Global Revolution!

[JustARandomPanda]

More things that make you go Hmmm...

 

 

Copy of the letter

 

 

Source article

 

 

A Tea Party Darling's Offer on Social Security

 

By KATE ZERNIKE

 

The writings of Friedrich Hayek, the 20th century free-market enthusiast and Nobel laureate, have long been a favorite of libertarians, who have used them to argue that government programs like Social Security and Medicare put the nation and its people on what Hayek called "The Road to Serfdom."

 

With the advent of the anti-stimulus, anti-big government Tea Party movement, he has enjoyed fresh affection — protesters quote him on their signs at rallies, and Ron Paul reports that people no longer go blank when he mentions Hayek's name. (For those needing a primer on the differences between Hayek and John Maynard Keynes, who is enjoying fresh antipathy among the ranks of Tea Party supporters, there is

.)

 

But critics like to point out that Tea Party supporters and libertarians are perfectly happy enjoying big government when it works for them. And now it appears that Hayek himself was encouraged to enjoy the benefits of government retirement and health care programs — by one of the country's most prominent libertarians, the billionaire industrialist Charles Koch.

 

According to a series of letters brought to light by The Nation , Mr. Koch wrote to Hayek in 1973 asking him to be a scholar in residence at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian group founded by Mr. Koch. Hayek declined, saying that he recently had had surgery in Austria, which made him anxious about "the problems (and costs)" of falling ill far from home.

 

An associate of Mr. Koch's wrote back to suggest that Hayek could take advantage of the generosity of Social Security if he came to this country (and noting that it would be prohibitive to secure him private health insurance here.) Mr. Koch followed up with another letter, enclosing a brochure on the benefits of Social Security, and noting that while in this country, Hayek (who had become eligible for government benefits because of his earlier employment at the University of Chicago) would also get free hospital care.

 

This was more than a decade after Hayek (who died in 1992) had written against Social Security in "The Constitution of Liberty," calling such safety net programs the pathway to social and moral decay.

 

Mr. Koch went on to finance several institutions and organizations whose primary mission is to work against government spending and regulation. One, Americans for Prosperity, has given money to Tea Party groups, which surged in membership as they fought against legislation that would expand health care coverage to millions more Americans. (Americans for Prosperity sponsored a bus tour against the legislation.)

 

The Nation obtained the letters through the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. "Nowhere," the magazine notes, "do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It's simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used."

 

[Seth Ananda]

More things that make you go Hmmm...

 

 

Copy of the letter

 

 

Source article

 

 

I Love you Serene! You dig up the best stuff!

[ralis]

More things that make you go Hmmm...

 

 

Copy of the letter

 

 

Source article

 

 

 

I would also include the objectivist Ayn Rand in this discussion. Most Tea Baggers and Libertarians follow her philosophy and most likely have not read her writings. Moreover, most who belong to these movements, have not considered the far reaching ramifications of objectivism. If objectivist philosophy were allowed to absolutely restructure government, then we would see a return to the 'gilded age' and the time of the 'robber barons'. Most adherents to this philosophy are either ignorant of historical facts or are convinced that what they believe is absolutely right.

 

If one were to carefully consider what would happen if regulations for business were eliminated as proposed by the Tea Bagger and Libertarian movement, then what are the results of the following;

 

Environmental pollution which includes coal fired power plants with no scrubbers. End results are massive amounts of mercury and other pollutants in the atmosphere.

 

FDA and the health of the food supply. The recent contamination of cantaloupe with listeria. Out breaks of e coli and other potentially lethal bacteria in the past ten years.

 

Unlicensed tradespeople and contractors.

 

Elimination of the CDC.

 

OSHA and worker safety.

 

Return of DDT and other hazardous chemicals.

 

Clear cutting of National Forests and Parks

Oil spills such as what BP created.

 

No minimum wage.

 

 

 

Just a few items among many to consider.

[ralis]

What is so irrational about the Tea Bagger and Libertarian movement is that the adherents of these movements, have unwittingly become shills and puppets for the wealthy and large corporations, by means of political demagoguery. This is the frightening power of propaganda in that people become useful tools while feeling good about it!

