Black Bloc Tactics Contaminating Occupy Oakland

[Seth]

Nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for it. What you're actually saying is that someone other than the person receiving the benefit should be forced to pay for the benefit which may not benefit them much, if at all.

? That would pretty much equate everything. I have no kids, I pay for elementary school, I have never phoned the cops, I pay for them...never had a fire, rarely go to the doctor, have never supported a war canaduh has been involved in. I still pay for all of those things.

Why do you pay for all these things? And why, if you never use them, should you pay for them. And why, if you pay for them and object to doing so, don't you actually object to doing so rather than just paying like an obedient proletarian slave? And if you don't mind paying for those things, why do you not just do so and not insist that OTHER PEOPLE pay for them as well without objecting to it?

What your saying is we shouldn't, regardless?

Setting aside for the moment your strawman argument of conflating all sorts of other things in with the issue of college educations, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you think you should, then by all means do so, but don't demand that I do so if I don't think I should, and don't use the blunt instrument of force that is the Mace of State to forcibly extract what you think I ought to be paying for such services. Let me decide if I want to make use of those services or not, and pay for them a la carte if I do.

Every person for themselves? Not the kind of society I would like to live in at all, especially considering no one starts on an even playing field. That sounds ludicrous. I suppose if everyone began life at the same staring point. Even still...

Back to the strawman I see. Arguing that college educations should be obtained at the expense of the person getting the education is hardly the same thing as "every person for themselves," which is the particular canard you're tossing out here.

Would it? I think it would be a tremendous waste of money and effort to give people who aren't willing to work for the privilege and value they are obtaining something of such tremendous value.

willing to work? What does that mean? Some of the poorest people on the planet work the hardest yet could never afford a university education. So, yes, it would be "worth it". A highly educated population (I mean, lets face it, even with a free university education, not all people would go that route or finish a degree) would be beneficial to the whole society.

It means exactly what it says. And just because you work hard doesn't mean you need a college education. In fact, in many cases a college education is a detriment to a worker who does not have the skills to do other than menial labor because it makes them dissatisfied, unruly and poor employees. That's why your local burger joint won't hire an out-of-work MBA to flip burgers. Such overqualified employees are more trouble than they are worth in such jobs.

University needs to be reserved for those who can really make productive use of the education, not those who just want the sheepskin but haven't the capacity or drive to make use of it, as demonstrated by the willingness to go deeply into debt and then spend a lifetime exploiting the education to make money, be productive, and pay off that debt.

Thing is, we need firemen, cops and the military

Not so, at least not in the current amount. We could do with far less cops and military.

And so why shouldn't we vote with our wallets as to how much military or police protection we need by making contributions to the military and the police voluntary? And what does that have to do with giving slackers a free public college education anyway?

College is for the best, those willing to work a lifetime to repay the investment society makes in giving them that education, and loading them up with debt is a great way to make sure they persevere and prosper.

no, college is for everyone who is willing to work hard enough to earn a degree.

If they want to pay for it themselves, yeah. If they want me to pay for it, then I'm only paying for the very best and brightest who will make proper use of the education and not waste it and fritter away my money. But I'm not paying for any more Liberal Arts degrees, or Law degrees, ever. We've got too many useless liberal artists and lawyers, it's time to thin the ranks for a couple of generations before allowing anyone to even take such courses again. We need to focus exclusively on the hard sciences for about the next 100 years.

[amok]

Seth wrote:
Nothing is free. Somebody has to pay for it. What you're actually saying is that someone other than the person receiving the benefit should be forced to pay for the benefit which may not benefit them much, if at all.

Sandinista wrote:
? That would pretty much equate everything. I have no kids, I pay for elementary school, I have never phoned the cops, I pay for them...never had a fire, rarely go to the doctor, have never supported a war canaduh has been involved in. I still pay for all of those things. What your saying is we shouldn't, regardless? Every person for themselves? Not the kind of society I would like to live in at all, especially considering no one starts on an even playing field. That sounds ludicrous. I suppose if everyone began life at the same staring point. Even still...

Thank you. I don't really agree that post-secondary education should be entirely free, but I believe it should be HIGHLY subsidized with my tax dollars. That's my choice. My education was subsidized by the taxpayers of my parents' generation, and I'm now subsidizing the education of other children with my tax dollars. I don't have children of my own, but I value having educated (other people's) children in my society.

Seth wrote re: post-secondary education:
If they want to pay for it themselves, yeah. If they want me to pay for it, then I'm only paying for the very best and brightest who will make proper use of the education and not waste it and fritter away my money.

