Occupy Wall Street Movement: An American Spring

[NotNow]

These Liberals taught us how to deal with the likes of the East India Trading Company and a self righteous ruling class.



Finally some Americans are heeding their lessons and trying to defend Western Liberal Democracy.

I would be interested in what you think those lessons were?

[JeffreyS]

That individuals matter.

[JeffreyS]

Seriously, that people are the most important part of the equation.  The government should be of, for and by the people not corporations. Corporations should be seen as tools for people'.   Corporation's success should not be the end goal people's success should. Well regulated capitalism is the best system so far to float the most boats.

[NotNow]

My question was serious as well.  I also believe that government should be of, for and by the people.  Those that make $250,000 or more per year are people as well. 

I have not criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement.  They have every right to express their opinions, whatever they may be and however wide ranging they might be.  I see many of the same problems they see, although I may differ in what I see as the solutions.  Challenging authority often results in positive change.

I was curious as to how you believe that the founding fathers would have viewed what the OWS folks see as the problems.  I would disagree that they would agree with the idea of a "well regulated democracy".  I think they would have been much more creative than we have been in ensuring that multi-national corporations do not take away the liberty of the people economically or any other way.

[BridgeTroll]

Speaking of revolt... Is that the endgame here?

[FayeforCure]

Speaking of revolt... Is that the endgame here?

No, we want a rising tide that lifts all boats..........not just the boats yachts of the 1percenters.

[NotNow]

NotNow, if you follow the historical clues that Jeffrey has already mentioned, you will find out exactly how the Founding Fathers viewed the 'problems' that the OWS movement cares about.

They revolted, partially for the same reasons.  Look up the history of the South Sea Company.

Could you list the "same reasons" that you speak of?  I'm not clear as to what causes or problems the early US and the OWS movement have in common.  I am also unclear as to what your reference to the South Sea Company is.  Exactly what about the South Sea Company are your referring to?

[NotNow]

Speaking of revolt... Is that the endgame here?

No, we want a rising tide that lifts all boats..........not just the boats yachts of the 1percenters.

Of course, we all want that, the question is how can such a thing be promoted? 

[north miami]

Simple.

Conservative principles grasped by the Left.

The Right scorched by the Republican Party/ "GeorgeW"   

......a void to Occupy.

[NotNow]

Huh?

[NotNow]

Speaking of revolt... Is that the endgame here?

No, we want a rising tide that lifts all boats..........not just the boats yachts of the 1percenters.

Of course, we all want that, the question is how can such a thing be promoted?

well obviously according to you.  by fuc#*ing the poor and returning to the Articles of Confederation.  Right?

Could we keep the conversation civil and adult? 

[JeffreyS]

My question was serious as well.  I also believe that government should be of, for and by the people.  Those that make $250,000 or more per year are people as well. 

I have not criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement.  They have every right to express their opinions, whatever they may be and however wide ranging they might be.  I see many of the same problems they see, although I may differ in what I see as the solutions.  Challenging authority often results in positive change.

I was curious as to how you believe that the founding fathers would have viewed what the OWS folks see as the problems.  I would disagree that they would agree with the idea of a "well regulated democracy".  I think they would have been much more creative than we have been in ensuring that multi-national corporations do not take away the liberty of the people economically or any other way.

I think they would view corporations as having too much influence and our governments promotion of corporate profits as not having the bang for the buck for our citizens.

[NotNow]

My question was serious as well.  I also believe that government should be of, for and by the people.  Those that make $250,000 or more per year are people as well. 

I have not criticized the Occupy Wall Street movement.  They have every right to express their opinions, whatever they may be and however wide ranging they might be.  I see many of the same problems they see, although I may differ in what I see as the solutions.  Challenging authority often results in positive change.

I was curious as to how you believe that the founding fathers would have viewed what the OWS folks see as the problems.  I would disagree that they would agree with the idea of a "well regulated democracy".  I think they would have been much more creative than we have been in ensuring that multi-national corporations do not take away the liberty of the people economically or any other way.

I think they would view corporations as having too much influence and our governments promotion of corporate profits as not having the bang for the buck for our citizens.