[Aaron]

Nice back peddle, so now you say Gandhi is an activist...

 

 

I will have to double check that, but without total certainty, i believe that to be incorrect. Gandhi had many speeches he gave to help calm enraged crowds after protesters had been killed, and I was under the impression the allegorical connection to Jesus was deliberately evoked to describe a young man who had given his life for his country in one such protest.

 

 

I don't think we have time to hope that each little change from each little good deed will eventually make something good. To me this is apathetic and cowardly, but hey, each to their own...

 

 

Lots have done the change yourself thing, and no true revolution has been seen anywhere.

 

Gandhi's people did what the Wall street occupiers are doing. Peacefully gathering in mass, and making some noise. If that frightens you or disturbs your 'calm' so be it.

 

First comparing what these predominately middle class disfranchised kids are doing with what Gandhi did, is ludicrous. They are complaining about being poor, when tonight they'll go home to their apartments or parent's home, open up the gallon of milk they or their parents got from the supermarket, sit on the couch with their bag of potato chips and lament over their suffering, all the while their air conditioners will be keeping them nice and cool. They are not suffering, that is the irony. What they are complaining about is trite. They don't even realize that the 99% of the wealth they complain about not having is providing for their comfortable lifestyle. What do they want? A yacht in every driveway? A new blender for smoothies in every kitchen?

 

This is my problem with the wall street gang, it's not that they're not trying to do something good, it's just they have absolutely no real idea of what they're arguing against. It's like the socialists who fought to free russia only to realize that they were better off without Stalin.

 

When they do get rid of the rich 1% who will get all their wealth and who decides this?

 

The problem is not the 1%, that is my point. The problem is that people want what they do not need, are not happy when they have what they need, and have absolutely no idea what poverty really is (the middle class kids on wall street I mean).

 

They will go home eventually or be forced to go home. No change will occur and in a year we might have a memorial march, but believe me, nothing will come of this, because the people protesting don't even know what they're protesting against.

 

Again you can try and skew my words and say I have no idea what Gandhi was about, but I studied Gandhi in school in an academic capacity and I have watched the movie and I know that Gandhi himself would never consider himself to be an activist in the sense that the middle class hippie kids today think of it, but rather a pacifist. He believed completely in the notion of passive resistance, understanding that violence in actions and words can only cause harm. I can't remember him speaking ill of anyone, instead he actively promoted peaceful action, not resistance.

 

The kids on wall street are out for blood, not change. If they did succeed the only thing that would happen is the old guard would be replaced with a new guard. There will be no change until we change our value system and stop valuing things that have no value.

 

We do not need cars. We do not need televisions. We do not need computers (believe me I'm aware of the irony). We do not need $100 sneakers. We need enough food to nourish us. We need clothes to keep us warm. We need a safe place to sleep. If we can be happy with what we need and stop placing value on those things we don't, then there will be nothing on the face of this earth that can stop us from living peacefully together.

 

Now with that said, there's nothing wrong with having a car, television, computer, etc. rather it is understanding that they are not needed and being willing to give those things up if it means other will have a better life because of it. That is what I'm talking about, not valuing things that we were raised to value, and being willing to spend the 1% of the wealth we do have to help those who need it, rather than grab at the 99% we don't have.

 

If we want change, it wont come from shouting about something everyone already knows (corporations rule the world, oh my what a shocker) rather it comes from taking PEACEFUL action to help those around us.

 

Change begins within each of us, not a handful of kids camping out on the sidewalk. If you hope those kids are going to change the world, let me be the first to tell you, that aint happening, but we do have the opportunity to enact change, but only if we're willing to start with ourselves.

 

My question is this, if they do end up getting the 1%ers wealth, are they going to share it with the world or just their fellow Americans?

 

Aaron

Edited October 11, 2011 by Twinner

[Nanashi]

I think Aaron is stereotyping the demographic of the movement, but that doesn't matter. In another thread, he mentions being forced to work while ill just to have enough funds to afford basic bills like power and rent, yet here shows major cognitive dissonance while writing off these protests as meaningless.

