The natural state of the world is one where fitness = success. Money is artificial, and does not indicate fitness or ability at all. Perhaps an abstract concept like money could work if it was a running total, very volatile, of your current inherent value.

But I fail to see how any rational citizen of any civilized country can agree with an owner being able to make 100% of his earnings off the backs of others working for slave wages. A worker should be paid a wage which is correlated *exactly* to the actual contribution he makes. This would mean most pencil pushers in let's say a newspaper firm would earn significantly less than the warehouse staff and delivery staff. And this is how it should be. If someone wants to schmooze and wear a suit all day sitting at a desk, he should be paid accordingly.

The distortion that allows this fiendish construct to prosper is the grand obfuscation, the great deception that *you* can one day join this club. Guess what? You can't. The American Dream came true, it's called fractional Reserve Banking, and there's nothing left at the trough for you.

The second link was appearing for me but I got to skim the first one which made me wish the link wouldn't work. I couldn't help but roll my eyes every time the demands kept using the term "democratization" as a euphemism for government seizure.

I'll just comment on a few things I saw since I don't have time to pick apart everything or the patience for it.

1. There is no such thing as "free" universal healthcare since nothing can be produced or distributed without sacrifice. Considering troubles the US government has had with current programs like Veterans' Affairs, instances of delayed or denied medical care in countries with the "single payer" model (AKA government-run monopoly on health insurance), and countries on the edge of collapse due to their deep embrace of the welfare state; worldwide universal healthcare would be more of a liability than an asset.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2672411/Crippled-man-up-in-arms-over-NHS.html

NOTICE: I'm not saying every UK citizen is destined to have the same issues as that plumber but it's an example of how government insurance does not guarantee proper results.

2. Goods and services are not rights. To say that one has a right to someone's product, is to enslave that other person since it denies him/her the legal freedom to say no or to demand compensation.

3. Complete "democratization" is just tyranny of the majority of the active voting population. The majority doesn't always have it right which is why individual rights have to be protected and why the American Founding Fathers wanted the US to be a constitutional republic and not a true democracy.

4. Austerity is sometimes quite necessary in order to save a country from collapse or to prevent more people from getting dragged into the social welfare trap. It doesn't always have to involve taking away the bird feeder but also having government workers pay more into their benefits to help reduce costs.

5. Even if these demands result in true "equality," it would just mean one size fits all which is a giant fallacy.

6. Earning large amounts of wealth does not automatically make someone evil. The whole "1% vs. 99%" claim is nothing more than a divide and conquer strategy used by political elitists to get more power for themselves. The history of class warfare and its results back this up. I can't help but quote comedian Jon Lovtiz but when someone was poor or just plain not doing well, people in my country would often say "commit yourself to hard work and you'll make it (this was back when we still had free market capitalism)" but then when that same person works his way into wealth and prosperity, people then turn 180 degrees on him and say "to HELL with you for being richer than ME!" Just look at the story of Chris Gardener.

I will say that the only points that I saw in the link that were quite legitimate were the ones calling for an end to corporate bailouts and the "too big to fail" excuse. I agree that companies that ruin themselves should face the consequences of their actions just like individuals should. Other than that, it was garbage.

If these "Occupiers" wanted to do some good, they should demand the removal of all excessive regulation that has done nothing more than keep outsiders out, keep big insiders in, and kick out small insiders. Instead, they demand even more rules, restraints, mandates, and laws that do nothing more than hurt legitimate small businesses and potential business leaders while preserving the big ones' places at the top.

The only big protest movement that is doing any type of good or is trying to is the Tea Party Movement. The people there for the most part understand the real root of much of these economic and financial troubles and are demanding real solutions.

Well that's what occupy wants. A communist world that's somehow democratic at the same time. Whoops. Lets help them out by giving a copy of Animal Farm to read to see how communism really ends up working.

Why not? Are you saying that players who help their owners rake in tons of revenue don't deserve to get paid accordingly?

It is interesting to me how the US became the wealthiest, most inventive country in the world when it had a very small government (up until, and including, Harding, plus absence of central bank until 1913 helped immensely too), but ever since the duo Hoover/Roosevelt, the US has been set on the downward spiral of debts and lowering living standards (relatively, of course, since technological progress helps counter act it a lot).

We used to have a similarly "good" government for some 20 years, from 1918 until 1938, and Czechoslovakia was, at that time, about 10th wealthiest country in the world - even more wealthy than countries like Austria or Italy. But after what happened with Germany and later with communism getting its grip on us, it all went to hell.

After 40 years of maintaining this socialist/communist hellhole, it crashed in 1989 and we finally got rid of some of it (economically; as far as personal/social liberties go, we got pretty much all the freedom back, at least), but it still remains pretty bad - the amount of government clerks (who are completely unnecessary, doing just busywork) is incredible. And I pay about 65% of what I earn every month to the government. Of course, it is not enough, so they have to raise our national debt by 100 billion CZK every year (now at trillion and a half).

And seeing what parties people here are thinking about voting, it is going to get worse before it gets better. But it is like that in most democracies now (the sweet exceptions being maybe Switzerland and New Zealand).

Margaret: "Do you believe in higher power?"

Nucky: "Federal Government comes to mind."

- Boardwalk empire (just seen that episode today, made me laugh)

One nitpick, correlation doesn't equal causation. In the US' case it's equally likely that the massive windfall of cheaply exploitable resources and/or refusal to acknowledge patent or copyrights from other nations caused our massive growth.

