To OWS: what you/we should be demanding

reply to post by apacheman


I couldn't help but notice this priceless little comedic gem...

Current billionaires should be given four years to voluntarily divest themselves of their excess.

When did coercion become "voluntarily"? You aren't letting them do anything. You'd be forcing them...

Someone asked earlier, by what right do you demand that these people give up what most of them worked their butts off to earn?

reply to post by macman


Here's a few:

www.allvoices.com... a-virus-in-business-culture-requiring-complete-eradication-he-was-sentenced-11-years-imprisonment-in-mal

www.upiasia.com... 011/10/26/Billionaire-could-face-criminal-charge/UPI-33771319606700/

digitalcommons.lmu.edu... q%3Dbillionaire%2520crimes%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26ved%3D0CEUQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253 Farticle%253D1193%2526context%253Delr%26ei%3DnLWpTo2BK8eJiAKo7_nnCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-sa6K-PqCXQLfVxGR49wc-IQlDA#search=%22billionaire%20crimes%22

ocbiz.ocregister.com... /12/15/judge-denies-broadcom-billionaires-request-to-dismiss-criminal-case/6634/

conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.... com/2011/10/meet-criminal-billionaire-koch-brothers.html

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.sickcrimes.us... -charged-with-molesting-a-child-5680

www.newscorpse.com...

coto2.wordpress.com... 1/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

Shall I go on?

Not that you'll actually read any of them.

One of the side effects of excessive wealth is the supreme feeling of entitlement it gives to its owners, a belief that they own the law and that they can do whatever they please with impunity.

Too often it is true.

A cap on wealth is reasonable and inevitable.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with the topic. At all. The laws we have to safeguard children from pedophiles is there because pedophiles infringe on the rights of the child, which is morally wrong.

I find your solution more akin to pedophilia (as far as rights go) than the people here defending the constitution.

Sorry, i couldn't resist

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Here's a few:

www.allvoices.com... a-virus-in-business-culture-requiring-complete-eradication-he-was-sentenced-11-years-imprisonment-in-mal

www.upiasia.com... 011/10/26/Billionaire-could-face-criminal-charge/UPI-33771319606700/

digitalcommons.lmu.edu... q%3Dbillionaire%2520crimes%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26ved%3D0CEUQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253 Farticle%253D1193%2526context%253Delr%26ei%3DnLWpTo2BK8eJiAKo7_nnCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-sa6K-PqCXQLfVxGR49wc-IQlDA#search=%22billionaire%20crimes%22

ocbiz.ocregister.com... /12/15/judge-denies-broadcom-billionaires-request-to-dismiss-criminal-case/6634/

conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.... com/2011/10/meet-criminal-billionaire-koch-brothers.html

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.sickcrimes.us... -charged-with-molesting-a-child-5680

www.newscorpse.com...

coto2.wordpress.com... 1/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

Shall I go on?

Not that you'll actually read any of them.

One of the side effects of excessive wealth is the supreme feeling of entitlement it gives to its owners, a belief that they own the law and that they can do whatever they please with impunity.

Too often it is true.

A cap on wealth is reasonable and inevitable.

So you're asserting that all billionaires are evil, based on a handful of individuals actions? I already said, deal with those people.

As far as reasonable goes, that's your definition, which obviously includes provisions that allow the state to directly infringe on peoples rights.

Inevitable? Not so much. Luckily most people recognize this as it is, oppressive. We try to eradicate oppressive tactics, not write them into the constitution.

reply to post by seagull


Prove "they worked their butts off".

That is an unprovable assumption on your part, and moot anyway.

Millions of people worked their butts off and had everything taken from them through illegal foreclosures (robo-signings, remember?) to provide the billionaires with their income.

This just requires the billionaires to return some of what they have taken illegally from society.

It has the advantage of leaving them with their heads still attached to their shoulders, an outcome soon to be unavailable at the rate things are going.

Learn from history before it is too late.

reply to post by apacheman


Wow!
Nothing mentioned in your OP is even remotely aimed at those who are at the root of our nations problems. Those who have legislated in favor of our problems and those who have selectively ignored legislation that was designed to prevent these problems.

Take your occupation to the National Mall and storm the offices of the career politicians who have become millionaires while in office. Make them shake in their boots.

Simplify the tax code, better yet, push for the FAIR tax because it eliminates the IRS completely.

Push for term limits.

You're barking up the wrong tree by attacking capitalism and private industry. Ask yourself the who what when where and why of the Corporate influence on Capital Hill? Ask yourself why people like Immelt (GE), Rangel, Barnie Frank etc etc are praising OWS, They are happy to cheer you on as long as you stay out of their backyards. Plenty of blame to be spread around DC. Bust that nut open and you will solve half of the problems in the nation.

