Wall Street Protests

[Orthogonal]

Ah yes, it's the age old problem. Who watches the Watchmen? There are many problems both simple and complex. Everyone assumes the government should just take control of the situation, but disagreements occur as to both the degree and kind of oversight. When some overseer does take over, the ever present specter of corruption rears its ugly head. Who is protecting us from the bias and agenda of the regulator? Have they been bought off? It's a fatal problem and one that cannot be easily solved, at least not in our current paradigm.

[Scheavo]

Corruption is a never ending possibility, but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all). When the watchmen does it's job, and we get something we wouldn't have otherwise had. When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.

[Orthogonal]

but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all)

It was said best by Robert LeFevre. "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.

Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.

[Super Dude]

When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.

Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.

I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).

Or it could be almost 2 AM and I don't even know what I'm saying anymore. But in any case, if the watchmen disappeared the strong and corrupt would still be there, taking advantage of the system and those who can't fight back; only difference would be not having to go through the formalities of giving off an appearance of legitimacy.

[Riceball]

Sorry for breaking up the discussion.

Occupy Melbourne (the crackpot breakaway group from Occupt Wall Street) was forceably removed from their protest place today, because they were in contravention of a number of local laws. They were advised early this morning that they had a few hours to pack up their stuff and leave, which they didn't do once these few hours were up and so the coppers moved in and shifted them.

Does this help or hurt their cause?

My view is they would have been much better off saying, 'OK, we've had a good run, lets leave peacefully and set up shop somewhere else' rather than blindly staying the course and being physically removed. It just makes them look like every other rabbling protest group ever.

[Orthogonal]

I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).

Without writing or quoting a book on the subject. Just because there is no Watchmen does not mean there is no law or law enforcement.

Occupy Melbourne (the crackpot breakaway group from Occupt Wall Street) was forceably removed from their protest place today, because they were in contravention of a number of local laws. They were advised early this morning that they had a few hours to pack up their stuff and leave, which they didn't do once these few hours were up and so the coppers moved in and shifted them.

Does this help or hurt their cause?

I guess it depends on your perspective of what the end goal is of their cause. If it is to highlight the loss of liberties and general dismissal of their cause by those in power, this most certainly validates their ends.

[Scheavo]

but I'd rather have a shitty watchman than no watchman at all (hmm... better to have loved and lost, than to never have loved at all; better to have government go corrupt, than to never have a government at all)

It was said best by Robert LeFevre. "If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

False dichotomy. Men are neither good nor evil, they are both good and evil. Individuals are good, individuals are evil. The government is the good bandying up against the bad.

When the watchmen doesn't do it's job, we would get what we would've had without the watchmen anyways, so to blame the watchmen for that is silly.

Strawman, the presence of the watchman necessarily changes what would have happened in his absence. Also, if a watchman is doing a "Shitty" job, that doesn't mean he is necessarily doing nothing. It could very well be they are doing things very badly and causing more harm than had he never been there at all. Which is usually the case.

Super Dude did a good job catching my point. Look at what bad / corrupt regulators do: they don't enforce the regulations, and let companies get away with what they want to get away with. There's nothing in the world that mandates consumers buy said companies products, so obviously there would still be the same market demand - why then, should I assume that if the government didn't have some safety regulations, that companies would follow the regulations, when historically they haven't, and currently they demonstrate a desire not to?

Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?

[Super Dude]

I both agree and disagree with that. I see what you're saying but if I'm reading Scheavo's post right, he is correct to point out that in the absence of government, imposition of the strong over the weak would happen anyway, just without being in any form that can be called formal or legitimated (legitimated through concensus, not through justice).

Without writing or quoting a book on the subject. Just because there is no Watchmen does not mean there is no law or law enforcement.

Well, I...wait, what? I'm pretty sure the basic definition of a state of nature is that law does not exist because in a truly anarchic society morality doesn't exist. It's a state of nature; dogs and apes do not create and observe laws, and they sure as hell don't enforce 'em.

[Bill Carson]

I was listening to Outcry yesterday (like every good DT fan should be) and although they wrote it about all the demonstrations in the Middle East, a thought crossed my mind, does it now apply to the West ?

[Orthogonal]

Well, I...wait, what? I'm pretty sure the basic definition of a state of nature is that law does not exist because in a truly anarchic society morality doesn't exist. It's a state of nature; dogs and apes do not create and observe laws, and they sure as hell don't enforce 'em.

Like I said, it would take a pretty long discussion to thoroughly address these points and would completely derail this thread. I'd be more than happy to PM with you.

The government is the good bandying up against the bad.

