Criticize my speech to OWS

[Segnosaur]

A surprising number of them demand an end to the federal reserve system, which can only mean a gold standard.

Not necessarily.

I remember seeing an interview with one who thought we should do away with all money.

Granted, she was probably way out on the fringe, and was selected for interview as an illustration of how out-of-touch the OWS is.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not following that logic. I think quite a few would love to end the Fed and continue to use the money in circulation. They are just against the devaluation though counterfeiting.

Again, you're stuck on that loony tune buzzword - "counterfeiting". You realize this is a critical thinking forum, right? You're setting yourself up to be the target of ridicule.

 

[psionl0]

Again, you're stuck on that loony tune buzzword - "counterfeiting".

The economic effect of the government printing a dollar is identical to that of a counterfeiter printing a dollar (except that they would spend the dollar differently).

That said, using emotive terms like "counterfeiting" to describe the government's actions is more a case of style over substance.

 

[Cavemonster]

The economic effect of the government printing a dollar is identical to that of a counterfeiter printing a dollar (except that they would spend the dollar differently).

That said, using emotive terms like "counterfeiting" to describe the government's actions is more a case of style over substance.

That's a bit like saying consensual sex can get you pregnant just like rape, so the choice to call all consensual sex rape is merely a matter of style.

 

[psionl0]

That's a bit like saying consensual sex can get you pregnant just like rape, so the choice to call all consensual sex rape is merely a matter of style.

I can't see anything to disagree with here.

 

[WildCat]

Not following that logic. I think quite a few would love to end the Fed and continue to use the money in circulation. They are just against the devaluation though counterfeiting.

This makes no sense at all. US notes are Federal Reserve notes. You can't end the fed and still have value in federal reserve notes. You'd have to issue new ones. What do you think the new ones would entail?

 

[Robrob]

"A police officer killed an elderly, deaf and mentally disabled man riding his bicycle by shooting him with a Taser stun gun after he failed to obey instructions to stop.
Roger Anthony, 61, was killed as he made his way home in Scotland Neck, South Carolina, after officers responded to a 911 call about a man who had fallen off his bicycle in a car park.."

where no cop is held accountable for this man's death reinforce that the police are answerable to no one.

"The letter cites the shooting of John T. Williams, a First Nations woodcarver and public inebriate who was killed by Officer Ian Birk in August 2010. The department eventually determined the shooting was unjustified, and Birk resigned."

Murder someone and go to jail. Unless you're a cop, then you can just resign, no biggie.

There are well over 861,000 uniformed police in the US. Even pretending two such incident happened every day of the year, that would be an approximate .085% police felony crime rate.

Want to guess what the average percentage felony rate is for the population as a whole?

 

[kevsta]

There are well over 861,000 uniformed police in the US. Even pretending two such incident happened every day of the year, that would be an approximate .085% police felony crime rate.

Want to guess what the average percentage felony rate is for the population as a whole?

what percentage of the local Tennessee Police force were all involved in the tazering video at the same time?

and really, arguing the the police commit less crimes than the public? well duh?

 

[Sideroxylon]

You do not attempt to address counter arguments, which suggests a lack of prior consideration of relevant issues and/or a desire to preach.

 

[AvalonXQ]

There are well over 861,000 uniformed police in the US. Even pretending two such incident happened every day of the year, that would be an approximate .085% police felony crime rate.

Want to guess what the average percentage felony rate is for the population as a whole?

I don't think his argument was about how often police commit violent crimes, but rather what happens to them when they do. Do they get off scott-free, or are they as accountable as anyone else (if not moreso)?

 

[mikeyx]

I'll say it again -- "We use taxes to maintain infrastructure" is not equivalent to "without taxes, we cannot maintain infrastructure".

There are alternatives to taxation.

and in your words, that would be what?

 

[Robrob]

I don't think his argument was about how often police commit violent crimes, but rather what happens to them when they do. Do they get off scott-free, or are they as accountable as anyone else (if not moreso)?

Unfortunately he neglected to provide anything other than the couple of cherry picked examples. The answer to that question would be something objectively measurable. Maybe the OP could be able to back it up?

 

[trustbutverify]

My problem with this speech is that you have absolutely not the faintest idea of what you're talking about.

Also, there was nothing about 9/11 being an inside job or Jews taking over the world.

If you correct these problems I think you might really have something.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

At least it (the speech) is a good example of the intellectual credibility of the OWS movement.

 

[psionl0]

At least it (the speech) is a good example of the intellectual credibility of the OWS movement.

this^^

 

[Aepervius]

To be honest, I stopped reading when you equated taxes to stealing. Did it get even worse?

I stopped at the same point. Equating taxation with stealing is totally and uterly an epic fail on missing the point. I could drone on why it is missing the point, on infrastructure cost, service cost, and being aprt of a country governement decision, democraty, yada yada, but I think it would be lost on the person.

 

[Aepervius]

You sound suspiciously like a FMOTL to me. Although i'm relatively new to their.....ramblings.

I live in europe , and I *love* to read their rambling. There is a full thread of it in CT sub forum. If you reads it like somebody just landed on earth (FMOTL people) and they are failing to grasp at very simple word and definition we all earthling learned from school, it would make for a funny sit-com.

 

[Aepervius]

Congratulations. You've managed to get people who normally wouldn't agree on the colour of an orange to agree that you're talking absolute unadulterated nonsense.


Which is true, you are.

To make the extrem at JREF agree on something is a kind of miracle you read in a christmas story. Now if they all start to carol I will run away screaming.

 

[citizenzen]

... and the other is theft.

Like others I stopped reading here too.

Unfortunately, the cost of living is any nation is the annoying fact that you must obey the laws of that land. You could always become a homeless vagrant. I doubt the IRS would spend much time chasing after you then.

 

[corbin]

We actually maintain a private road. We keep a gate across it to keep others out.

If we opened it up to others, it would require more maintenance, so we'd charge a toll and hope for a profit, since there would be no incentive to bother, without a profit.

Therefore, it would cost people more to use our private road (maintenance cost + profit) than a public road paid for with taxes (maintenance cost alone).

Eliminating tax-funded infrastructure would be a great way to reward capitalists and make those who can afford to invest in property richer.

You seem to be saying that a public good/service costs less than a private good/service.

This is untrue. Most socialists will admit that the free market is more efficient and costs less overall, but favor public ownership of goods/services on the grounds of its alleged fairness and avoidance of "market failures" or negative externalities. No socialist, however, will tell you that a public system, administered by a bureaucracy with no self-interest toward making it efficient, COSTS LESS to the taxpayer than the same service paid for privately.

This idea of public stuff being cheaper because it doesn't require profit ignores the inherent inefficiency of bureaucracy and top-down control.