck do you just "go to a competitor" then?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692427]you would have only made that money thanks to the contributions of society as a whole, so for society to retain some of that money that it contributed to the production of, is not theft forcing you to engage in physical labor is unjustified because society has done nothing to deserve that contribution[/quote] but they're completely equivalent - by your reasoning society deserves a fraction of my labor because society allowed me to do it in the first place. if my labor can be quantified in terms of money then whether i pay society in money or labor is completely irrelevant. [quote]this means literally nothing its just more shitty vague posting so you can maintain a guise of intelligence and political savvy[/QUOTE] okay let me spell it out for you: people go to ows so that they can feel as though they're making a difference and so that they can meet and befriend likeminded people. both of those are easier to attain than the professed goals of ows
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692448]if you're forced to engage in labor its slavery regardless of whatever compensation they give you[/QUOTE] except they weren't forced many did it because there was literally nothing much else to do the workers would go work on a pyramid whilst the floods were flooded, in return they got things like flax, food, and various other goods depending upon the skills they had it was almost the same as a government building a cemetery today, using unemployed people, but paying them in part with clothes and food
[QUOTE=yawmwen;37692456]It is theft. Any form of authority forcefully taking your body or wealth in exchange for a basic standard of living is coercive and immoral. There is expediency to consider though. A social democracy is expedient because it mimics many of the functions of a socialist society while still providing a semi-capitalist system to distribute goods. It works a lot better than a pure capitalist system, or a pure central planning system. It is still immoral, however, because it doesn't allow for workers to own their work or voluntarily participate in direct democracy.[/QUOTE] social democracy is a-okay in my book. what you call expediency I call utility
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692484]but they're completely equivalent - [B]by your reasoning society deserves a fraction of my labor because society allowed me to do it in the first place[/B]. if my labor can be quantified in terms of money then whether i pay society in money or labor is completely irrelevant. okay let me spell it out for you: people go to ows so that they can feel as though they're making a difference and so that they can meet and befriend likeminded people. both of those are easier to attain than the professed goals of ows[/QUOTE] uh no being a physical human being with a body capable of moving and performing labor isn't owed to society. having a regulated and issued currency and social constructs that form jobs, payment systems, laws and social services to benefit you in life is. maybe if you put down your philosophy 101 textbook and think like a regular person who isn't desperately trying to appear intelligent some of this stuff will start to click for you. if people go to OWS to feel good about themselves and meet people does that invalidate whatever impact OWS has had on society and on people's perceptions of the American socioeconomic system? (the answer is no) [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;37692496]except they weren't forced many did it because there was literally nothing much else to do the workers would go work on a pyramid whilst the floods were flooded, in return they got things like flax, food, and various other goods depending upon the skills they had it was almost the same as a government building a cemetery today, using unemployed people, but paying them in part with clothes and food[/QUOTE] idk im not even keeping up with the pyramid thing i'm just saying, being paid doesn't make it not-slavery
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692427]you would have only made that money thanks to the contributions of society as a whole, so for society to retain some of that money that it contributed to the production of, is not theft[/QUOTE] How did they make that money thanks to the contributions of society as a whole? There was a transaction between A and B. Both sides gained a subjective benefit from the transaction. Both parties have fulfilled their end of the contract, and the transaction is finished. Neither side owes a debt to the other party (or to anyone else) afterwards merely as the price of interacting with others.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692525]idk im not even keeping up with the pyramid thing i'm just saying, being paid doesn't make it not-slavery[/QUOTE] if you are talking about wage slavery and that sort of thing, i can see where you are coming from, but in reality the pyramids back then were more akin to a public works project most of the slaves in ancient egypt were small in number, a few thousand, and many were involved in domestic business or were POWs
[QUOTE=Noble;37692535]How did they make that money thanks to the contributions of society as a whole? There was a transaction between A and B. Both sides gained a subjective benefit from the transaction. Both parties have fulfilled their end of the contract, and the transaction is finished. Neither side owes a debt to the other party (or to anyone else) afterwards merely as the price of interacting with others.[/QUOTE] uh well for starters society likely printed the fuckin money [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] if you want to use your own home made currency of bottlecaps go ahead, thats why there isn't a tax on bottlecaps because its not a regulated currency
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692549]uh well for starters society likely printed the fuckin money[/QUOTE] That isn't relevant. They could have transacted with anything.
this debate is really difficult to keep up with, theres like 5 arguments going on at once
[QUOTE=Noble;37692561]That isn't relevant. They could have transacted with anything.[/QUOTE] if they did society wouldn't have taxed it.. [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bobie;37692566]this debate is really difficult to keep up with, theres like 5 arguments going on at once[/QUOTE] there'll be more once dain can find a sparknotes review of the next chapter of his philosophy textbook
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37692525]uh no being a physical human being with a body capable of moving and performing labor isn't owed to society. having a regulated and issued currency and social constructs that form jobs, payment systems, laws and social services to benefit you in life is.[/quote] in terms of base social interaction this does hold - i have to continue "paying rent" so to speak by generally being polite to people and following social rules lest i be ostracised, but you cannot apply this reasoning to rational-legal systems of interaction. if i want to buy a couch, and i pay the money for that couch, then that couch is now mine and mine alone. the "debt" i owe to society for that couch is completely paid off once i have paid for the price of the couch. [quote]if people go to OWS to feel good about themselves and meet people does that invalidate whatever impact OWS has had on society and on people's perceptions of the American socioeconomic system? (the answer is no)[/quote] but this is exactly my point [editline]16th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;37692577]there'll be more once dain can find a sparknotes review of the next chapter of his philosophy textbook[/QUOTE] for the record i think most philosophy isn't worth the paper it's printed on you have this fascination with my reading habits i just thought you should know :)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;37692592]in terms of base social interaction this does hold - i have to continue "paying rent" so to speak by generally being polite to people and following social rules lest i be ostracised, but you cannot apply this reasoning to rational-legal systems of interaction. if i want to buy a couch, and i pay the money for that couch, then that couch is now mine and mine alone. the "debt" i owe to society for that couch is completely paid off once i have paid for the price of the couch. but this is exactly my point[/QUOTE] im gonna ignore the top part of your post because i can feel blood trickling out my nose onto my upper lip but the bottom part is just as dumb i don't care if its your point, its wrong. the motives behind their actions don't change whatever effect it has had on society. if i shoot someone with the motive being revenge and shoot another with the motive being monetary gain, either way they're fuckin dead dude.
Oh look, DainBamaged and Noble have completely ignored my argument. How surprising.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.