Chris Hedges: Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless.

stuthecockatoo · 3 months

Nonviolence is not only necessary because it is the intellectual, moral, and spiritual superior to violence, but also because from a pragmatic perspective protesters do not have any real advantage when it comes to inflicting violence.

Plato_Karamazov · 6 months

Considering that there has been inequality since before the time of Socrates, I don't think existence of inequality now should invalidate the idea of a social contract. I always thought of the social contract as more of a justification for individuals to submit to the will of democracy (the majority opinion combined with the 'right' or 'just opinion) than the other way around. Libertarians and social conservatives tend to shy away from the idea of a social contract partly because they are inherently distrustful of the idea of submitting to government rules/regulations/laws. As I understand them, the founding documents of the United States do not guarantee complete equality to American citizens, but as the Declaration of Independence states 'certain inalienable rights' which include the pursuit of (but not necessarily attainment of) happiness. I don't know if specific versions of Social Contract Theory are still applicable, but I definitely think the idea of a social contract is still necessary for justifying democracy and individuals giving their consent to be ruled by the government/state. I hope that made sense ...

joshuastarlight · 6 months

No one. It is divided, and not very functional right now.

joshuastarlight · 6 months

And even when they were nominally in control of the federal government starting in 2009, Senate Republicans effectively delayed or outright blocked about 500 bills passed by the Democratic controlled House from even being voted on in the Senate, not to mention the delay tactics on important pieces of legislation such as the Affordable Care Act that was finally passed after almost a year of delays. Democrats never had a lock on 60 votes in the Senate for anything somewhat controversial, plus this ridiculously high threshold was often not even possible because of sickness (Ted Kennedy), contested election results (Al Franken), and outright douchebaggery (Joe Liebermann). And after the surprise upset of Martha Coakley by Scott Brown for Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat after his untimely death, the Democrats didn't even have a supermajority on paper to deal with the unprecedented obstruction by Mitch McConnell and his cohorts. Frankly it is a small miracle that the centrist Health Care Reform bill actually passed at all, given the complete universal opposition by all Republican Representatives and Senators, and the Senate Republicans' clear willingness to block and delay any and all legislation that they did not agree with.

joshuastarlight · 6 months

No, the GOP took control of the House. Therefore, Democrats are no longer in control of the federal government.

joshuastarlight · 6 months

I guess you missed that whole midterm election of 2010 then eh?

jasonofcompsci · 6 months

By 'arbitrary quality standards,' do you mean product safety? I understand it is harder for small businesses to follow one-size fits all regulations that probably have been influenced by corporate lobbyists. Fortunately not all regulations apply to small businesses; one big example being environmental regulations on air pollution emissions, water pollution, etc. And if environmental regulations do happen to apply to small businesses, then it is to the benefit of society that the small businesses comply.

joshuastarlight · 7 months

We don't need them and they cost lots of money to maintain, plus we already signed on to the nonproliferation treaty which means we are obligated to work towards nuclear disarmament, and disarming means we have more authority to tell other countries they should not work towards nuclear capability, not to mention we don't need them and they cost lots of money. No sense throwing good money after bad.

jasonofcompsci · 7 months

I don't think large corporations on the whole would actually lobby for more oversight, transparency, regulations, etc. Maybe they would lobby for changes, but these changes would probably lessen regulatory oversight, unless a particular corporation and its leadership were especially progressive and forward-thinking, socially conscious, etc. I think libertarians and anarchists tend to conflate corporate and governmental motivations when all too often corporate power/money tries to corrupt politicians for the purposes of reducing government oversight and power over corporations that nevertheless depend on government charter. It's complicated, but I don't think this diagram is completely accurate in the overlap area, probably because the author wants to trivialize anti-corporate but pro-government worldviews such as democratic socialism, social democracy, etc.

xenophone · 7 months

Large corporations in general lobby for less government power and regulations. From the short-sighted profit-oriented perspective of corporate leadership, small or almost nonexistent government is best for their purposes. To these CEO's, government and large businesses are pretty much mutually exclusive, even though corporations depend on charters from state/D.C. governments. For more progressive and ecologically-minded CEO's and corporate leaders, government power and regulation can be a good thing, and they may lobby for changes in federal regulations, but likely not great expansions of federal/state power. Basically, I don't agree that large corporations lobby for greater federal/state power or expansion of government regulations, and if they do, then they are probably not as corrupt or nefarious as the ones that actively lobby for fewer and less-costly regulations (i.e. effectively less powerful government).

joshuastarlight · 7 months

If you mean right now, then you might be right. But if you mean anytime in the future, I think you are wrong.

