Why The 99% Could Never Fully Unite

reply to post by Kali74


Did you earn a degree? It would seem you may have earned a degree in "double-speak".

There's a lot of young people who make statements like yours, but then try to say that other people are just not "bright", or intelligent enough to understand them.

I'm not insulting you, it's just so many people "talk" like that, but make absolutely no sense.

How do you have a gov't of collectivism, but let people exclude themselves from it - politically,financially, and legally?

reply to post by DarthMuerte


You have some kind of roster that shows a majority of students took women's studies? I'd wager a majority took business and technology majors.

reply to post by Kali74
I said "women's studies OR other such useless degrees". I seriously doubt that the majority of the "occupy crowd" took business degrees, the very idea makes me laugh. They hate business. Some may have taken technology degrees, but nowhere near "most". Students with good tech degrees and or engineering degrees can find work. They may have to leave the US, but that is a separate issue. I blame Clinton for that due to his signing of NAFTA.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Indeed, Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. Obama is about to sell us out even more so to Capitalism with the TPP. It doesn't matter what letter comes after a pigs' name it is still a pig, the jobs are still gone and going. I think your mind would be blown if you polled Occupiers as to what they hold degrees in or are seeking degrees for.

I'm not really sure why you opened a discussion when you're so quick to dismiss out of hand.

reply to post by Happy1


Who said anything about a government of collectivism?
I know for damn sure that I didn't.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Indeed, Clinton is responsible for NAFTA. Obama is about to sell us out even more so to Capitalism with the TPP. It doesn't matter what letter comes after a pigs' name it is still a pig, the jobs are still gone and going. I think your mind would be blown if you polled Occupiers as to what they hold degrees in or are seeking degrees for.

Now there is something we can agree with. Bush, Clinton, Bush and obama are all against all of us. The only problem is that we cannot unite against them because we want vastly different things.

Originally posted by Kali74I'm not really sure why you opened a discussion when you're so quick to dismiss out of hand.

I could agree with your idea of collectivists being allowed to "collectivise" while individualists would be left alone, the problem there is that the vast majority of collectivists believe that they "know better" than we individualists and thus we must be forced into the collective for our own good.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Happy1

 

Who said anything about a government of collectivism?
I know for damn sure that I didn't.

It was kind of the point of the thread. IMO anyway.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Thus why I said you missed the point of my post...
Individual freedom (Liberty) must always come first, this isn't in conflict with collectivism. I as an individual must be free to be what I choose, an individual or someone who decides to pool resources for whatever reason, financial or political et al.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

Thus why I said you missed the point of my post...
Individual freedom (Liberty) must always come first, this isn't in conflict with collectivism. I as an individual must be free to be what I choose, an individual or someone who decides to pool resources for whatever reason, financial or political et al.

I believe that you are mistaken in your belief that the two can coexist. Collectivism cannot exist without force.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Can you lay out why they can't?

reply to post by Kali74


i can.

because i will never willingly subscribe to any of the garbage from the occupy babies.

therefore, without force, no collectivism.

im sure there are many others with same feelings here.

and the whole thing about people not having "fair" and "equal" opportunity is garbage and one of the huge differences i see in left and right beliefs.

left believes in fair and equal outcome.
right believes in fair and equal opportunity.


learn the difference. most people have fair and equal opportunity, people like occupy want to make everyone have an equal outcome. not happening. i work hard for what i have, and if some punk who has 4 months of free time to loiter in a park tries to take what i have so he has more. come and get it, but it aint going to be the outcome you're wanting.

if you dont make the most out of what is available to you, thats your own fault. period. everyone has opportunity to do with their lives what they want, some take advantage of that, others dont.

reply to post by pngxp


Well put.

This is why the 47% comment from Romney completely escapes the liberals. They refuse to even try to comprehend an opposing view. I understand their intentions, they cannot even fathom the individualists, capitalists, right - whatever you want to label it - the other 47% viewpoint.

reply to post by DarthMuerte

I honestly consider it impossible for we 99% to unite. Consider just two categories.
The Statist and the Individualist. We are mutually antithetical to each other.