Stop infringing on the rights of average people who are just trying to get to work, make a living and put food on the table. Get out of the parks and make a bee line to DC. I can't say that enough. Consolidate all Occupy efforts in one location. Just get your stories straight before you go.

reply to post by apacheman


Ah, ah, ah...doesn't work that way.

You're the one making the accusations. Up to you to prove your thesis.

reply to post by GringoViejo


It is an illustration of the concept that society has a right to impose limits on individual behaviors that it finds harmful to it.

A cannibal could just as easily and falsely assert a right to his or her dietary choices, but I doubt that most of us would object to government limiting that particular choice.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by seagull

 

Prove "they worked their butts off".

Yep, all of them are evil and break laws to earn their money. Every last one of them.

That is an unprovable assumption on your part, and moot anyway.

Like most of your posts

Millions of people worked their butts off and had everything taken from them through illegal foreclosures (robo-signings, remember?) to provide the billionaires with their income.

I'm not responsible for the actions of the irresponsible.

This just requires the billionaires to return some of what they have taken illegally from society.

Source

It has the advantage of leaving them with their heads still attached to their shoulders, an outcome soon to be unavailable at the rate things are going.

We finally reach the heart of your argument/ignorance/jealousy; "Give up your money or die!"

Learn from history before it is too late.

Learn from your own posts before its too late.

reply to post by GringoViejo


Nope, I'm not trying to make the point that all billionaires are evil, just that the acquisition of that much wealth is hard to do without breaking a few laws here and there.

Not all these folks are evil, per se, but that doesn't make them innocent of wrongdoing either. And some are truly evil,like Rupert Murdoch.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

It is an illustration of the concept that society has a right to impose limits on individual behaviors that it finds harmful to it.

A cannibal could just as easily and falsely assert a right to his or her dietary choices, but I doubt that most of us would object to government limiting that particular choice.

No, they wouldn't object because that wasn't a right in the first place.

how about this...if soldiers give up their lives for country how about elected official must give up his or her wealth and assets to serve in office...no campaign contributions are allowed and strict audits on any family or friends of the officials even after serving their term...this would be the sacrifice one has to make to be in control of things and to serve ones country...

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

Nope, I'm not trying to make the point that all billionaires are evil, just that the acquisition of that much wealth is hard to do without breaking a few laws here and there.

Not all these folks are evil, per se, but that doesn't make them innocent of wrongdoing either. And some are truly evil,like Rupert Murdoch.

Okay finally a shred of common sense shines through. How can we punish people without proof of any wrongdoing? Would it not make sense to just go after the people who are breaking the law?

reply to post by GringoViejo


A cannibal wouldn't agree with you about his rights to diet choices.

Who are you to say he doesn't have a right to eat who he wants to?

Many societies have practiced cannibalism in many forms, and considered it a sacred duty.

Our society frowns upon it, and therefore prohibits it.

Again, rules and rights are simply what we agree on them to be.

No one has a "right" to unlimited wealth.

I have to go now, but will return to the discussion tomorrow.

In the meantime, try to think of better objections and perhaps offer a genuine alternative.

Just saying "that's impossible" doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

A cannibal wouldn't agree with you about his rights to diet choices.

Who are you to say he doesn't have a right to eat who he wants to?

Many societies have practiced cannibalism in many forms, and considered it a sacred duty.

Our society frowns upon it, and therefore prohibits it.

Again, rules and rights are simply what we agree on them to be.

No one has a "right" to unlimited wealth.

So this is what your argument, that has been thought out for years, has descended to... Okay, I'll bite.. (no pun intended)

It's not my right to tell him, its the right of the person who he wants to eat. We aim to protect and preserve rights, which is why as a society we don't let him eat whomever he wants. He can still find food without having to kill or maim another human. This is why we agreed on the rule that he can't eat humans, its not a right (read: The Constitution).

And for the third time, by me that is, no one has the right to be a billionaire or else we all would be. It is a right, however, for any one person to make as much money as they please/want as long as the way they got and spend the money is legal. It has less to do with the value of the money than the paper itself, it's their property.

Go after the people who break the law and leave the ones who don't alone. Its quite simple.

Originally posted by apacheman
I have to go now, but will return to the discussion tomorrow.

In the meantime, try to think of better objections and perhaps offer a genuine alternative.

Just saying "that's impossible" doesn't cut it.

That would be selective reading on your part. You've been given ample reasons why this "solution" is absurd. You can try to pass these as laws, but the constitution renders them useless, as they are in direct opposition to it.

