Video of police brutality from Wall Street protests...

[NYFelon]

I don't think I have ever seen a single post on INGO in support of anarchy Semper. I'm not saying that to be deliberately contrarian. I think you interpret those who espouse a belief in a government which does not enforce a given system of values as promoting anarchy. Saying the tax code is unjust and that certain agencies need be abolished is not promotion of anarchy. Saying that currently, due to the instantaneous availability of live action media with consumer elecronics, police seem to be all too happy to initiate force and that it is wrong for them to do so is not promoting anarchy. Believing that the US has gotten itself involved in far too many complex foreign entanglements and should withdraw is not promotion of anarchy. No one here that I have seen has promoted a winner takes all, might makes right society. Valid criticisms of when our government inceasingly moves away from it's Constitutional constraints and calling for a return to the federal government to operate within it's rigid framework of enumerated powers is not anarchy.

Why do you define these things, which are clearly not anarchy as such? No one has called for no government in any way. They have simply called for a government smaller than you seem to support. How is that anarchy?

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't think I have ever seen a single post on INGO in support of anarchy Semper. I'm not saying that to be deliberately contrarian. I think you interpret those who espouse a belief in a government which does not enforce a given system of values as promoting anarchy. Saying the tax code is unjust and that certain agencies need be abolished is not promotion of anarchy. Saying that currently, due to the instantaneous availability of live action media with consumer elecronics, police seem to be all too happy to initiate force and that it is wrong for them to do so is not promoting anarchy. Believing that the US has gotten itself involved in far too many complex foreign entanglements and should withdraw is not promotion of anarchy. No one here that I have seen has promoted a winner takes all, might makes right society. Valid criticisms of when our government inceasingly moves away from it's Constitutional constraints and calling for a return to the federal government to operate within it's rigid framework of enumerated powers is not anarchy.

Why do you define these things, which are clearly not anarchy as such? No one has called for no government in any way. They have simply called for a government smaller than you seem to support. How is that anarchy?

These protesters beef is that the government isn't big enough yet the hive mind here keeps calling them anarchists.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

These protesters beef is that the government isn't big enough yet the hive mind here keeps calling them anarchists.

No, they want the government to save them from capitalism, then fade off so as not to interfere with their unicorn party.

 

[KLB]

I don't think I have ever seen a single post on INGO in support of anarchy Semper. I'm not saying that to be deliberately contrarian. I think you interpret those who espouse a belief in a government which does not enforce a given system of values as promoting anarchy. Saying the tax code is unjust and that certain agencies need be abolished is not promotion of anarchy. Saying that currently, due to the instantaneous availability of live action media with consumer elecronics, police seem to be all too happy to initiate force and that it is wrong for them to do so is not promoting anarchy. Believing that the US has gotten itself involved in far too many complex foreign entanglements and should withdraw is not promotion of anarchy. No one here that I have seen has promoted a winner takes all, might makes right society. Valid criticisms of when our government inceasingly moves away from it's Constitutional constraints and calling for a return to the federal government to operate within it's rigid framework of enumerated powers is not anarchy.

Why do you define these things, which are clearly not anarchy as such? No one has called for no government in any way. They have simply called for a government smaller than you seem to support. How is that anarchy?

Well said!

 

[hornadylnl]

No, they want the government to save them from capitalism, then fade off so as not to interfere with their unicorn party.

So once capitalism is defeated, who's going to keep tgeir gravy train rolling? The government or the unicorns?

These people have nothing to do with anarchy. Tossing that term around with these protesters is semantic bs just the same as freedom fries. Is anarchist the new McCarthy red?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't think I have ever seen a single post on INGO in support of anarchy Semper. I'm not saying that to be deliberately contrarian. I think you interpret those who espouse a belief in a government which does not enforce a given system of values as promoting anarchy. Saying the tax code is unjust and that certain agencies need be abolished is not promotion of anarchy. Saying that currently, due to the instantaneous availability of live action media with consumer elecronics, police seem to be all too happy to initiate force and that it is wrong for them to do so is not promoting anarchy. Believing that the US has gotten itself involved in far too many complex foreign entanglements and should withdraw is not promotion of anarchy. No one here that I have seen has promoted a winner takes all, might makes right society. Valid criticisms of when our government inceasingly moves away from it's Constitutional constraints and calling for a return to the federal government to operate within it's rigid framework of enumerated powers is not anarchy.

Why do you define these things, which are clearly not anarchy as such? No one has called for no government in any way. They have simply called for a government smaller than you seem to support. How is that anarchy?

I realize you're fairly new to INGO. I've asked the resident anarchists many times over the years to name functions of government they support. I've never gotten an answer, other than to be continually called a statist. That's quite funny given the fact I am all for abolishing about 80% of the federal government and its budget.

I understand the difference between the federal and state governments, their roles, and their empowerments and authorities. When I argue I rarely argue my own point of view - rather I argue how the system is designed to work. There are several government haters that try to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but ignore the fact that the Constitution established a collective of independant and sovereign states and that those states are empowered by their own Constitutions with authorities not possessed by the federal government. They argue against state's rights on the unfounded basis that states are somehow bound to the same restrictions as the federal government. They advocate ignoring laws that they don't like. Lawlessness is a hallmark of anarchism.