I think they would be shocked at what our government has allowed corporations to morph into, and I agree that they would be very disappointed in the lack of integrity displayed by our government officials (kind of the same thing, in the end).  I also believe that they would be shaking their heads over what we have allowed the banking system to become. 

But the answer does not lie in an even larger and more powerful Federal government, in fact just the opposite.  A return to decentralized power as envisioned by the founding fathers, with common sense state laws would go far in reducing the power of multinationals and their political money.

[dougskiles]

But the answer does not lie in an even larger and more powerful Federal government, in fact just the opposite.  A return to decentralized power as envisioned by the founding fathers, with common sense state laws would go far in reducing the power of multinationals and their political money.

+1  And the same goes from the state to the local.  Less control from the state on education matters and more local control.  To bring the power to the people, we need to have greater ability to influence who our policy makers are.  The best way for that to happen is at the local level.  Will I ever meet our governer or cabinet members?  Not likely.  Without too much effort, I have already met our local leaders and am engaged in regular conversation with them about what we can do to improve Jacksonville.

The stronger our local governments are, the stronger our state will be.  And up the line.  Reform should always start with strengthening the foundation level.

[FayeforCure]

I think they would view corporations as having too much influence and our governments promotion of corporate profits as not having the bang for the buck for our citizens.

I think they would be shocked at what our government has allowed corporations to morph into, and I agree that they would be very disappointed in the lack of integrity displayed by our government officials (kind of the same thing, in the end).  I also believe that they would be shaking their heads over what we have allowed the banking system to become. 

But the answer does not lie in an even larger and more powerful Federal government, in fact just the opposite.  A return to decentralized power as envisioned by the founding fathers, with common sense state laws would go far in reducing the power of multinationals and their political money.

The answer to our national defense, never was a decentralized power..........likewise it would be foolish to decentralize reigning in out of control corporations ( think Rick Scott's cozy ties to his own company).

Listen........the founding fathers were right about identifying some of the dangers that the US faced at the time........and that the US would be facing in the furure, but they were in no position to be prescient enough to lay out solutions to what is happening now.

The only corporation with the kind of brute power that today's corporations have was the East India Company:

The prosperity that the officers of the company enjoyed allowed them to return to Britain and establish sprawling estates and businesses, and to obtain political power. The Company developed a lobby in the English parliament. Under pressure from ambitious tradesmen and former associates of the Company (pejoratively termed Interlopers by the Company), who wanted to establish private trading firms in India, a deregulating act was passed in 1694. This allowed any English firm to trade with India, unless specifically prohibited by act of parliament, thereby annulling the charter that had been in force for almost 100 years.
By an act that was passed in 1698, a new "parallel" East India Company (officially titled the English Company Trading to the East Indies) was floated under a state-backed indemnity of £2 million. The powerful stockholders of the old company quickly subscribed a sum of £315,000 in the new concern, and dominated the new body. The two companies wrestled with each other for some time, both in England and in India, for a dominant share of the trade. It quickly became evident that, in practice, the original Company faced scarcely any measurable competition. The companies merged in 1708, by a tripartite indenture involving both companies and the state. Under this arrangement, the merged company lent to the Treasury a sum of £3,200,000, in return for exclusive privileges for the next three years, after which the situation was to be reviewed. The amalgamated company became the United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies.[17]

In the following decades there was a constant see-saw battle between the Company lobby and the Parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

Sounds pretty familiar now doesn't it?
Where are the people in this equation?

The founding fathers were very explicit about having government of the people, by the people and for the people.

This decentralize everything......local control, while sounding like power is closer to the people, really waters down the power of government over "large bodies" like corporations. Already countries are struggling to maintain power over multi-national corporations as they can easily shift their finances and questionable operations overseas.

To dilute such a huge problem, by advocating "local control" is delusional.

But on a positive note........I think there is major common ground on identifying the major problem that faces the US............the abject power of corporations at the expense of the people, and a government that is bought and paid for by these corporations and thus unable to do anything about it.

We just differ on possible solutions. And thruthfully, without publicly financed campaigns, we will always have corporate owned government that CANNOT by definition do anything to curb brute corporate power.