occupy reason.

The super-smart LabRat over at Atomic Nerds has a very good post up on the nature of force and the “non-violence” of passive resistance. You should go read it, because she’s right on the money, as usual. (She’s riffing off of this post by Robb Allen, which is also well worth a read.)

About these ads

20 thoughts on “occupy reason.

  1. I think there are 2 major points Labrat missed out on. First off, in discussing the effects of using force to deal with “non-violent” protests one should also consider the effect of NOT using force, by not doing anything various towns are essentially establishing a precedent that these groups are, to a certain extent, above the law, because they’re not being dealt with the same way you or I would be if we tried the same thing. These kinds of double standards can be found throughout our society and will likely become even more common, one just has to have enough people, be politically on the left, and use enough force/threat of force, and the authorities will yield. At that point the bully via gang tactic has proven to be a success, so it makes sense to do it until it’s no longer a success, welcome gangs of SEIU/Occupy thugs that soon own your country.

    Next, it’s not accurate to equate govt lowlifes and corporate lowlifes and claim they’re both equally responsible for our current state of affairs, Bill Gates can’t force me to buy his software nor does he have a legal obligation to look out for my interest, that’s not true of a legislature. They’re not the same.

    • Tam says:

      Bill Gates can’t force me to buy his software…

      Not directly, no. But he can buy a government official, who will then ensure that the government buys his software, and with your money, so not only are you out the money, you don’t even get a copy of Windows out of the deal.

  2. Is the government not supposed to buy software for it’s operations? If there isn’t open and competative bidding for contractors that’s certainly an issue, though not one that any of the mentioned parties are taking issue with. They’re NOT complaining about the same thing at all, the Occupy people are complaining that there’s too little government, the Tea party too much. Not the same at all.

    • Tam says:

      Is the government not supposed to buy software for it’s operations?

      Mah point, you are missin’ it.

      For “Bill Gates” substitute “ADM” or “Goldman Sachs” or “The insurance lobby” and you will see that private companies sure can force you to buy their stuff, as long as they can buy enough legislators to make you do it.

  3. DirtCrashr says:

    And George Soros can buy a foundation that conducts research that comes to certain (and certainly) Soros-favorable conclusions that it publishes for the Media to re-tweet as news. Why aren’t the BigMedia companies being occupied?

  4. Tamara,

    In those situations those companies are still not “making” me buy, they’re paying government to “make” me buy. If one wants to actually address the root of the problem it can only be done in limiting the power of the government to subsidize those companies and let markets work their magic.

    • Tam says:

      Hey, in Tamaraland, we’d just abolish the coercive government altogether and privatize everything including roads, courts, and defense. Also, we’d have all have flying ponies that we could talk to with our minds.

      Meanwhile, here in America, I don’t see any real way out of the mess, certainly not by voting, Voting’s how we got into it in the first place, and the ballot returns every year seem to indicate that most folks are just fine with the status quo.

  5. I think Universal Suffrage is far more of a problem then voting in general, but you’re probably right about the mess not being solved with voting, I think it will just take a whole lot more mess to change the status quo, but crashing the system is exactly what the Marxist Occupiers want.

    Where’s John Milius when you need a proper remake of “Red Dawn”?

  6. skol56 says:

    I think most of your opinions are geaned from a position of a “Stay at home dad” and not from the experience of a steelworker terrified that when his kids get sick that he cannot afford to treat them or sustain their recovery with decent food.

    • Tam says:

      Because households with two kids and one working parent are always rollin’ in dough, right?

      • skol56 says:

        Try as I might I cannot see where your reply has any relevance to what I have written, from either camp. Perhaps you omitted several relevant paragraphs.

        • Marko Kloos says:

          That makes two of us, because YOUR comment had precisely fuck-all to do with the content of the blog posts I linked. It’s like you read to OCCUPY and then dashed off some Pavlovian blue-collar cliche response.

        • Tam says:

          Try as I might I cannot see…

          This is my shocked face. -> :|

    • ATLien says:

      And i guess schools have a “no steelworkers allowed” policy.

      • skol56 says:

        “Then dashed off some Pavlovian blue-collar cliche response.”
        Fuck me, prozac deprivation methinks.
        I was not specifically commenting on this particular clutter of nonsense, but all of your aggressive, spiteful, gun toting philosophies.
        You do your self no favours by publicising your angst. It is quite pitiful.
        You hide behind your cyber rock and rant at those you know nothing of, it be safe back there.
        “Pavlovian” love it.

    • Umm, what the HELL does being a stay at home dad or a steelworker have to do with the Occupiers?

  7. skol56 says:

    That would make sense to some I am sure. I am pretty sure there were no Steelworkers at my high school, although I don’t think it was because they weren’t allowed, I think it was because they were at work in the steel industry.

    • Tam says:

      I am pretty sure there were no Steelworkers at my high school…
      I am pretty sure I’m doubting your use of the past tense.

Comments are closed.