I agree that the best and brightest deserve extra subsidies. I'm not too sure of how we'd go about determining that, though. And I also think it's a good investment to subsidize the general post-secondary education pool, both on the off chance that some high-school screw-up finds her/his niche and discovers the magic bullet for cancer or whatnot, and on the more-likely chance that an average high-schooler finds a niche that contributes in a less dramatic manner, but still in a way that benefits society as a whole.

Seth wrote:
But I'm not paying for any more Liberal Arts degrees, or Law degrees, ever. We've got too many useless liberal artists and lawyers, it's time to thin the ranks for a couple of generations before allowing anyone to even take such courses again. We need to focus exclusively on the hard sciences for about the next 100 years.

No, it's not time to thin the ranks before allowing (allowing? really? allowing?) anyone to even take such courses again. It may be time to take a serious look at secondary school curriculae (and intensity), as well as streaming, to enable both our poets and scientists to land on their feet. This allowing thing, though. Very odd.

[Warren Dew]

I panicked more when I saw Schneibster's name pop up on the list here.

I kind of like seeing sandinista again, though.

[sandinista]

I panicked more when I saw Schneibster's name pop up on the list here.

I kind of like seeing sandinista again, though.

Thanks, I don't know if I give a shit enough to bother posting too often.

[Coito ergo sum]

Because a post secondary education should be free.

Like I said -- it's about free stuff.

That's not so radical, it's an idea that would be a great benefit to society.

Sure it is. It's not even free in Europe.

It also wouldn't be "free", it would be paid for with taxes.

Not just taxes. In the UK, they have to spend, I'm told, thousands of pounds out of pocket, in addition to those taxes, to go to school. Here, there are plenty of schools that cost under $2000 a semester to get an o.k. college degree. And, there are lots of ways to get financial aid already. Poor people can already get most of their college degrees paid for, and non-poor people can afford most of it themselves, but can still get some grants and student loans for the rest.

The same way that taxes pay for cops, fire departments, elementary schools, the military, and health care. I would support free post secondary education. I don't see that as being about "free stuff" any more than having a "free" military or fire department.

We already have school up through the age of 18, and we already have lots of assistance for people who need assistance to attend college, and we have many more universities and colleges per capita than most other countries. There are lots of options at all price points, plus financial aid. The idea that people can't go to college for reasonable sums is a lie. They may not be able to go to COLUMBIA or GEORGETOWN or Ivy League schools, but they can go to schools. Often, if they are good enough students, they can get free rides to top schools, though.

Not so nefarious as that. Just what you've admitted to. It's anti-capitalist at bottom. Most of the supporters ignore that or are in denial.

what makes you say that? "most of"? How do you know, have you seen or done a poll? Are you getting your information from corporate news networks or state news sources? Where are you getting this from?

Experience. What do you care? You agree with me that it is anticapitalist. What you seem to be claiming is that the majority of people want a non-capitalist economic system set up. I'm not getting that from what I'm hearing from people around the forum or from watching the news. It's not like Socialism is a popular term in the US, even today.

It's the corporate media you refer to - the FoxNews stuff - that make the allegation that the movement is anticapitalist. You seem to agree with that.

My position is only that the the rank-and-file - Johnny Q. Public - don't think of themselves as anticapitalist. Lots of people I've talked to have said that when Fox News and Glenn Beck say that they are anticapitalist, it is a scurrilous slander. They are for reform, not elimination of capitalism. That is the sense I get from the information I have. I will certainly admit that I could be wrong. Maybe the whole movement is rabidly anticapitalist and openly and unapologetically so. Could be. I've heard that denied, though. Maybe it's denied when the allegation comes from the conservative media, but admitted in other contexts?

[sandinista]

Like I said -- it's about free stuff.

Like I said, I don't know if I give a shit enough to counter such obviously ignorant responses. It's not free, it's paid for with taxes, are cops free, fire departments, road services? FFS.

Sure it is. It's not even free in Europe.

and what the fuck does europe have to do with anything? Who cares?

what makes you say that? "most of"? How do you know, have you seen or done a poll? Are you getting your information from corporate news networks or state news sources? Where are you getting this from?



Experience. What do you care?

yah..experience...holy fuck that's funny. I'm sure you've experienced a lot of the protests and meetings with OWS. Try again.

