The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
" There is a hidden assumption in Houblon's statement: it is the assertion that there must be some evil in the equation, whether that be money, military power, ethnic...etc."
Please, let me explain.
Yes, there is a hidden evil in the equation. It is a result of two facts of our existence: 1. Our finite lives; 2. The finite life resources.
The first fact makes us greedy. Everyone carries this notion in his or her subconscious that, someday, they will no longer be. Religious folks have their belief in afterlife to fall back upon, but you have to be REALLY religious to truly believe in that, I think. In any case, there is always some doubt.
The second fact, combined with the greedy nature of man (due to the first fact) causes us to realize that life is not a zero-sum game. Since times immemorial the humanity had struggled with the idea of equality for all, and every time it failed for this simple reason: We are too greedy and too cognizant of the fact that the resources and experiences we crave are not enough for everybody.
This is the true evil. The rest is just consequences.
cmcrgl: You also say "The contention of OWS, as I observe it, is that such a system "works" only for the very few, the 1% at the very top." I do not believe this is correct. To understand what works and what doesn't you have to define first what you regard as "works." If for OWS protesters it doesn't "work" because they cannot find a job with a degree in visual arts anymore - that is what they have to protest, not a vague perception that the world is not just. To me, personally - it "works" because I can pay a plumber to have a leaky faucet fixed in a matter of hours, not days or weeks, as it used to be in Soviet Union where even plumber's services were regulated by the government, and everyone had to wait their turn for his visit. And, no, you couldn't buy your way out of this, either - first, you didn't have enough money beyond what the government deemed sufficient for you (given all of the free services it already provided), and second - it was illegal to pay the plumber, who was - like everybody else - on the government/state payroll.
"clickk wrote:
I support the intent of the OWS folks but we as a country have a democratic system that is the envy of the world. Have these people voted at all? Are they registered? Voting apathy in this country is ridiculous. Isn't there a way to work in the system now? I agree that the system is corrupt but it is that way because we allow it to be that way. All the money in the world in a campaign is worthless if the candidate does not get the votes. And the only people who can vote are people, not corporations.
November 16, 2011 - 10:31 am"
My, my, my, wouldn't Diane and some of the Panelist's fine talk sound pathetic if the Subject had been the Protests of the Arab Spring??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Teece Bowman: "But that was not Socialism, that was State Controlled Totaltarianism"
But that's just the thing! Socialism always leads to the State Controlled Totalitarianism, because at its core it is an unnatural philosophy that leads to oppression.
It may be possible to create a semblance of a socialist-like system that would be stable, but only in the societies that are very homogeneous, with history of internal accord, and with cultural predilection for modesty and moderation. Case in point: Nordic countries.
In the United States - just like in Russia, or China - any attempt at socialism has a great chance of turning into a violet, oppressive system with significant internal strife.
"the idea of equality for all, and every time it failed for this simple reason: We are too greedy and too cognizant of the fact that the resources and experiences we crave are not enough for everybody".
Then we are in for dark times ahead. I would very much like to hope for better out of humanity than a greedy scratching existence.
houblon,
"It may be possible to create a semblance of a socialist-like system that would be stable, but only in the societies that are very homogeneous, with history of internal accord, and with cultural predilection for modesty and moderation. Case in point: Nordic countries."
Your contention being that we are too primitive, uneducated and morally debased for egalitarianism to function? Again, then we are in for dark times indeed because I do not think that this is the dream that Americans signed up for. Least not the bill of goods that they've been sold since the craddle.
nm31879: You wrote "That means sometimes passing legislation that goes against lobbyists' and business interests because it is better for the country as a whole and not just for the minority that can pay you the most money. That is why money is not a good arbiter for assigning the podium "
I do not believe that there exists even one single issue on which we will all agree that "it is better for the country as a whole," especially if to provide for realization of it the money would have to be taken from someone else.