We were doing okay in the 1900s as well, but we eventually ran out of German scientists;)

Yeah, I am not trying to be mean either but I would say the same of you. Can we get on to presenting arguments now? Or would you rather just prop up more straw men and bald assertions? a) What is your point?! No one here is advocating for any "free ride system" and no one here is saying that small business owners should be paying as much as Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump etc. should be paying. You ever come to an intersection and see those giant pot holes and such? You know what causes the overwhelming majority of that sort of damage? 18-wheelers coming to a stop and causing stress fractures in the pavement. But beyond that you are not making any sense here. WTF do you think is the reason for our progressive tax system? Just to stick it to rich people?! How else does our economy succeed and our infrastructure get maintained if people do not pay/invest back into the system in accordance with how much they are earning?! Seriously guy, answer that. Flat tax? Yeah...because as we have seen from the last Republican administration having the rich pay less while the not-rich pay more works just brilliantly...*rolls eyes* If you cannot support your claims then don't make them. Do not tell ME to go research your shoddy claims and do your work for you guy. Wow. Surprise! Another straw man fallacy. Must be a favorite of yours. Maybe we can have a debate about abortion and you can ask "Why do you support murdering innocent children who just want to be safe?"... Because when your income allows you to buy fucking private jets, a dozen mansions, stables full of expensive cars etc. then you can afford to pay more than the guy who is digging ditches 121 hours a day just to keep food on the table. I mean seriously guy... I am not talking about just taking money from someone who has money just because they have it. America NEEDS that sort of money and the ONLY way we can get it is if the ultra-rich adhere to their end of the contract that is our progressive tax system. Notice how poorly we are doing here in terms of education? Notice how our roads and bridges have been falling down and apart? The rich got a free ride and paid next to nothing while raking in the largest profits they had ever seen for the last 12 years or more and our schools and roads and complete economy fell apart because of it and you are STILL advocating a return to the policies that got us in this mess?! And why in the Hell do you think THAT link(even if much of the information isfrom a biased source) supports your case here?!

From that link:

"Those numbers are on their way up thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath, which have pushed record numbers of people onto public assistance programs. In particular, the stubbornly high unemployment rate has left millions of Americans in dire straits."

Notice anything? The reason so many are now getting some sort of assistance is because of Conservative policies enacted during Bush's administration. Has Obama been the Liberal savior he campaigned as? Not at all and that is why I won't be voting for him again. He took a hard Right turn once he got into office and made the problem worse in some ways and at the very least minimized the benefits we could have seen.

Conservatives just do not know how to handle money. They are short-sighted and greedy. They don't seem to care if the country goes into the toilet and devolves into anarchy because they will just hop onto their private jets to some other country where they own property and factories. They do not seem to realize that when they pay their fair share in taxes, while it might hurt them a little in the short term, makes EVERYONE better off(including them) in the long run.
And Russian scientists. ;)

What a lot of Conservatives do not realize is that even though we were hampered by anti-science religiously motivated and ignorant people, we were able to maintain our scientific standing because people like Einstein and Asimov were defecting to the U.S. because their countries leaders were mad men.

Correlation does not equal causation. But resources are all over the planet, and most of them were not really exploited until industrial revolution. There is one crucial difference between US and the rest of the world, and that lies in US being the first to realize that letting people keep their earnings (with having protected their property rights) leads to creation of wealth. Rest of the world took some time to catch-up.

Patents and copyrights stiffle creation of wealth and innovation, so ignoring those helped a lot as well, I agree. Too bad nowadays we are on the exact opposite path.

Saw what you placed up for presentation. If not the response you were looking for, please choose more relevant arguments. Someone confused about explaining a ddos attack, alluding to potential perpetrators, and having nothing else to say, leaves me feeling like I have wasted my time in viewing it.

Edit for formatting.

This, exactly.

Democracy is fine for those that want it, but nations, that do not, have the same right to self determination that the democratic nations have.

To hell with all of the preaching and attempts at shoving something down someone's throat. If they want it, they will make noise to get it, and either work through their institutions to get it, or revolt; it is neither the right, nor the prerogative, of nations that think one way to force others to think the same.

Just my 2 cents, but people have a right to determine their own way, in their own time, and attempts at coercion are really just another form of autocracy.

Of course I work. When in Rome...

But what about "When in Athens"?

A slave can, and should still dream. Without enlightened dissent, Civilization would have failed ages ago.

Anyone that works for a company owned by an individual making a disproportional amount off of their labor is a slave.

Getting bent over softly is still getting bent over.

And this is not about money for nothing. Didn't you read my "As small a government as possible" point? That includes a drastic minimizing of the welfare stage, both for citizens and corporations. I do not support anyone but the most needy having their BASIC (important stress) needs taken care of by the state. I also do not support an individual being able to accumulate money to the degree that they surpass any and all material needs. Who needs to make more than a million dollars a year? I completely support maximum wages, either in law, or in De Facto income taxed based measures.

With all this talk of freedom and liberty, it's hilarious how the ideal seems to be to aspire to have underlings that make you rich. Sounds like slavery to me.

"Maximum income should be limited", "abolishing tax havens", thank you very much,nothing to do here.

Ps. I love how word "free" is used in this manifesto.

Free pizzas to everybody!

I am not going to participate in this discussion, because the level of socialism in this thread is too damn high

It is funny you should bring up the moon thing, because it was in the only area the USA beat USSR in the space programme. USSR had the first intercontinental missile, first satellite, first animal in space, first human in space, first space walk, first woman in space (in 1969, not much sign of female US astronauts then, the USA did not have one until 1983) they even had the first moon impact... The USA was lagging behind.

It is an argument that USA got the first human on the moon just because JFK promised to do so in a PR stunt in a speech, enforcing an increase in the space programme because if it did not happen he would loose face before the next election.

[i]1 Samuel 8
New International Version (NIV)
Israel Asks for a King

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ”

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”[/i]

Gerald Ford (of all people) summed it up nicely, for those for whom the above is tl;dr:

A government big enough to give you everything you need is a government big enough to take away everything that you have.

This will not end well.