LMFAO. The "bad" are always seeking political power to use in their favor. They always pursue government roles. The "good" may or may not pursue government.

Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?

I think we already talked about this until we were blue in the face, do we really need a repeat? In short. By having a regulator, it is assumed by all that they are "doing their job" so many people presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others. If the regulator is not doing a good job, then that is why companies can get away with so much crap. In the absence of a regulator, no such pretense exists. People will then employ means to protect themselves, do their homework and establish a good reputation. In a free market, your reputation is your lifeblood.

[Scheavo]

The government is the good bandying up against the bad.

LMFAO. The "bad" are always seeking political power to use in their favor. They always pursue government roles. The "good" may or may not pursue government.

The bad are always seeking power, whether that's political, or private. In a democracy, everyone, meaning the majority of us who are good, get to kick the bad ones out, and make sure they don't get to power.

What you would want us to do is take away the only safeguard we have against the bad, however corruptible it might be.

Explain to me how a food inspector, checking restaurants, or food-processing plants, etc, can possibly make things worse? Either he catches problems, and corrects them, or he doesn't. How does he make the food quality worse? How does not permitting companies from using horribly toxic, dangerous chemicals, possibly make the situation regarding horribly toxic chemicals worse?

By having a regulator, it is assumed by all that they are "doing their job" so many people presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others. If the regulator is not doing a good job, then that is why companies can get away with so much crap. In the absence of a regulator, no such pretense exists. People will then employ means to protect themselves, do their homework and establish a good reputation. In a free market, your reputation is your lifeblood.

Again, its better to have a watchmen do a bad job than have no watchmen at all. You seem to think people are fully capable of freely keeping track of every possible thing that effects their daily lives, nor what kind of economic and productivity consequences there would be if people had to keep track of every single one of those conditions. Your free market "solution" would be problematic in just the same way. If people paid a company to keep track of a companies safety, to negotiate environmental issues, etc., they'll "presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others."

Your reputation does not correspond with your quality or your competitiveness. Say there's a free-market monopoly (by which I mean a company owning say 85%+ of the market), and a competitor starts up. They'll slander the new people into oblivion, and tarnish their reputation.

I also don't assume my government is doing it's job. I'm suspicious of my government, as all good citizens should be.

[Scheavo]

By the way, on a separate issue, is there anyone who can defend the idea that protestors need permits to protest? Isn't it in the first amendment that there shall be no laws abridging our ability to "peacefully assemble"?

[Cool Chris]

By the way, on a separate issue, is there anyone who can defend the idea that protestors need permits to protest? Isn't it in the first amendment that there shall be no laws abridging our ability to "peacefully assemble"?

I wondered about this. In Seattle they were prohibiting from them from setting up camps in Westlake Park, which I agree with, as I don't think anyone should just be able to camp out in a public park indefinitely, even if it is the name of 'assembly.' Otherwise I believe organized protests here require permits if they plan on doing something like marching down public streets, (which I don't agree with granting permits for).

I guess maybe it has more to do with the location in which the assembling is happening, more than the actual protesting itself(?)

[Scheavo]

I guess maybe it has more to do with the location in which the assembling is happening, more than the actual protesting itself(?)

Ya, it's happening in too public of a place, so that people are hearing about the protestors. There is no harm being caused by any of these protestors, except perhaps some damage to some public land, and congestion in an area not otherwise congested. If protestors were blocking access to, say, a hospital, that'd be different. Anything else is just authoritative bullshit to keep protestors in line, and status quo the way it is.

[antigoon]

Matt Taibbi (who has been covering the financial fiasco since its inception) has a good article on Rolling Stone about the dangers/possibility of the protests getting stuck in a left vs. right paradigm.

From the end of the piece:

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks, which people like me and Barry Ritholz have focused on as something that could be a key issue for OWS. These gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power -- but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast.

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago. 

The banks know this. They know they have no "natural" constituency among voters, which is why they spend such fantastic amounts of energy courting the mainstream press and such huge sums lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only way the Goldmans and Citis and Bank of Americas can survive is if they can suck up popular political support indirectly, either by latching onto such vague right-populist concepts as "limited government" and "free-market capitalism" (ironic, because none of them would survive ten minutes without the federal government's bailouts and other protections) or, alternatively, by presenting themselves as society's bulwark against communism, lefty extremism, Noam Chomsky, etc.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying one thing: beware of provocateurs on both sides of the aisle. This movement is going to attract many Breitbarts, of both the left and right variety. They're going to try to identify fake leaders, draw phony battle lines, and then herd everybody back into the same left-right cage matches of old. Whenever that happens, we just have to remember not to fall for the trap. When someone says this or that person speaks for OWS, don't believe it. This thing is bigger than one or two or a few people, and it isn't part of the same old story.