This is just it: In a country as diverse as the United States, there is always a plurality of opinion about what is best for you, for me, for the Johnsons, etc - there's no consensus as to what is best for the ENTIRE country. And there shouldn't be, in my opinion.
It's not a perfect system but the one that works. Please, give me an example of a better system that exist(-ed) that you would prefer to the one we have in this country now.
Teece Bowman: "Your contention being that we are too primitive, uneducated and morally debased for egalitarianism to function? "
I wouldn't put it so harshly - but, in principle, yes, it is the nature of man that you should be decrying, not the evil corporations that seduced the pure and upright man to lead a life of greed and injustice to others.
We learned this lesson in Soviet Russia over the period of 70 years, which had started from the same premise that I see in OWS protesters' words now. Please, don't be too arrogant to ignore this lesson here.
houblon:
If I understand you correctly, the OWS movement protests the lack of opportunity afforded to the "disenfranchised."
I disagree with this notion. The question that needs to be asked, in my opinion, is not "do they lack the opportunity?," but "do they want an opportunity?"
---------
No the OWS movement protest the inequity in power distribution.
Much as the medieval period was dominated by a landed aristocracy who controlled the mechanisms of power and the political structure things are heading in such a direction now.
Instead of an aristocracy, we have global corporate plutocracy where global entities use their extreme concentration of wealth to insure for themselves even greater wealth. No individual citizen or even group of citizens has much ability to have their voices heard.
Our democratic republic was founded on the principles of the enlightenment and was setup to define and perpetuate an individual humans rights and obligations as relates to a government which derives its powerbase and mandate from the people. This is the system which is being co-opted by global corporate entities.
And most of the people you impugn by questioning their motivations simply because they are not happy with the status quo are doing so because they see an evolving problem which needs to be addressed. It is in the finest tradition of our democracy to take to the streets to change things. To not do so would be negligent and confirm that you agree with the way things are or are too lazy to make you voice heard.
What you are arguing is that it is better to allow the wolves to police themselves in the henhouse, because they can afford to pay for the luxury and have every right to employ their privilege to this end. It's ludicrous in an age where we can employ science, reason, logic, common sense and yes, even DEMOCRACY by giving the people affected, (the chickens!) the vote as to whether they want to be policed by the wolves. For example, studies can be employed to demonstrate the environmental impact of say, fracking, and then we can create legislation to minimize that impact on the citizens that live in the areas where fracking occurs and/or allow them to choose if they support fracking in their area. The energy companies themselves have proved themselves incapable of putting such regulation in place -- the result: flammable water; and the politicians have no incentive to enable this process, b/c of the corruption of corporate money which keeps them from funding sources to study this problem.
As to your larger point that it is a system that works, I invite you to consider the enormous period of growth after the great depression when markets were 'regulated' and our banking system was made both 'boring' and the envy of the entire world. I invite you to look at the protests breaking out all over the US as proof that the system is not working, but instead collapsing in on itself and begging for reform.
well said paikinator!
Yes go be homeless and broke and hungry for the hollow daze 'ONE' ELSEwhere will still blame OCCUPY voices= st00pid ppl) for depressing sales NOT the legally purchased US raided development economic/engine...
Compliance is mandatory or you will be imprisoned in 'temporary' tent housing under overpasses... ignore contradiction PLS apologies.. overheating...
Hmmmm... also NOT in budget... Soylent Green I at maximum already...
need additional educational and infrastructure and labor cost reductions until tinkling- er- trickling job cr8tors suckcede... ALU error 403
error 403... with the passage of the last 9-11 mergency powers with the again protect the IP and not people act is enacted(Protect IP last byte of Patriot Act powers... with simple virtual switch- just like Syria... you will be spared additional contact from US until others home/ office/ cell broken into virtually or physically AS current method will no longer be allowed/ possible for communication. Yes count the blessings children.
Like our radio or television which- also NO longer work though NOT broken... technology could help the world... OR datamine/ rape- er- reap- er- correction- rape the Special Green Individual(SGI)...