 

People are protesting, as have many in the past all over the world, for the chance to be treated like a human being, with some sort of basic decency.

[JustARandomPanda]

Dig up every Instance of corrupt Businessmen/Politician collaboration with vested interests, and demand Criminal Trial no matter who it is {Bush}, demand total accountability!

 

War Crimes charges for any politician who has entered a war on false pretexts [weapons of mass destruction] or has been obviously massively supported by, or owns shares in any company that profits from War.

 

So far they are all just getting away with it, with zero accountability. The public has to furiously demand legal Inquiry into these cases, till it gets done, and when inevitability it starts to happen but then prosecutors are cutting deals for cooperation or evidence is going missing, there needs to be even greater outrage and demand for retrials...

 

Sounds good except for one thing. There's a huge faction in the general U.S. populace that are in favor of the Military Industrial Complex. I should know. My mom and dad are two of them. Very pro "international engagement" and "pro military" (so long as it means they're taxes aren't raised ). No one much remembers that there actually used to be an influential wing in the oldtime Republican party that was Isolationist. But that went the way of the Dinosaur after the 1920s. *heavy sigh*

 

 

Also there needs to be a massive push to ban corporate backing of politicians in any way whatsoever, Including a total ban on any politician owning shares in big business.

 

That would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

One small problem. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in a landmark case exactly the opposite.

[Nanashi]

Police are starting to attack the protestors in Boston

 

[Nanashi]

there may be casualties, media has been barred.

[Nanashi]

Seattle camps now being raided by police, against mayoral orders.

[JustARandomPanda]

What they are complaining about is trite.

 

Really? Protesting gaming of the system is trite? So which of the stuff I've been providing is non-trite to you? Any of it? None of it?

 

I'll give you just one example of what I personally find quite non-trite. The gaming of our Contract Law. This gaming has been going on in our legal system since before Capitalism even evolved.

 

You can't blame THAT one at least on 'spoiled middle-class kids'. You can't even blame it on the desire for non-essential-to-life goods.

 

 

They don't even realize that the 99% of the wealth they complain about not having is providing for their comfortable lifestyle. What do they want? A yacht in every driveway? A new blender for smoothies in every kitchen?

 

No where have I seen these Middle Class Kids (something I don't agree with as I think it's more diverse than just "spoiled" middle class kids) saying they insist everyone have huge amounts of wealth (which is the gist of your insinuation).

 

When they do get rid of the rich 1% who will get all their wealth and who decides this?

 

Another leap in logic that does not follow. Equating protesting an ever increasing rate of asset accrual to a tiny minority does not equate to elimination of the top 1% completely. It does not even equate with getting rid of Capitalism and being a Socialist (though lotsa Libertarians love to shout you down otherwise).

 

The problem is not the 1%, that is my point.

 

I agree as long as it's the 1% that doesn't game the system. But the burden of proof is on the person who thinks such gaming is minimal or doesn't affect society disproportionately. Otherwise I strongly disagree with this '1% is not the problem'.

 

For one thing (unless we're talking about organized crime, violent crime, etc) a poor or middle class person simply doesn't have command of as much resources to assist in being venal, spiteful, greedy, scheming, backstabbing and bastardly. At least his/her bastardly ways are limited in scope to the reach of the resources under his/her command. As control of resources increases the damage done when under the Dark Side of the Force increases as well.

 

This is exactly why Libertarians and Conservatives argue against getting rid of the 1% too - because their command of vast resources disproportionately influences the good they can do for society too. And they'd be right in that regard imo.

 

The problem is that people want what they do not need, are not happy when they have what they need, and have absolutely no idea what poverty really is.

 

I've never lived with terminal Pancreatic Cancer either. Doesn't mean I have no idea what it might be like to have to live with that depressing reality.

[JustARandomPanda]

If we want change, it wont come from shouting about something everyone already knows (corporations rule the world, oh my what a shocker) rather it comes from taking PEACEFUL action to help those around us.

 

Where are you getting this dichotomy? It's like it's an either/or situation in your head. If you are agitating against the Gaming of Society it means you can't do Peaceful actions to help those around you too? Only Peaceful actions count in creating social change? Too bad you weren't around when Mohammed was alive. It might have convinced him to question Allah's commands about bringing Holy War to the Infidels.