[Orthogonal]

Again, its better to have a watchmen do a bad job than have no watchmen at all. You seem to think people are fully capable of freely keeping track of every possible thing that effects their daily lives, nor what kind of economic and productivity consequences there would be if people had to keep track of every single one of those conditions. Your free market "solution" would be problematic in just the same way. If people paid a company to keep track of a companies safety, to negotiate environmental issues, etc., they'll "presume that they are safe or protected from the actions of others."

When I'm referring to watchmen, I am referring to a final authority. I do not mean to imply that there is no oversight. There is one huge difference in our examples. The incentive structure is ass backwards from public regulation and private "regulation" (I'm not sure what the best word would be, but it is different.) A public regulator is typically appointed, and not elected, but even if they are, their incentive structure is broken. If a public regulator is tasked with keeping a particular industry under control, then they will be given a budget and some power in order to operate. First, what incentive does this person have to do a "good job"... Nothing really, if things go well, he just gets the same money and power on the next budget cycle. If things do not go well, and the industry goes wild, then rarely will they face any serious consequences. It is more likely that the public outcry will force the government to give the regulator more money and more power to control the industry. Public regulators work under the Fuck Up, Move Up system of advancement. If the government actually solved problem's, there would be no need for them over time. So it is in their best interest to keep problem's going for job security.

With a private regulatory service, you voluntarily choose them as your protector. Sure, they may screw up and leave you hanging if the don't do their job, but then they go out of business as customers move to a competitor. The most successful companies are those that do a good job. A private system incentive structure ties the success of doing a good job with the desired outcome of consumers.

Your reputation does not correspond with your quality or your competitiveness. Say there's a free-market monopoly (by which I mean a company owning say 85%+ of the market), and a competitor starts up. They'll slander the new people into oblivion, and tarnish their reputation.

LOL, slander, really? So if a mom & pops shop sets up across the street from Walmart, and Walmart came out and said they were a bunch of dumb fuck's who can't tie their shoe laces. Everyone would believe it?

[Scheavo]

Ya know, many regulations only need to be laws on a book, so that someone can sue of their own accord, to keep a practice from occurring. There isn't some one mythical regulator that has unlimited power to control an industry, which you seem to imply. They aren't given an industry to "keep under control."* They enforce laws passed by a democratic congress, by the will of the people (or at least ideally). Also, it may be true of you and a lot of people, but money is not the only motivator. There are people out there, believe it or not, who have an actual interest in helping keep other people safe, and money is an afterthought, a necessity in a money-economy.

LOL, slander, really? So if a mom & pops shop sets up across the street from Walmart, and Walmart came out and said they were a bunch of dumb fuck's who can't tie their shoe laces. Everyone would believe it?

Have you like never watched TV and a commercial advertisement before? They're full of shit and a bunch of stuff that is designed to manipulate you. If a trusted company came out saying their product was better than a competitors, and came up with a bunhc of bull shit reasons for it, a LOT of people would buy it, and never question it. Have you never met an Apple of Microsoft fan boy who is just completely ignorant of the other product, and completely obsessed with the superiority of their product?

And no, Walmart wouldn't need to slander a mom and pops store - they would simply undersell them for like 6 months, drive them out of business, and not have a competitor. Really, from everything we know, do you honestly think mom and  op stores can actually compete with Walmart? It's not even worthy to talk of them as competitors.

[Orthogonal]

Ya know, many regulations only need to be laws on a book, so that someone can sue of their own accord, to keep a practice from occurring. There isn't some one mythical regulator that has unlimited power to control an industry, which you seem to imply. They aren't given an industry to "keep under control."

That's only half right, the laws are just legislation representing what they would like to see with regards to restricting certain types of actions. A regulatory agency must enforce those laws. No company in the US operates outside the jurisdiction of at least 1 regulatory body to enforce those laws. Each regulatory agency is specialized in a particular kind of regulation like the FDA, FCC, EPA, FTC, SEC, DOJ etc... There are real people in the government behind of all of this, not a mythical regulator. Also, I never said anything about unlimited power. They have a specific level of power, but as they fail at their jobs, the public outcry forces the government to expand that power. It just grows and grows.