Originally posted by GringoViejo

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo

 

A cannibal wouldn't agree with you about his rights to diet choices.

Who are you to say he doesn't have a right to eat who he wants to?

Many societies have practiced cannibalism in many forms, and considered it a sacred duty.

Our society frowns upon it, and therefore prohibits it.

Again, rules and rights are simply what we agree on them to be.

No one has a "right" to unlimited wealth.

So this is what your argument, that has been thought out for years, has descended to... Okay, I'll bite.. (no pun intended)

It's not my right to tell him, its the right of the person who he wants to eat. We aim to protect and preserve rights, which is why as a society we don't let him eat whomever he wants. He can still find food without having to kill or maim another human. This is why we agreed on the rule that he can't eat humans, its not a right (read: The Constitution).

And for the third time, by me that is, no one has the right to be a billionaire or else we all would be. It is a right, however, for any one person to make as much money as they please/want as long as the way they got and spend the money is legal. What became of the idea I bolded above? You stopped short of including it in your definition of the right to unlimited wealth. To be consistent, you would need to add and caused no harm or deaths to others. It has less to do with the value of the money than the paper itself, it's their property.

Go after the people who break the law and leave the ones who don't alone. Its quite simple.

edit on 27-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

It could be considered an ancient cultural practice, and therefore protected. In a few of those cannibal societies the victim was a volunteer doing it in full expression of his faith.

In different times, different places people disagree upon what constitutes a "right".

In any case you seem to agree that rights are whatever we choose to agree they are, so if I and others of like mind can help convince enough other people to agree with us, then your "right" to make as much money as you can will be subjected to a reasonable limit for the good of society, for our collective right to have the opportunity to work hard and have something to show for it besides debt.

Explain to me how any billionaire's life would be downsized because they were merely one-billionaires instead of multi?

And were exactly in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is your right to unlimited wealth enumerated?

I recall no such clause.

It is my sincere belief that if a limit were adopted your life and the lives of countless others would benefit greatly. In the end, I think even the billionaires would agree with me. They are stuck in an increasingly ruthless and destructive competition for...what exactly? To see who dies with the most toys? Try thinking through where the end game of unlimited wealth leads. Channeling their competitive instincts into seeing who could best improve humanity's lot could only help heal the world, not harm it, and them, too.

Now I really have to go until tomorrow.

Wow that was very insightful.

Most people posting in this thread are caught up in a greed based capitalistic mindset based on perpetually accumulation.

I find your points true and well thought out but their is little hope it'll ever come to pass.

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by macman

 

Here's a few:

www.allvoices.com... a-virus-in-business-culture-requiring-complete-eradication-he-was-sentenced-11-years-imprisonment-in-mal

www.upiasia.com... 011/10/26/Billionaire-could-face-criminal-charge/UPI-33771319606700/

digitalcommons.lmu.edu... q%3Dbillionaire%2520crimes%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D7%26ved%3D0CEUQFjAG%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.lmu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253 Farticle%253D1193%2526context%253Delr%26ei%3DnLWpTo2BK8eJiAKo7_nnCg%26usg%3DAFQjCNF-sa6K-PqCXQLfVxGR49wc-IQlDA#search=%22billionaire%20crimes%22

ocbiz.ocregister.com... /12/15/judge-denies-broadcom-billionaires-request-to-dismiss-criminal-case/6634/

conservativesarecommunistss.blogspot.... com/2011/10/meet-criminal-billionaire-koch-brothers.html

www.globalresearch.ca...

www.sickcrimes.us... -charged-with-molesting-a-child-5680

www.newscorpse.com...

coto2.wordpress.com... 1/07/17/murdoch-and-vaccines-exposure-of-murdochs-crimes-expose-a-much-larger-story/

Shall I go on?

Not that you'll actually read any of them.

One of the side effects of excessive wealth is the supreme feeling of entitlement it gives to its owners, a belief that they own the law and that they can do whatever they please with impunity.

Too often it is true.

A cap on wealth is reasonable and inevitable.

I read them, and your second link is dead by the way.
The first is about insider trading.
The fourth goes to Op Ed pieces.
The fifth is dead, but smells of a Tar and feather the Koch Brothers Rant.
The sixth is talking about wealth creation in foreign countries, not USA.
The seventh is about a sick pedophile, not about wealth creation.
The eighth is about the Rupert Murdoch trial. Not about Wealth creation.
The last is a couple of comments on the Grim Reaper picture.
So what?
Did you even review what you tried to pitch?

None show, or display or even prove that those that have built wealth did so by criminal means.
Please, instead of trying to regurgitate Daily Kos rants, apply some critical thought.