But we are just crazy ex- Special Government Issue employee from 1974(terminated 2004 not allowed to discuss under part of new law allowing- er- allaying fears from 911- all IT costs more privacy and liberty- what a deal for corporate profit- pays to be most valuable opinion/ owners) and NOW just a crazy, obsolete, electroeelctronmechengtechnician, multi-lingual, student and instructor of SHIT(Special High Intensity Training), homeless veteran, 'retired' hero.
US go away... to O C C U P Y- until the scoopers and rollers arrive. Rollers recent tech- don't ask.
Dear Diane,
What if "Louie the Bookie" placed bets on a Central Park horse that draws a carriage to win the Kentucky Derby? His "employers" would close down his "operation". Yet, Wall Street Brokers, with $1,500 suits, used Junk Bonds, called them AAA Bonds, to place bets and put municipalities throughout this country at risk. And Government officials wonder why people are gathering to express their outrage?
Bankers once were the community pillars; the engineers who steered this country's enterprises to successes. Now, bankers glorify themselves when their bets fleeced Americans and eviscerated whole communities.
The Centers for Disease Control tracks down and isolates toxic and infectious substances; Wall Street breeds and spreads toxic substances it calls assets.
It's time we clean up Wall Street and make America's economy healthy and vibrant, again.
The "Occupiers" are saying "Let Americans -- businesses, communities and families exhibit their resourcefulness -- and not be shut out and fleeced, with a bleak future institutionalized by the Wall Street Barons."
Thank you.
paikinator- well versed. Only objection important though
problem evolved nicely. Unnicely. ER- you know wtf IT is about people or or profit... like your healthcare... problem... NOT about people. Again.
Free choice vital for evolvolution/ revealnation/revelation... dang temporal vortices effect lingual babelfish...
Check the owners manual if any additional questions. USed to be located in your shrines to US.
Loved the seafood- was IT really that profitable to eradicate??? Still proud of fyords... both virtual and physical to include variations on spelllings
US may be found at your shelters, legal or not, and take note of those who 'break' man's law for older ways... not profitable... but US repeat US.
US know the time and places BUT dad/mother said not to 'rush' IT... lawyers most of all deserve a last chance MORE than the other ninety eight... almost 99). And need IT most.
Cannot wait to visIT again... in person(s)... openly... US brothers and sisters... all.
By the pyres US will feast !
yes show the peoples AR-15's and... wait not tea party rally... ok show all the other RIOT equipment of people- watch out for that cardboard boxtent! Dangerous cell USe/ reporters too! Cameras- seize thewm! BAn them! Protect the people and their 'free' press(REAL cost now beginning to be tallied- again) at the MOSTLY peaceful encampment for the ill, unwashed, unemployed. too veteran, too broke, and some others who CAN go home to feed, shower, 'medicate', etc...
Jane Adams would be proud of some... shamed on a few... coverage of the benefits of special regulated for coporate helath effects GOOD to have in news... and not out of sight...
Give for the hollow daze... REALLY... a better way to be USeful... Soylent Green may look easier... but try... O C C U P Y... ALL 99 flavors!
Houblon:
Could you, please, elaborate?
To me, the political process IS a process of exerting influence. One side wins, another loses. But the rules are the same for everyone, are they not?
-----------------------
Happy to elaborate.
Certainly politics is the process of exerting influence. This has always been the case.
But when one side has all of the political power that is a monarchy, dictatorship, or totalitarian type of system.
The thing our constitution set out to do was break down the winner loser aspect of politics. The document itself was designed to create a new paradigm whereby most of the citizens could win and lead happy productive lives unfettered by the dynamics of power concentration.
The rules have never been the same for everyone up until our constitution. And even with it, we can see that the drive to concentrate power and wealth is still not dissipated.
If Jefferson had been able to add the other amendment to the constitution he tried like 12 times to get passed things would be different.
What amendment was to be included in the bill of rights but was shot down each time?
Freedom from Monopoly!