Lots of people I've talked to have said that when Fox News and Glenn Beck say that they are anticapitalist, it is a scurrilous slander. They are for reform, not elimination of capitalism.

and lots of people I talk to say the movement is anti capitalist and could give a fuck what fox news says...who the fuck cares what fox news says? Like I've said ad nauseum, there are reformists, anti-capitalists, revolutionaries and all kinds. You can't (as you seem to like to) paint the whole movement of millions of people as "lazy hippys who want free stuff and break windows". That's simply bullshit.

Maybe the whole movement is rabidly anticapitalist and openly and unapologetically so

Not the whole movement, but large parts of it.

Could be. I've heard that denied, though. Maybe it's denied when the allegation comes from the conservative media, but admitted in other contexts?

Denied by someone...who cares? When you're dealing with large amounts of people, not everyone will agree.

[Coito ergo sum]

Like I said -- it's about free stuff.

Like I said, I don't know if I give a shit enough to counter such obviously ignorant responses. It's not free, it's paid for with taxes, are cops free, fire departments, road services? FFS.

The people that are asking for the handouts are not going to be the ones paying the taxes, for the most part.

Criminy, you act like if someone demanded "have the government pay for my house, car and food bills! Now! No Justice no Peace!" It wouldn't be asking for "free stuff" because the government would be using tax money to fund their bills. FFS.

Sure it is. It's not even free in Europe.

and what the fuck does europe have to do with anything? Who cares?

Nobody has "free" college. It's unworkable and impractical. And, the countries have tried to have the government pay for college for anyone who goes -- they wind up increasing the student fees over time, until they're starting to pay what they would have been paying anyway, maybe somewhat less, but ultimately the overall cost goes up.

I'd prefer the brat who is bitching about their Columbia school of social work degree costing $150,000 in loans -- well, I'd prefer they just go to community college or maybe an inexpensive State 4-year program.

what makes you say that? "most of"? How do you know, have you seen or done a poll? Are you getting your information from corporate news networks or state news sources? Where are you getting this from?



Experience. What do you care?

yah..experience...holy fuck that's funny. I'm sure you've experienced a lot of the protests and meetings with OWS. Try again.

Yes, to some degree.

Lots of people I've talked to have said that when Fox News and Glenn Beck say that they are anticapitalist, it is a scurrilous slander. They are for reform, not elimination of capitalism.

and lots of people I talk to say the movement is anti capitalist and could give a fuck what fox news says...who the fuck cares what fox news says? Like I've said ad nauseum, there are reformists, anti-capitalists, revolutionaries and all kinds. You can't (as you seem to like to) paint the whole movement of millions of people as "lazy hippys who want free stuff and break windows". That's simply bullshit.

What the fuck are you even arguing about? We AGREE -- your dumb movement is blatantly anti-capitalist. I know it. You're preaching to the choir.

I can paint it as I see it. You have no problem "painting" Republicans, Libertarians, and other "groups" with a broad brush. I've seen you do it.

I'm just making a generalized statement of what I see. That's how that dumb group comes across to me. They are selfish, spoiled, crybabies, who are out having fun sleeping and getting high in the park. I've been through OWS groups in three cities, New York included. I see what is going on there.

Maybe the whole movement is rabidly anticapitalist and openly and unapologetically so

Not the whole movement, but large parts of it.

Good - so our bone of contention is whether the bulk of the douchebags are anticapitalist or not. I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. If you say they are mostly anticapitalist, maybe you are right. It's not what I see, because I see so many people getting upset when they are accused of being anticapitalist. If they were anticapitalist, then I would think they'd say "well, yeah - of course - capitalism sucks." "Large parts" of the movement appear to be disingenuous, though, trying to mask their true agenda by pretending "we're not really anticapitalist - we're anticorruption" etc.

Could be. I've heard that denied, though. Maybe it's denied when the allegation comes from the conservative media, but admitted in other contexts?

Denied by someone...who cares? When you're dealing with large amounts of people, not everyone will agree.

So, on what basis do you claim to generalize that most of them are openly anticapitalist?

I mean, when I give you my experience, you say that it doesn't matter it's just my experience. Yours, however, you claim is the accurate depiction of the movement. On what basis?

[sandinista]

The people that are asking for the handouts are not going to be the ones paying the taxes, for the most part.

not true, and not "hand outs". Why would they not be paying taxes? What are you on about?

Nobody has "free" college. It's unworkable and impractical.

again, not true. It is completely workable and practical. Especially in a country like the US where half the military budget would cover it easily...half? haha, more like a small percentage.

your dumb movement is blatantly anti-capitalist.

again...wrong, not in any sense "my movement" or "dumb".