Santos_L_Halper · 7 months

I have a feeling I will be listening to this song every day (at least) for the foreseeable future ...

joshuastarlight · 7 months

I'm sure people said the same thing about Glen Beck and/or Rush Limbaugh before millions of people started parroting their bizarre paranoid conspiracy theories to the detriment of the sum total of American political understanding, or lack thereof ...

joshuastarlight · 7 months

'the banality of evil' ...

joshuastarlight · 7 months

Some 'skeptics' are skeptical about the climate getting warmer ... some (less crazy ones) as you say are skeptical about the cause(s) of this warming ... it is not meaningless to establish for a fact that the climate is getting warmer, and not just 'changing' as you put it ...

joshuastarlight · 7 months

They're protesting the definition of capitalism as separate from and incompatible with social democracy ...

adriens · 7 months

Government regulation is far more interventionary for large businesses than small businesses which often run up against barriers to entry that large corporations do not have. Except I suppose if you count long-standing worker protections and insurance programs that apply to all employers, but these hallmarks of a social democracy are not something I want to give up just so that it is easier for small businesses to turn a profit in competition with corporations that benefit from economy of scale. Also if the rules you are talking about are environmental safety / pollution regulations, then most small businesses are not going to have to comply, but large-scale energy and industrial companies will have to comply. Also in the case of financial services regulation, how many banks and investment companies qualify as small businesses? Not very many, I would wager.

adriens · 7 months

This starts out with a faulty premise that large corporations would actually lobby to increase regulation of themselves by the government. Why would they do that if it increases the cost of doing business? They already have a scale advantage in price over small businesses. It is far far far more likely that large corporations would and do lobby to change regulations as they are being written by congress to be less intrusive and less burdensome to the large corporations. Of course corporations get their power and authority from the government. The problem is that there is a long-standing tendency for congress to abdicate their responsibility to regulate and oversee corporations which derive their power and authority from corporate charters issued by states and the District of Columbia.

joshuastarlight · 7 months

Even if every single Democrat voted 'Yes,' the bill still would not have passed because of the Republican filibuster. A majority of Democrats did vote 'Yes,' and if Republicans hadn't have filibustered as they have about a thousand times before in the past several years, the bill would have passed with that simple majority.

joshuastarlight · 7 months

Yet, where is the harm in acknowledging a particular viewpoint that belongs to an employee of a so-called mainstream global media corporation? I am sure people said the same thing about paying attention to Glenn Beck's ravings when he first got a Fox News show, but I would wager the more sunlight is on the media and its 'personalities,' the better for everyone. As long as time is not unduly taken away from important issues, paying attention to what media celebrities of any tier say can be helpful in understanding the total landscape of the fourth estate ... just my opinion.

joshuastarlight · 7 months

Oh, I see. Ignoring something makes it go away.

joshuastarlight · 8 months

I think you are missing the point I am trying to make. Analysis and historical examination of current issues is a vital and necessary part of making sense of the world. Bloggers/journalists/whatever can't always be the bastions of impartiality you desire; even if they could be, in the context of opinion pieces and non-mainstream non-straight non-news criticism and writing, such impartiality would be a detriment to the public, in my opinion.

joshuastarlight · 8 months

That still does not change the basic argument that journalists should be allowed to express their own opinion and speculate as to motives, effects, etc., as long as it is not under the banner of 'fair and balanced' news journalism, such as the horror that is Fox News.

joshuastarlight · 8 months

That is the exact same headline as the original story. I did not editorialize the headline. The fact that you think I did shows me that you did not even bother to make a summary look at the story, let alone read it. By the way, the author of the article does not claim to be fair and balanced, or in any way unbiased, because he is an opinion writer and not a mainstream news journalist. Unlike Fox News, which does claim to be fair and balanced and to be a straight news network. Bothering to do a little digging and analysis of current events in the context of history does not make me or other biased writers zealots, that just makes us/them opinionated and/or with an agenda. And people who do not bother to analyze or dig deeper are opinionated and biased too, they just don't bother to look any closer at so-called 'facts' to make up their own mind instead of being spoon-fed the truth from so-called mainstream straight news journalists. The fact that you call me and others who bother to read between the lines zealots tells me you have very little intellectual curiosity or buy into the notion that if everyone thought the exact same thing about every issue, we could all get along. You may be right, but I don't want to live in a world that devoid of diversity and possibility for evolution. Go back to enjoying your righteous indignation though, and by all means, go on equating opinionated leftist writers/thinkers with Fox News, because the comparison is just ... terribly awful as a matter of fact, but in any case I doubt you will change your mind that seems to be so carefully configured to throw out any critical thought that draws on more than just the past 24 hours of current events and/or what people actually say instead of speculating about what they actually mean. I don't even know why I am responding to your overreacting comment and ideology, but I have to try to make a case for actually caring about perception and looking deeply into subjects instead of just skating on the surface and assuming that what everyone says is actually what everyone means always, and it is somehow wrong to speculate about their motives and the effects of their words and actions. Good day. And by the way, when you say to just 'stick with the facts,' you are ignoring appeals to emotion and ethics, which are valuable and necessary tools for most any kind of political argument, advocacy, activism, etc. The fact that you seem to ignore emotion and ethics in your analysis of current events means that you are missing out on the bigger picture, probably. In any case, it is quite annoying that you would label me a zealot just because I posted a link to an opinion piece extrapolating the motivations of political 'leaders' in the Republican Party that have stated their number one goal in no uncertain terms as the defeat of President Obama. In that context, I don't see how it is too much of a leap to examine each of their political acts as a variation on the same theme of their goal to defeat President Obama.

joshuastarlight · 8 months

The only overreaction I see related to the article is the overreaction of readers to the title of the article ... It has been mainstream GOP policy to oppose all stimulus efforts over the past three years, except of course for bailing out Wall Street, but that was before President Obama took office, and even that was a tough sell for George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, and John Boehner to their fellow Republicans ...

joshuastarlight

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login