 

Change begins within each of us, not a handful of kids camping out on the sidewalk. If you hope those kids are going to change the world, let me be the first to tell you, that aint happening, but we do have the opportunity to enact change, but only if we're willing to start with ourselves.

 

Yes it does. But no one is saying that that can't and isn't happening at a grassroots level. But again where is this dichotomy coming from?

[Nanashi]

Police surrounding protesters in St. Louis and Atlanta-- media blackout all over.

[Seth Ananda]

Sounds good except for one thing. There's a huge faction in the general U.S. populace that are in favor of the Military Industrial Complex. I should know. My mom and dad are two of them. Very pro "international engagement" and "pro military" (so long as it means they're taxes aren't raised ). No one much remembers that there actually used to be an influential wing in the oldtime Republican party that was Isolationist. But that went the way of the Dinosaur after the 1920s. *heavy sigh*

 

 

One small problem. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in a landmark case exactly the opposite.

lol Yes my Mum is as well. That's why protests need to be long, loud and ever Increasing in size. Often people dont really think much about foreign policy, nor about how horrendous it makes things for Others. Its not till it starts getting put in peoples faces, that many will start to think about it.

 

Also, outrage is a fairly socially unacceptable emotion, usually met with "relax a bit, your being a little extreme aren't you?" kind of response. People feel uncomfortable with the feeling of outrage, so don't express it, and in many cases do not even realise how outraged they really feel about so many Issues.

Public demonstrations and protests can give people the 'permission' they need to feel this emotion. Sometimes seeing a blatant example is all someone needs to start being passionate again.

This is the positive side of 'mob mentality' where it helps wake dormant or supressed feelings, that get channelled constructively...

 

That is also why Non violence is so Important in a protest. If people see blatent expressions of Violent fury and aggression towards the state, it can serve to awaken all the repressed violence and hostility that then gets channelled in meaningless destruction.

 

Look at all the psychological cases with people who got 'swept up' in violent riots.

They describe not knowing where the feelings came from, that they were not really that kind of person, but suddenly all they could experience was vengeful fury at ________, and the joy of throwing a Molotov at a line of Cops or whoever...

That's when a seriously repressed part of someone, is suddenly given permission by seeing it happen all around them, and can then suddenly overcome the shallow veneer of social acceptability, which usually means overriding a persons whole personality. Bad news.

[JustARandomPanda]

I would also include the objectivist Ayn Rand in this discussion. Most Tea Baggers and Libertarians follow her philosophy and most likely have not read her writings. Moreover, most who belong to these movements, have not considered the far reaching ramifications of objectivism. If objectivist philosophy were allowed to absolutely restructure government, then we would see a return to the 'gilded age' and the time of the 'robber barons'. Most adherents to this philosophy are either ignorant of historical facts or are convinced that what they believe is absolutely right.

 

It is my understanding that Ayn Rand had to live off of Social Security in her old age. The royalties from her books were just too tiny to support her and she had no family or relatives (that I know of) to turn to as an alternative. So at least in Ayn Rand's case Social Security did what it was designed to do - keep a Senior Citizen out of poverty.

 

I do not fault Ayn Rand in this like many do. As she was ALSO right in that it is designed to let you recoup the money the Government originally took from you (and then some). She saw such taxation as theft - an assertion I believe Libertarians have not yet made an ironclad case for yet. But in the interests of fairness I provide this link.

 

 

Rand on the Dole

[Birch]

"For one thing (unless we're talking about organized crime, violent crime, etc) a poor or middle class person simply doesn't have command of as much resources to assist in being venal, spiteful, greedy, scheming, backstabbing and bastardly. At least his/her bastardly ways are limited in scope to the reach of the resources under his/her command. As control of resources increases the damage done when under the Dark Side of the Force increases as well. "

 

If this is the case (unfortunately meaning i'd have to give up my "people are basically nice" idea i was trying to plug in the violence thread) then it only requires the system change, not the people. Simple!