Have you like never watched TV and a commercial advertisement before? They're full of shit and a bunch of stuff that is deigned to manipulate you. If a trusted company came out saying their product was better than a competitors, and came up with a bunhc of bull shit reasons for it, a LOT of people would buy it, and never question it. Have you never met an Apple of Microsoft fan boy who is just completely ignorant of the other product, and completely obsessed with the superiority of their product?

And no, Walmart wouldn't need to slander a mom and pops store - they would simply undersell them for like 6 months, drive them out of business, and not have a competitor. Really, from everything we know, do you honestly think mom and  op stores can actually compete with Walmart? It's not even worthy to talk of them as competitors.

Fanboys will always exist, regulating advertisements aren't going to do anything to persuade them... what's your point? Sure, companies will embellish their product descriptions or try to cast them in a better light than others, but that's why we have consumer reviews. It's easier than ever to rate companies and products and get a census of its true worth. If people are too careless to research, that's their perogative and they pay a premium for inferior products. If a company deliberately misleads, then we have a case of fraud to be dealt with legally. I'm not seeing the problem.

If Walmart can undersell someone, how is that bad for consumers. Why should a regulator force Walmart to sell a product at a higher price to keep a less efficient company in business? How is setting higher prices good for consumers? It's funny, If Walmart set prices higher they would be accused of gouging. If the set them too low, they are dumping/undercutting. If they set them the same as the competition they are accused of collusion or price fixing. No matter what they do, they are wrong. Unless the regulator approves, right?   

[Rathma]

People will then employ means to protect themselves

The most immediate of which is to demand the government to enforce regulations.

[Scheavo]

Fanboys will always exist, regulating advertisements aren't going to do anything to persuade them... what's your point? Sure, companies will embellish their product descriptions or try to cast them in a better light than others, but that's why we have consumer reviews. It's easier than ever to rate companies and products and get a census of its true worth. If people are too careless to research, that's their perogative and they pay a premium for inferior products. If a company deliberately misleads, then we have a case of fraud to be dealt with legally. I'm not seeing the problem.

Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.

Also, regulations started having a problem in this country about the time we started to say regulations were a problem, and started to put people in the position who had no interest of regulating. There are prime examples of working regulation in this country, which has gone on to benefit many people.

If Walmart can undersell someone, how is that bad for consumers. Why should a regulator force Walmart to sell a product at a higher price to keep a less efficient company in business? How is setting higher prices good for consumers? It's funny, If Walmart set prices higher they would be accused of gouging. If the set them too low, they are dumping/undercutting. If they set them the same as the competition they are accused of collusion or price fixing. No matter what they do, they are wrong. Unless the regulator approves, right?   

I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You  brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.

Because, basically, there are other factors involved in a product than simply it's immediate cost at the cash register, but thanks to a poor populace and economic necessity, the immediate price is the one that drives the free-market. It's nearsighted.

[antigoon]

I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now

[kirksnosehair]

Yeah, it's getting hard to keep up 

[Scheavo]

I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now

Wait, this forum isn't about debating the free-market? Whaaat?

[Orthogonal]

Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.

I have no problem with the "idea of laws on the books", I may, however, have a problem with how they are created or enforced. My whole argument is to demonstrate that the use of government or regulations will lead to more environmental harm, fraud and unsafe labor practices. The exact opposite of what they aim to prevent.

I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You  brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.

You didn't say it exactly, but it's precisely what is implied from your argument. You said that Walmart (or anyone) underselling a competitor to put them out of business is a problem. What kind of regulation would be proposed to stop this from occuring other than something that ultimately limits the price at which they sale their goods? Also, why do you bring up Wal-marts employee track record, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but you keep changing the topic.

I would just like to point out that this discussion is simultaneously going on in three threads right now

I count 2, and they have some cross-over in their scope...

[Scheavo]

Because the best, most sane way to deal with it legally is to have a "government" involved. You seem to have a problem with the idea of have laws on the books, so that companies are open to legal case regarding instances of environmental harm, fraud, unsafe labor practices, etc - but at the same time, you want to deal with the problem legally. I really don't get it, it's like you don't realize that what you want would lead to where we're at now.

I have no problem with the "idea of laws on the books", I may, however, have a problem with how they are created or enforced. My whole argument is to demonstrate that the use of government or regulations will lead to more environmental harm, fraud and unsafe labor practices. The exact opposite of what they aim to prevent.

This may be true for some, but it is demonstrably false for many others. Air quality, water quality, etc, have gotten better just about everywhere in the US since the creation of the EPA. My home town uses oxygenated fuel in the winter, by mandate, because it pollutes less - the air quality has gone from not being able to see more than two blocks in the winter, to me never have known this was a problem becuase I've only been born after it took effect.