I agree with much of the dogma the resident archarists espouse. I just veheminantly disagree with how to get there.

I could go on and on but I really have to do some work today.

Well said!

You're never going to hit your 50 quality posts with brilliant responses like that.

So once capitalism is defeated, who's going to keep tgeir gravy train rolling? The government or the unicorns?

These people have nothing to do with anarchy. Tossing that term around with these protesters is semantic bs just the same as freedom fries. Is anarchist the new McCarthy red?

I'm sure they think the unicorns will.

Not at all. Anarchy would be a great societal system, except that it requires everyone to act like grownups. Anarchy is what we should strive for. It's a very effective form of non-government in many parts of the world. Unfortunately it is unattainable with larger, more complex societies with great specialization. Worldwide, humanoids operated under a system of anarchy for ~ 250 thousand years. Organized rule is a relatively new phenomenom, about 10,000 years old.

You only understand the bad connotation of anarchy. That's why you are ashamed to be called one.

 

[hornadylnl]

I realize you're fairly new to INGO. I've asked the resident anarchists many times over the years to name functions of government they support. I've never gotten an answer, other than to be continually called a statist. That's quite funny given the fact I am all for abolishing about 80% of the federal government and its budget.

I understand the difference between the federal and state governments, their roles, and their empowerments and authorities. When I argue I rarely argue my own point of view - rather I argue how the system is designed to work. There are several government haters that try to wrap themselves in the Constitution, but ignore the fact that the Constitution established a collective of independant and sovereign states and that those states are empowered by their own Constitutions with authorities not possessed by the federal government. They argue against state's rights on the unfounded basis that states are somehow bound to the same restrictions as the federal government. They advocate ignoring laws that they don't like. Lawlessness is a hallmark of anarchism.

I agree with much of the dogma the resident archarists espouse. I just veheminantly disagree with how to get there.

I could go on and on but I really have to do some work today.



You're never going to hit your 50 quality posts with brilliant responses like that.



I'm sure they think the unicorns will.

Not at all. Anarchy would be a great societal system, except that it requires everyone to act like grownups. Anarchy is what we should strive for. It's a very effective form of non-government in many parts of the world. Unfortunately it is unattainable with larger, more complex societies with great specialization. Worldwide, humanoids operated under a system of anarchy for ~ 250 thousand years. Organized rule is a relatively new phenomenom, about 10,000 years old.

You only understand the bad connotation of anarchy. That's why you are ashamed to be called one.

I'm not ashamed at all to be called an anarchist. I fit the definition a billion times better than these protesters do. Words have meaning and by using the word anarchy to shed a bad light on these protesters is a bastardization of the word and you know it. Your personal dislike of the protesters is more important to you. The majority of these protesters want the polar opposite of anarchy. They want cradle to grave government. They just want it in tgeir own tyrannical flavor. For those on the right to call these protesters anarchist, it is nothing more than their attempt to push their flavor of tyranny.

I'm not 100% anarchist although I lean heavily that way. I believe a legitimate function of government is to enforce property rights. It is my belief that the biggest failing of the constitution is that it doesn't spell out property rights. I also believe that the founders may have thought that protecting property was akin to breathing and thus was understood so no need to expound upon it. The utmost liberty that society can have is the protection of property rights.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

Calling these protesters anarchists is like calling the tea party racist

 

[Kutnupe14]

I can't speak for him, but you keep attacking unarmed innocent people, you shouldn't become surprised when they starting reciprocating the treatment they have been receiving.

Might also be a reference to this-

Marines are planning on joining the protestors to protect them.

It would appear, unlike the punks with tasers and spray, some people still believe in their Oath to the Constitution and the Republic-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp-eapYpL8c

Lets see what those punks in blue (and white) do when faced with real men in dress blues....

The Marines are coming? Oh, I just saw... individual soldiers combining together. I think that is a herculean mistake if active soldiers dress and start participating in the protests. They could easily find themselves in a trick bag if arrest.... and out of the service.

Unless they have been given specific orders to protect the protesters, I think it's best they steer clear. The the ability to wear a military uniform denotes serving with honor, but it hardly is something that will give NYPD pause. We're talking about N-Y-P-D 35,000 strong, many former military themselves.... unless the Marines are bringing Recon with them, they'll just end up nicely dressed pepper spray victims too.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Ok, I just got back in country, so I haven't been as thoroughly informed on these protests as I would like.

Ok, regardless of one's stance on permits being required or not, it's been pretty much confirmed that these persons did not have a permit to demonstrate.
That said, the protesters have blocked traffic, pedestrian access, attempted to run barricades, engaged in disorderly conduct, and hindered business functions. I should note, that this isn't all the protesters, but certainly a sizable part.