 

I dunno, i'd have a hard time trying to philosophically defend such a change to people who are obviously benefitting from it. What i don't get though, is why people who are obviously not benefitting from it defend it. So they must be getting something out of it??

[ralis]

Twitter updates for Occupy Boston. Looks like the cops are getting nasty!

 

 

http://twitter.com/#!/search?q=%23OccupyBoston

[ralis]

ok, now instead of lamenting the present situation, what precipitated it? its not quite on the scale of a 25 year smoker wondering why he has lung cancer, I'll give you that, but its not exactly a matter of a tornado victim either.

 

 

yeah...this about sums up the wall st protests...

 

 

I'm sure these protectors dont notice the hypocrisy

 

One thing you fail to mention is that most if not all of those products are made in China or elsewhere outside the U.S. That is the corporate greed and exploitation that this revolution is about. American jobs were lost and replaced with sweat shop labor in other countries.

[Aaron]

Where are you getting this dichotomy? It's like it's an either/or situation in your head. If you are agitating against the Gaming of Society it means you can't do Peaceful actions to help those around you too? Only Peaceful actions count in creating social change? Too bad you weren't around when Mohammed was alive. It might have convinced him to question Allah's commands about bringing Holy War to the Infidels.

 

 

 

Yes it does. But no one is saying that that can't and isn't happening at a grassroots level. But again where is this dichotomy coming from?

 

Hello Serene,

 

It's quite simple really, the dichotomy that is. I know that real change involves allowing people to change on their own accord. As I said before if you force someone to change, once you stop forcing them, they will revert back to their original state. For me the options are simple, act in a way that spreads compassion and understanding to others in a peaceful and compassionate way or allow our base desires to overwhelm us and take out our frustrations on others, either passively or aggressively. In the end the lasting peace will come from a willingness to do what's right, regardless of the risk, but in doing what's right cause no harm.

 

When I say they have absolutely no idea what they're fighting, that stems from an understanding of capitalism ingrained in me by my professor in college. Simply stated, the majority of the wealth is owned by 1-3% of the population, but that wealth helps to support the 97-99% and provide them with the goods and services they desire.

 

With that said, to return to the protests, the reason these protests will fail is simply because there are not enough people supporting them. In the case of India and Gandhi, nearly everyone in the country supported Gandhi's movement. Millions upon millions of people were involved. A revolution of any kind rarely succeeds unless the popular support of the people are behind it and unfortunately the majority of the people are absolutely ignorant regarding what's happening here.

 

As an aside I've been getting a very, "this is the end of the world" type of vibe from the forum as of late and I have a hard time understanding where it's coming from. I really hope it passes, because people are allowing themselves to worry about something that they have absolutely no control over. Live your lives to the best of your ability. Worry about those things you can change, which in most cases revolves around those things you can change about yourself. When you change the way you think about the world, then you have experienced a real revolution. IMO of course.

 

Aaron

[ralis]

Hello Serene,

 

It's quite simple really, the dichotomy that is. I know that real change involves allowing people to change on their own accord. As I said before if you force someone to change, once you stop forcing them, they will revert back to their original state. For me the options are simple, act in a way that spreads compassion and understanding to others in a peaceful and compassionate way or allow our base desires to overwhelm us and take out our frustrations on others, either passively or aggressively. In the end the lasting peace will come from a willingness to do what's right, regardless of the risk, but in doing what's right cause no harm.

 

 

History does not share your sentiment that compassion is way to change the system.

 

When I say they have absolutely no idea what they're fighting, that stems from an understanding of capitalism ingrained in me by my professor in college. Simply stated, the majority of the wealth is owned by 1-3% of the population, but that wealth helps to support the 97-99% and provide them with the goods and services they desire.

 

 

That is a supply side trickle down economics BS lie that Reagan sold to a gullible public.

Edited October 11, 2011 by ralis

[Aaron]

History does not share your sentiment that compassion is way to change the system.

 

 

 

That is supply side trickle down economics BS lie that Reagan sold to a gullible public.