Even then a contingent of our founders were aware of the danger of the corporate entities and their ability to exert corrupting power on governments and people alike. But even back then shortly after the American Revolution which was the greatest protest against the corrupting influences of a global entitiy (The East India Company) and its ability to secure special favors from the Crown (i.e. No taxes for them but taxes for all of their competitors)..... even after the revolution, the monied interests were still able to keep Jeffersons other right out of the bill of rights.
part 2:
The American Constitution is about everyone winning.
The rules are the same, but practically, money has undue influence. But the constitution wasn't written to preserve the rights of the wealthy and global corporations over the rights of everyone else. That is how it works out since money is corrupting and not neutral as someone put it on these forums.
It seems that you agree that money and power should prevail as a sort of natural order, but this affects you and future generations of your family if you reflected for a moment. Luckily the constitution was put in place to fight against the meaner nature of man and his institutions.
paikinator:
"No the OWS movement protest the inequity in power distribution."
I will say it again, then: inequity is good. Global equality is bad, because what it implies is that everyone gets a little, and, due to the limited nature of our resources (including the power), everyone will get not enough. Then, due to the greedy human nature that I described earlier, people will start to scheme about how to get more - for themselves, for their families, for their communities. They will start assemble into groups. Each group will strive for domination. This strife can be physical and violent, or non-physical and non-violent.
But make no mistake: There will always be inequality and there will always be strife. That's the nature of humanity. To imply otherwise is to either deliberately, or unintentionally lie to yourself and others.
paikinator:
"we have global corporate plutocracy where global entities use their extreme concentration of wealth to insure for themselves even greater wealth."
And that's the natural flow of events, sure. Everyone wants to get richer - both rich and poor. Only the best survive, though. To change this flow of events you would need to change the human nature. Forcibly.
It has been tried before. I, for one, would not recommend it.
nm31879:
"I invite you to consider the enormous period of growth after the great depression "
The rate of growth does not necessarily reflect the healthiness of the system in general. There was no way but up after the Depression. One of the fastest rates of economic growth in the past few years had been in Chad and Azerbaijan. Should we look up to them as models of economic development?
And the War helped, of course.
paikinator:
"The document itself was designed to create a new paradigm whereby most of the citizens could win and lead happy productive lives unfettered by the dynamics of power concentration."
I do not think so. "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" is the idea.
What you wrote is: Everybody wins and lives happily thereafter.
In my opinion - nobody whatsoever can guarantee you (or anyone else) winning and a happy productive life. To want the government to do this for you is a form of a delusion, I think. I do not believe that you actually meant what you wrote, though.
paikinator:
"Luckily the constitution was put in place to fight against the meaner nature of man and his institutions."
In my understanding, the Constitution was written to preclude the possibility of government's intrusion on private affairs of a man and his institutions.
The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the nature of man, but, unlike Lenin and other communist ideologues, they chose not to fight the man.
houblon:
Inequity is not in of itself bad. But gross inequity is also a distortion and when it leads to great stratification of society also not ideal.
Global equality has never been achieved so I fail to see how you can take an ideological hypothetical and make a concrete assessment.
Human Nature, Greed, Scheming are all observable qualities among parts of the population, but don't in and of themselves reasons not to set up egalitarian political structures.
I think that so far the constitution has been a pretty good tool to curb some of the more outrageous human nature we have seen from the dawn of time until the founding of our great country.
I'm not sure how you come to think more of the egalitarian way of life which the constitution tries to set up will be bad for humanity. I think letting humans go unfettered to their baser tendencies without something setting up a better democratic system would be opening the floodgates to more strife.
I don't imply that inequality and strife are not part of the human condition. But they are what we strive to alleviate, not aggravate. Going back to a more feudal way of the world is definitely not progressing to anything except more chaos.
houblon:
The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the nature of man, but, unlike Lenin and other communist ideologues, they chose not to fight the man.
-------
Intersting.
How so?