NYPD intervenes, and the worst of the group end up being subjects on a "Youtube Highlight Reel." Ok, that's fair, there are certainly more than a few bad apples in the NYPD. I have read previously, that other officers weren't doing anything when this misconduct occurred. And that's totally fair.... but it's also totally justified. The last thing and officer is going to do during a powder keg protest, just waiting to have its fuse let, is start checking other officers. Is it wrong? Well that depends on the officer on the streets' perspective. Do 100 officers surround by 5000 very unhappy people engaging in "questionable (I won't quite say illegal en masse)" start arguing among themselves about several other officer's conduct? Nope, no way. Handle the situation as it is evolving currently, and address the misconduct afterwards.

It's hard to place universal blame on NYPD not handling it's "rouge" officers, in the moment, when the situation is so tense. In the same notion, the protesters aren't "handling" their "rogue" members either. I doubt anyone believes that there aren't those within the protest that are spoiling for a fight, and hopefully a full-fledged riot. Unfortunately, when you have the "good" protesters mixed with the "bad," there is undoubtedly going to be spillover. This hodgepodge of protesters allows rogue officers great leeway in how they handle people. I'm not saying any of this is right or good but, the laws are in place, and the protesters chose to disregard them. At the point these people were told to disperse and didn't, they took responsibility for their safety.... safety that was contingent on, if your lucky, encountering a "good" officer... and in not so lucky, a pepper spraying rogue in a white shirt.

 

[goinggreyfast]

 

[Kutnupe14]

^^^ That is interesting isn't it? How come Tea Partiers aren't being accosted in like ways?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I'm not ashamed at all to be called an anarchist. I fit the definition a billion times better than these protesters do. Words have meaning and by using the word anarchy to shed a bad light on these protesters is a bastardization of the word and you know it. Your personal dislike of the protesters is more important to you. The majority of these protesters want the polar opposite of anarchy. They want cradle to grave government. They just want it in tgeir own tyrannical flavor. For those on the right to call these protesters anarchist, it is nothing more than their attempt to push their flavor of tyranny.

I'm not 100% anarchist although I lean heavily that way. I believe a legitimate function of government is to enforce property rights. It is my belief that the biggest failing of the constitution is that it doesn't spell out property rights. I also believe that the founders may have thought that protecting property was akin to breathing and thus was understood so no need to expound upon it. The utmost liberty that society can have is the protection of property rights.

Why do you act like you know me, how I think, or what I mean? You don't, you don't, and you don't. The perfect trifecta.

Find one post where I have ever said anarchim is evil. Anarchism is unworkable. Trying to whittle the government down to near zero is good. Lawlessness is bad.

The founders did address property rights in the Constitution, whether you understand it or not. Several times in fact. They said your property can't be taken without due process or compensation. But the takeaway point is that it can be taken.

BTW I agree with you on property rights. I think real tyranny exists when the government deprives you of the value of your property without compensation. The constant barrage of assinine BS posts about bad milk police and the TSA and the other crap distracts from the real loss of liberty - the right to use your own property as you wish.

 

[level.eleven]

I just remembered an old joke...

What is the difference between a libertarian and an anarchist?

About 6 years...

On with the thread.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I read that around 100 NYPD officers refused to report to work in protest of how the NYPD handled the protests...

Anyone able to find a relevant source? The only sources I have come up with are blogs I have never heard of... true, rumor ????
http://universallyaware.ning.com/profiles/blogs/over-100-nypd-officers-refuse-to-work-in-support-of-occupy-wall?xg_source=activity

 

[hornadylnl]

Why do you act like you know me, how I think, or what I mean? You don't, you don't, and you don't. The perfect trifecta.

Find one post where I have ever said anarchim is evil. Anarchism is unworkable. Trying to whittle the government down to near zero is good. Lawlessness is bad.

The founders did address property rights in the Constitution, whether you understand it or not. Several times in fact. They said your property can't be taken without due process or compensation. But the takeaway point is that it can be taken.

BTW I agree with you on property rights. I think real tyranny exists when the government deprives you of the value of your property without compensation. The constant barrage of assinine BS posts about bad milk police and the TSA and the other crap distracts from the real loss of liberty - the right to use your own property as you wish.

What's funny is that you're constantly making judgements of others on here based solely on what they post but we aren't smart enough to deduce a single thing about you from your posts.

Is perfected mind reading skills only taught in the Marines or law school?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What's funny is that you're constantly making judgements of others on here based solely on what they post but we aren't smart enough to deduce a single thing about you from your posts.

Is perfected mind reading skills only taught in the Marines or law school?

I make assessments based upon positions they take. I don't often take a position. I present fact and reality. That you misread that as a statement of position is, well, not my fault.

 

[hornadylnl]

I make assessments based upon positions they take. I don't often take a position. I present fact and reality. That you misread that as a statement of position is, well, not my fault.

I openly admit that I'm not the brightest bulb in the box but I often read your position as statist and smug arrogance.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I openly admit that I'm not the brightest bulb in the box but I often read your position as statist and smug arrogance.

Statist - No. Smug arrogance - sometimes. But I try not to. Most of the time.

 

[KLB]

You're never going to hit your 50 quality posts with brilliant responses like that.

Thanks for that insight. I don't post here worried about getting to the magical 50 posts in order to buy or sell here.

I also don't mindlessly insult people for no good reason.

I agreed with the post and liked what he said, so I told him so. It is too bad that you did not like that.