 

Hello Ralis,

 

I can't remember any particular instance, historically, when a compassionate revolution took place. As far as the trickle down economics BS, do I need to refer you to the picture and all the corporate products people are using? Regardless of where they come from, they are being used. What most people fail to understand is that these days the economy is a global economy, rather than a national economy.

 

Of course I'm not a capitalist or socialist at heart, but an anarchist. This may not make much sense to many out there, but if you know what anarchism is really about, then peaceful change will not be so strange to you.

 

Aaron

Edited October 11, 2011 by Twinner

[jeshopk]

Humans may acquire instincts that reject any sort of law enforcement or government whatsoever. They are very dangerous poisons to society, yet the majority drinks them as though they do more good than harm. The invention of government has only been digested for a few thousand years. From time to time, humanity improves by rejecting detrimental developments.

[gendao]

FDA and the health of the food supply. The recent contamination of cantaloupe with listeria. Out breaks of e coli and other potentially lethal bacteria in the past ten years.

 

Oil spills such as what BP created.

Lol, these things are all happening NOW under government regulation. That's because all these government agencies (FDA, EPA, CDC, etc) are in bed with Big Pharma, Big Oil, etc. So in effect, they only end up working against the little people and any more effective alternative solutions than the ones these corporations are selling.

Copy of the letter

 

 

Source article

Well, there's nothing wrong with accepting SS...if you've already been FORCED to pay into it your whole life!

 

Anyhow, interestingly, only 2 Congressmen have refused to accept their Congressional lifetime pensions (on ideological grounds): Republican Howard Coble & Libertarian/"Republican" RON PAUL..

One thing you fail to mention is that most if not all of those products are made in China or elsewhere outside the U.S. That is the corporate greed and exploitation that this revolution is about. American jobs were lost and replaced with sweat shop labor in other countries.

Lol, greed is one thing - simply wanting to remain globally competitive/solvent and turn a fair profit is another. As joeblast said earlier, when you overburden your 1% employers too severely with Socialist affirmative action, state taxes, unions, unending employee benefits, etc - you eventually simply drive them all out of your state/country.

 

Which then leaves higher unemployment in their absence (not quite the "99%" utopia many liberals imagine). Just ask anyone living in California and you can understand why any company there outsources as much as they possibly can - because they simply cannot afford NOT to anymore! The global free market will simply reward the greatest value, no matter how you try to constrain it locally.

 

And isn't the great irony here how the US is becoming more Communist and now forced to outsource more to China, which is becoming more capitalist and booming? And yet liberals are entirely missing the underlying economic law at work here (capitalism economically > Communism)!!!

 

I'm sorry, but if you can't succeed under capitalism, you probably won't succeed in any system. Communism simply lowers everyone to the same lowest common denominator (which is far poorer than even the lowest minority poverty in a capitalist country). And Socialism is essentially a stepping stone towards that..

 

 

Anyhow, if the majority of Americans would inform themselves and vote wisely with both their wallets and ballots, the tides would start turning within just a few years.. Otherwise, don't complain about wh0ring out to banksters or the military-industrial complex when you voted for one of their mainstream candidates.

Edited October 11, 2011 by vortex

[JustARandomPanda]

I know that real change involves allowing people to change on their own accord.

 

Plenty of examples in history both support and do not support the above belief. Although, now that you've finally admitted you are an Anarchist I understand much better why you believe the above to be a Truth. I'm busy studying Anarchism right now myself. Been busy reading Max Stirner's The Ego and His Own (who is claimed as a founding father by both Leftist Anarchists and Rightwing Libertarians) and the philosophies of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Tucker.

 

 

Simply stated, the majority of the wealth is owned by 1-3% of the population, but that wealth helps to support the 97-99% and provide them with the goods and services they desire.

 

Been there, done that. I've had those same math classes, micro economics, macro economics, public policy classes, etc. The whole nine yards. Yes I think the Occupiers know that capitalism brings them goods and services (btw - we so often forget our history - Capitalism is not the only economic system societies have evolved to bring themselves goods and services).

 

Anyway...you're statement above is moot because that's not what they're agitating against. No one is advocating the elimination of Capitalism or of that 1-3% (well other than a very small minority). They're protesting the gaming of the system by that 1-3%.