Individualists are represented more by the Tea Party (the local Tea Party) and Statists by Occupy (what's left of it). I think we MUST find at least SOME common ground moving forward or divided we will fall. How we go about this is beyond me; there are so many glaring differences. It’s tough to agree on an end result and even tougher to agree on the best way to achieve that result.

Obama made it clear over 1 year ago last week that there aren’t many differences between the Tea Party and Occupy. Was he right? Take a look at this video and decide for yourself. Watch all 2:33 and tell me how we come together.

I can't watch or listen to him speak without wanting to puke. I just feel like I am drowning in slime or pond scum whenever I hear his voice. There is no truth that comes out of that mouth.

I dont supoort the 99% because of the new movie Occupy Unmasked... it really opened my eyes to the REAL OWS

I dont like the "free college" crap.... It really bugs me

reply to post by DarthMuerte

I can't watch or listen to him speak without wanting to puke. I just feel like I am drowning in slime or pond scum whenever I hear his voice. There is no truth that comes out of that mouth.

It’s about 10 seconds of him talking and the rest is video clips that.…let’s say…..don’t really back up his assertion very well.

It’s a great video.



(edit to add) Kali hates it so you KNOW its good!

reply to post by DarthMuerte

For example many of them made huge mistakes taking on student loans and then took majors that did not allow them to achieve gainful employment.

There you have your tail caught in the door. Education should be free and centrally planed to respond to the needs of the nation. This can be done by various methodologies and still enable freedom of choice, majors that are not needed should be offered only as a way to keep the know-how and research available, continue the the education cycle and fill external aid or large demand (this will permit to have a safety margin for dropouts, change of majors and unplanned deaths).

Who do you blame for people making wrong choices ? the people or the system ? (advertisement, lack of offering of more interesting majors and state generated volatility or markets that does not permit accurate planning)

Who do you blame for people taking education loans ? The people or the system? (people are pressed to take higher education for job safety, higher wages and social recognition)

(double posts, please delete)

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by DarthMuerte

 

For example many of them made huge mistakes taking on student loans and then took majors that did not allow them to achieve gainful employment.

There you have your tail caught in the door. Education should be free and centrally planed to respond to the needs of the nation. This can be done by various methodologies and still enable freedom of choice, majors that are not needed should be offered only as a way to keep the know-how and research available, continue the the education cycle and fill external aid or large demand (this will permit to have a safety margin for dropouts, change of majors and unplanned deaths).

Who do you blame for people making wrong choices ? the people or the system ? (advertisement, lack of offering of more interesting majors and state generated volatility or markets that does not permit accurate planning)

Who do you blame for people taking education loans ? The people or the system? (people are pressed to take higher education for job safety, higher wages and social recognition)

I blame the person making the poor decision. It is his/her responsibility. Education is not FREE, someone has to pay. IMO, the person getting the education should pay. It is not my responsibility to pay for your degree. Just as it is not your responsibility to pay for mine. My tail is not in the door as you call it. Rather, you make my point. Collectivism and Individualism cannot coexist.

reply to post by DarthMuerte


Yes they can, it is not a zero-sum game.

My view is that individualism should be restricted to personal freedoms, what you do with yourself and your resources and to select freely from what society offers you. Collectivism should dominate the areas that require public funding, stuff that can't exist or must be guaranteed due to inability to, or freedom to, deny funding, based in an individual choice.

Education (including R&D), Medicine (even the production of drugs), Social Infrastructures (roads, buildings,etc) , Law (system and representation), and management and protection of public goods (intellectual property, Military, water and energy resources, airwaves etc) should be collectively managed and supported, not privatized.

I would go as far as include some basic textile, food and energy production in things that should be partially state funded as a way to maintain national independence.

Note that collectivism is not the suppression of individualism, the first is form of management the second is a the right of self determination regarding one's personal will.

I defend anarcho-communism as the most viable social order. I do not know how to go from what we have now to that and admit that in free competition with other social structures like free-market capitalism it wouldn't survive. Because anarcho-communism takes in consideration several intangibles (freedom of choice, equal access for instance) that it is not safeguarded by free-market capitalism.

I think that this fully explains why I see that you are putting the blame in the wrong side of the equation, you shouldn't blame the people since it is the system that shapes their actions, even if at the same time it provides an illusion of choice that really does not exist.