Seems more like lenin harnessed the baser things in humanity for their own power gain.
They did a bait and switch, but it was too late.
Russians traded one type of bully state for another. Equally tyrannical.
I would say our founder chose to fight and limit the man.
hublon,
I cannot follow your line of reasoning. Moreover, I don't want to. Otherwise I should simply give up and allow the rich to have whatever they want, simply because they are rich? That makes no sense. That is like saying that I should allow the school bully to continue to beat me up every day and take whatever he wants out of my lunch.
No, sorry....I think I would prefer to die than to put up with this. What you paint is a picture of absolutely no hope, simply because the greedy will always get there way. Would you have preferred that the Czars remained in power to what what attempted? God I hope not....
Houblon:
In my understanding, the Constitution was written to preclude the possibility of government's intrusion on private affairs of a man and his institutions.
_______
Well it certainly does that, but it does much much more than that. There are about 5 things the constitution does to define the relationship between individuals and their government... there may be more but I am no scholar on the subject.
Minimally:
It sets up a structure to limit the power by balancing power.
It also talks about the rights and duties of citizens.
It sets up a way for people to have a voice, to change and engage with their government.
Its sets up a way for people to actually have some of the power.
The constitution is not merely to keep the government off of our backs. It is much more nuanced.
The constitution is the pinnacle of enlightenment thinking and philosophy of the age. But it is really just the beginning of things.
And the great thing is that there are mechanisms for changing and improving upon the Constitution.
paikinator:
"I'm not sure how you come to think more of the egalitarian way of life which the constitution tries to set up will be bad for humanity."
I understand egalitarian way of life as providing the opportunity for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." In this context I have nothing against it.
When egalitarianism is used is an excuse to substitute government's involvement for personal responsibility - that's where I draw the line. In my perception, that is what OWS protesters implied in today's show: "right to a home" is a prime example.
"But they are what we strive to alleviate, not aggravate. Going back to a more feudal way of the world is definitely not progressing to anything except more chaos."
Strife cannot be alleviated, only channeled differently. In the past, entire countries were vanquished and peoples enslaved - physically. Nowadays, instead of military invasions and enslavement, it's the global corporations that move in and set up enterprises that employ people there. So, to me, that's progress. But trying to force this progress artificially is not possible. We have to evolve, not be "led to happiness with an iron fist."
paikinator:
"How so?
Seems more like lenin harnessed the baser things in humanity for their own power gain."
The communists of the 1917 and until approximately the end of WWII truly believed that a man's nature could be changed. They deliberately exterminated the rich and the nobility and established a system under which, they hoped, a "new man" will be born. A man who will not care about the material things, a man who will have no possessions, a man who will be cared for by the government and give everything to the government. No money, no possessions, no unsatisfied needs, no inequality, no strife. A paradise.
So, private enterprise was punished, services portioned and regulated, rights for basic needs (home, job, medical care) enshrined as government's responsibility and any striving for more strictly prohibited.
Within years all production shriveled, food shortages appeared and the infrastructure crumbled: People did not have the incentive to work if everything was taken from them and only basic equal portions handed back by the government. All worked equal hours, all got exact same amount of money that could buy exact same amount of staples. Thus, the greed and inequality were eliminated.
Then the Military Communism era began.
"I understand egalitarian way of life as providing the opportunity for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness." In this context I have nothing against it."
Excellent. I also concur.
---------------
"When egalitarianism is used is an excuse to substitute government's involvement for personal responsibility - that's where I draw the line. In my perception, that is what OWS protesters implied in today's show: "right to a home" is a prime example."
I would have to ask them what they meant. It is not an automatic that "right to a home" is bad.
If they are saying we don't want our fellow citizens to be out on the street with no roof over their head, I would have to say that is a good goal. How we get to that as an end can be decided by votes. We as a society get to vote on basically any way we want our country structured, what our government does..... or at least that is the way it should be. Too often it is not, and people rarely get to decide much. The decisions are made by the wallets.