 

 

With that said, to return to the protests, the reason these protests will fail is simply because there are not enough people supporting them.

 

If you are talking about large scale changes I might agree. But I'm not expecting large scale change to come out of it. The changes that might come would be smaller but potentially real.

 

An example that disproves your statement above that small numbers can not create real change:

 

The Tea Partiers have disproportionately influenced the outcome of Fiscal policy compared to their size in the total population. There actually aren't that many Tea Partiers compared to the entire population of the U.S. Yet they have had real influence because of their protests. To the point that not once, but twice, our government has come close to shutting down and the U.S. defaulting on its debt. They didn't achieve all their aims but their agitating for change achieved being heard. And it influenced U.S. policy and continues to do so. No mean feat for a small portion of the total population.

 

 

As an aside I've been getting a very, "this is the end of the world" type of vibe from the forum as of late and I have a hard time understanding where it's coming from. I really hope it passes, because people are allowing themselves to worry about something that they have absolutely no control over.

 

 

Disagree with you on the 'worrying about things you have no control over'. No wonder Marblehead has such a poor attitude of many Buddhists. Too many of them take the path you yourself are advocating everyone in this thread wake up to.

 

In short that particular philosophical spin permits this unintended consequence:

 

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

 

Worry about those things you can change, which in most cases revolves around those things you can change about yourself. When you change the way you think about the world, then you have experienced a real revolution.

 

 

That's what they're doing. You just don't happen to agree with the tactics. But at least I understand better why you advocate as you do.

 

*********

 

Honestly - my biggest problem with most people (including myself at times!) have to do with a lack of critical thinking.

 

Let me give an example.

 

I think Friedriech Hayek's The Road to Serfdom serves much of the same role that Marx's das Capital did 6o+ years ago. Both are beautifully constructed, both have things in them that I believe give accurate descriptions of what goes on in the real world.

 

If pressed to the wall most fans of both would admit their theory doesn't attempt to describe ALL human behavior. But their actions tell a different story.

 

In short - these people's de facto behavior tells me something different.

 

They are presenting a GUT - A Grand Unified Theory of human economic behavior when imo their beliefs holds no such status yet. Small Gov Conservatism imo holds the same status today that Super String Theory has in physics. It's elegant, it's beautiful, it explains so much,. And like Super String Theory - it's Untested.

 

Just as we do not have a GUT in physics that unites the 4 forces (the electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force with gravity) so we do not yet have an economic theory that unites the micro with macro. A true Economic GUT would be able to elegantly explain both individual behavior and aggregate behavior and account for ALL behavior seen at both scales. It would be a set of postulates that would scale. From it all things would flow.

 

 

The Sir Isaac Newton of Economics who will write his Principia Economica that unites the individual with the planetary has not yet been born.

[joeblast]

 

They're protesting the gaming of the system by that 1-3%.

 

That statement is a little too blanket.

 

If you've got problems with how the rules of the system work, is it going to be productive to bitch at the few who have done well in it, despite or because of?

 

 

Or would it make more sense to support people & policies that make the game better for everyone, instead of simply attempting to pit "the bottom half" of the system against the top couple percentages?

 

 

(or if you want to describe it accurately, set up the whole thing ahead of time, domain names and all, fantastically misrepresent stats as convenience dictates, pay a few of them minimum wage to be there, and call it "grassroots" )

 

 

That a small percentage will actually identify themselves with the tea party is insignificant juxtaposed with the vast swaths of average people that support the aims - that, and that reason only, is the reason why. That is why the pictures from Beck's rally in washington show several hundred thousand present and not one scrap of garbage left behind when all was said and done. These other manufactured protests you keep getting shots from street level - why? How many are really there? Garbage and arrests abound and half the people cant even articulate why they are really there other than that its fashionable to hate on Wall Street.

 

 

I suppose I'd be jealous of John Holmes if I had a small pecker, too That is "Occupy Wall Street" in a nutshell.

 

 

comparing mtheory & limited government - we've had it before and its worked before, we've abandoned it now and we're in a shitty place - coincidence? that's a weak analogy, sorry.