So if that's your argument, it's not true. There are definitely corrupt regulations on the books, and regulations which do more harm than good, but that does not say that all regulations, by virtue of their genesis, are bad and do more harm than good.   

I never said regulators should be involved in Wal-mart's pricing, now did I? You  brought up the example. Also, if you looked into Wal-mart, you'd find that they have a rather horrible track record with their employee's, lawsuits filed against them, etc. Monopolies are able to do things like this becuase they have the power to do so. If Wal-mart drives out the competition, than workers don't have an alternative company to go to which treats them better, and are easily replaceable, so it doesn't matter if they raise a fuss.

You didn't say it exactly, but it's precisely what is implied from your argument. You said that Walmart (or anyone) underselling a competitor to put them out of business is a problem. What kind of regulation would be proposed to stop this from occuring other than something that ultimately limits the price at which they sale their goods? Also, why do you bring up Wal-marts employee track record, what does that have to do with the topic at hand? I'm certainly willing to discuss it, but you keep changing the topic.

My argument is to point to real world example, examples we have when the market has some regulations enforced upon it, to show you the inclination and desire some big companies have, and how that desire wouldn't go away without the government. I bring up employee practices because this is an area where are there are labor laws and regulations on the books, which certainly effects a companies bottom line. Having regulations in place regarding these issues is beneficial to employees, and disliked by employers. We see that in Walmart, we see that in numerous other companies, we see that historically in a massive level. You would have these done away with, because you argue that the free-market would do better - when in fact, the free-market would probably create worse conditions for workers and employees.

I'm bringing up examples to show how you're theory is inadequate. By showing how a company can create a monopoly in a market ("free" or not), what kind of forces they would use, forces which are not accounted for in your theory of quality and customer safety, I am not at the same time proposing that we solve this problem with the government. That's a huge leap and assumption on your part.

[Super Dude]

I just saw a photo on a high school friend's Facebook page of this soldier who had just come back from Iraq, who went to Oakland, Michigan for the Occupy protest there. He got shot in the head by the Oakland PD.

[Scheavo]

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/report-iraq-vet-fractured-skull-police-projectile-occupy-203808915.html

Not quite "shot in the head," but ya... this could be a huge turning point for some people. Personally, I've been horribly disturbed of all the police actions surrounding the protests, and an Iraqi veteran getting killed, or even just seriously injured, due to police tactics just doesn't sit well. None of the protests have been violent, none of them have been destructive.

[Super Dude]

Oh, I just heard about it from Facebook.  Thanks for the link, I will check that out.

Edit: Interesting. In all likelihood, despite what the news coverage says, it'll probably circulate through popular thought as being "shot in the head," I'm almost certain. Good ammo against cops, you know.

[orcus116]

https://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/report-iraq-vet-fractured-skull-police-projectile-occupy-203808915.html

Not quite "shot in the head," but ya... this could be a huge turning point for some people. Personally, I've been horribly disturbed of all the police actions surrounding the protests, and an Iraqi veteran getting killed, or even just seriously injured, due to police tactics just doesn't sit well. None of the protests have been violent, none of them have been destructive.

Actually I'm pretty sure that particular one there were many reports of violence and sexual assaults for the police came in, though the story conveniently leaves that part out to fuel this make believe that we're actually living in a real police state. I find it difficult to fathom that people actually believe that nothing wrong is going on at these protest camps and the police are always the aggressors. You get hundreds and thousands of people with different viewpoints, mix them up for a month and you expect everything to be A-OK? I'm shocked there's not more violence and other kinds of assaults happening.

[Sigz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=youtu.be

Guy's unconscious in the middle of the street and some people run over to try and help him? Better flashbang them. 

[Scheavo]

Hundreds of thousands of people are not mixing in person. If that were to happen, it would a massive protest movement, more massive than it is now.

Also, if there are reports of violence within the camp, it is protestor against protestor, it is not the protest movement itself getting violent, and you know, rioting. If the police are there, they should be doing something about those claims being made, because it's still their job to investigate those things, and to protect citizens against their fellow citizens.

[Scheavo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqNOPZLw03Q&feature=youtu.be

Guy's unconscious in the middle of the street and some people run over to try and help him? Better flashbang them.

If we weren't ourselves, that footage would be shown to show how repressive the police force of a country is being.

[Super Dude]

Whatever the case, I hope I'm wrong but things might start getting ugly from here.

Also, I know people are sick of this discussion, but here's a great response to that "I am not the 99%" picture that's floating around the Internet:

[zxlkho]

[orcus116]

lol at "hard working"