They are selfish, spoiled, crybabies, who are out having fun sleeping and getting high in the park.

again..wrong. Not too surprising though.

If you say they are mostly anticapitalist

I'm not even saying that. Some? Most? I really don't know, I haven't talked to enough people or seen any type of platform, basically because there is none. Which is why this is vastly different than painting conservatives or democrats with a large brush...they do have a platform.

It's not what I see, because I see so many people getting upset when they are accused of being anticapitalist.

bullshit. So many? like what 10 people? what is so many?

"Large parts" of the movement appear to be disingenuous, though, trying to mask their true agenda by pretending "we're not really anticapitalist - we're anticorruption" etc.

? large parts? Again, where are you getting these numbers from. I suspect your ass.

So, on what basis do you claim to generalize that most of them are openly anticapitalist?

Did I say "most"? If so, I will retract that, I really don't know.

[Coito ergo sum]

The people that are asking for the handouts are not going to be the ones paying the taxes, for the most part.

not true, and not "hand outs". Why would they not be paying taxes? What are you on about?

Almost half the population doesn't pay any income tax. The rest is property tax (which is mostly school funding, and local roads and town/county infrastructure) and state sales tax.

Nobody has "free" college. It's unworkable and impractical.

again, not true. It is completely workable and practical. Especially in a country like the US where half the military budget would cover it easily...half? haha, more like a small percentage.

Why don't you just concentrate on Canada, since that's where you're from?

your dumb movement is blatantly anti-capitalist.

again...wrong, not in any sense "my movement" or "dumb".

On the later point, it is dumb. It's pointless, and a waste of time and energy. It's a valueless movement of capons, as evidenced by them running off back to mom's basement and the dorm room when it got chilly.

Where is today's Abbie Hoffman and the Chicago 7. I have a feeling they'd not want much to do with this OWS movement.

They are selfish, spoiled, crybabies, who are out having fun sleeping and getting high in the park.

again..wrong. Not too surprising though.

How would you describe them?

If you say they are mostly anticapitalist

I'm not even saying that. Some? Most? I really don't know, I haven't talked to enough people or seen any type of platform, basically because there is none. Which is why this is vastly different than painting conservatives or democrats with a large brush...they do have a platform.

Oh, they have a platform. They make all sorts of pronouncements, and then disavow them when called to the carpet on them. "Oh, that's not what we stand for, that's just what that single person stands for." If the movement doesn't stand for anything, and doesn't have a platform, then what kind of movement is it? How is "dumb" not a proper descriptor? They're just a bunch of dissatisfied people complaining about different stuff? Sounds pretty dumb.

It's not what I see, because I see so many people getting upset when they are accused of being anticapitalist.

bullshit. So many? like what 10 people? what is so many?

What's your problem? Let's assume it was only a few people, right? O.k. -- so, we are still in agreement that the movement is a bunch of fucking anticapitalists, right? You said it. My only difference on it was that I thought - from my experience - that the bulk of the movement - the rank and file - did not see themselves as anticapitalist, but rather as protesting corruption in general. You're like "no way man! No way!" Well o.k. -- so --I'll come over to the other side of the coin -- the bulk of the movement is staunchly anticapitalist. Great.

Or, your third option - we just don't know - some are anticapitalist - some aren't - others are this, others are that - they have no platform - the movement really doesn't believe in anything in particular.

Which is it?

"Large parts" of the movement appear to be disingenuous, though, trying to mask their true agenda by pretending "we're not really anticapitalist - we're anticorruption" etc.

? large parts? Again, where are you getting these numbers from. I suspect your ass.

Where are you getting your opinion of the movement?

I get mine from various news reports on radio, television, and on the internet, and I have also been to three cities with reasonably large hives of OWS-ers. I've seen their signs. I've heard their words. I've heard the speakers with microphones at events they have held. If I can't go by what they say and the signs they hold, etc., what is it that I should look to?

So, on what basis do you claim to generalize that most of them are openly anticapitalist?

Did I say "most"? If so, I will retract that, I really don't know.

Right, so, we don't know what they believe or advocate right? No platform -- ideas all over the map, yes? Sounds like a stupid movement.

"What do we want?!"

"Lots of different stuff, depending on who you talk to!"

"When do we want it?!"

"Depends on the person and what it is they're asking for!"

"1, 2, 3, 4!"
"Some of us don't want your fucking capitalism but others of us don't mind it so much but want it fixed!"

[Ronja]

Sure it is. It's not even free in Europe.

and what the fuck does europe have to do with anything? Who cares?

Nobody has "free" college. It's unworkable and impractical.

Zing! Welcome to Finland, the home of the "unworkable and impractical" in that case. I have not paid one red cent for either a college or a university level course/class/module (whatever they are called in you neck of the woods).

Coito, you really should read up on stuff before you make such strong, absolute claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_educa ... _education

[Coito ergo sum]

Sure it is. It's not even free in Europe.

and what the fuck does europe have to do with anything? Who cares?

Nobody has "free" college. It's unworkable and impractical.

Zing! Welcome to Finland, the home of the "unworkable and impractical" in that case. I have not paid one red cent for either a college or a university level course/class/module (whatever they are called in you neck of the woods).

Coito, you really should read up on stuff before you make such strong, absolute claims. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_educa ... _education

I don't have time to read up on nearly 200 countries in the world. I should have qualified my comment so as not to make it absolute. With all due respect, what Finland does is not particularly relevant. It's the equivalent of a small US State. Maybe Wisconsin or South Carolina. Finland is like 95% homogenous ethnically, and is isolated, with an economy 80 times smaller than than the US.

I'm sure it's wonderful there and works well for you, but Finland is a very isolated exception.

[Ronja]

To clarify, this is the list that the Wikipedia link pointed at:

This is not a complete list, and only countries discussed in the article are mentioned.
Argentina
Brazil
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hungary
Malta
Morocco
Norway
Scotland
Sri Lanka
Sweden
Trinidad and Tobago
Barbados
Kenya

Are Argentina, Brazil, Kenya and Morocco also very isolated exceptions, with very homogeneous populations and very small economies?

[Coito ergo sum]

You think university in, say, Brazil is "free?"

Come on -- look - I don't even have to look that one up, Ronja. In Brazil, they do have free public universities -- for about 1 or 2 % of applicants - almost nobody in Brazil can go to public universities. Those very few public universities are paid for by the State, but it is only the top students who get to go there. Anyone not meeting their extremely high entrance requirements is not allowed in at all and is relegated to the private system, which is fee based. The system in the US is way better than Brazil, because we have universities in all price ranges, from very expensive down to next to nothing. And, students going to any school are eligible for federal and state grants, guaranteed loans, scholarships and other sources of aid.

Do I really need to go look into the Kenyan, Morroccan and Argentinian systems? Third world countries? Really?

Kenya -- it isn't free. Kenyan universities accept only persons with at least the equivalent of a B+ average in their primary schooling. LOL. And, if they are accepted to the State run universities, they get a loan to pay for it which they are expected to pay back. Big flippin' deal.

[Coito ergo sum]

[sandinista]

First off, good work Ronja, it appears you care more than me about pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

Almost half the population doesn't pay any income tax. The rest is property tax (which is mostly school funding, and local roads and town/county infrastructure) and state sales tax.

I never specified what kind of taxes, what are you on about?

What's your problem? Let's assume it was only a few people, right? O.k. -- so, we are still in agreement that the movement is a bunch of fucking anticapitalists, right?

some anticapitalists, some revolutionaries, some reformists etc. What's the problem?

from my experience - that the bulk of the movement - the rank and file - did not see themselves as anticapitalist, but rather as protesting corruption in general. You're like "no way man! No way!" Well o.k. -- so --I'll come over to the other side of the coin -- the bulk of the movement is staunchly anticapitalist. Great.

Your experience doesn't count for much.

Or, your third option - we just don't know - some are anticapitalist - some aren't - others are this, others are that - they have no platform - the movement really doesn't believe in anything in particular.

Which is it?

I don't know, it's not a homogenous group.

Right, so, we don't know what they believe or advocate right? No platform -- ideas all over the map, yes? Sounds like a stupid movement.

Not stupid, young. It's a young movement, a developing movement. The important part, at the moment, is that there IS a movement, period. I'm willing to let it develop and grow into something.

ing! Welcome to Finland, the home of the "unworkable and impractical" in that case. I have not paid one red cent for either a college or a university level course/class/module (whatever they are called in you neck of the woods).

Coito, you really should read up on stuff before you make such strong, absolute claims.

I love Finland! Coito read up on something and not just gather his info from corporate news sources? Come on, that's asking a little much.

With all due respect, what Finland does is not particularly relevant.

Of course it's not "relevant" it directly counters your immature, unfounded, and at times delusional opinions.