Rather curious on what people thing about this. Personally, I live in North Dakota, so we don't have much direct impact here. To start the discussion/debate, here are my own immediate thoughts.

1) While there's certain parts of their points I agree with, my overall feeling tends to be the "get a job" viewpoint. Particularly in the case of these school demonstrations. Hey, if you aren't making money, maybe the fact that you're sitting in a park for months has something to do with it.

2) Unfortunately, I feel like if these continue, at SOME point, law enforcement is going to cause a frickin' riot. However, given I work at a bar, I also understand that when you're part of a small group keeping control of a large group, the only solution you really have is superior firepower. Even with "peaceful" protesters, they're obviously protesting and there is SOME confrontation to begin with there.

3) Though I CURRENTLY have a distaste for the occupy movement, I tend to feel I have an open mind. Convince me otherwise! Although I tend to find this method distasteful, obviously our current systems have helped the situation reach this point in the first place. Maybe such drastic measures as these are the only way to make a difference at this point.

Thoughts? Comments? Snide remarks? Videos of violence! (Honestly, we DO play CF)

Personally I consider them self-indulgent attention-seekers. If they wanted to make a difference and make society more equal, they could better achieve it by each doing small things for those less advantaged.

Also, I find their camps are basically squats, although in their defense they do seem to collect the litter nearby. The camp in the middle of our "green" is definitely becoming more wooden, and they've said they want to make it a permanent place built of wood. I find that to be little more than a grab of prime public land which previously the whole city could enjoy.

My main gripe is that it's difficult for me to speak out, because I'm one of the "1%". And yet, I probably do more for equality than any of them. I fund a place at a fee-paying school each year for a kid that can't afford it, as do many of my friends, to help ensure that kids without money can still benefit from the education we had. And I give a fair chunk of my time to my role as governor of a state school, which as well as handling their budget, health and safety, interviews etc. (all for free) also includes reading with kids whose parents can't be bothered.

On top of that, I rent out the only property I own (because I'm happy to rent where I live) for about 60% of market price, to enable a family to raise their kid in a family-friendly part of town that they otherwise couldn't afford.

Apparently though, this makes me a money-grabbing weasel responsible for all of society's ills.

The irony is, the reason my income went through the roof was the piles of complex red-tape introduced by the political party that allegedly fights for the masses. (Shame it won't achieve what they intended it to.) They also managed to massively increase the wages of GPs (also extremely well paid) while they were at it. Interestingly the top end of the teaching scale is also extremely well paid. (You've got head teachers on £150k plus per annum, and some heads of department on £70k+, and money is also being spent on things like "learning from other schools" which involved teachers being sent to africa to teach there at considerable expense. Where they observed the obvious.)

So yeah, I'm not a fan of people whose idea of helping society is to camp in public places for extended periods.

Rant over.

What I will add though is that my main gripe is that many of the people at the top are actually quite bad at their jobs. Of the many CEOs I've worked with, I'd say that 3 (literally) were outstanding and the rest (around a dozen) were mediocre. Yet they all got similarly generous packages. Exec pay has shot up because they have negotiating power, but many do a shabby job and benefit from a company cover-up, because no company can afford to admit that the CEO leaving it was actually doing a bad job for the last couple of years. So bad performers can continue to negotiate their salaries up equally well as good performers. That lacks justice.

As long as I can keep reading mah' books I'm happy.

But I have issues with the entire Occupy movement due to a mixture of their publicity and due to my personal interactions with their supporters.

They tend to be loud. A lot. Really loud. Shouting over explaining. I'm not that fond of doing the "I want something you have but I don't so RAAAAWR" thing about wealth either, but I can't say I let that be my defining factor in disliking them. The whole "C WUT THE COPS DO TO US" annoys me, even when the cops do naughty things - But it's the style of the protest which comes across to me as "Watch me litter, loiter, and be really loud and rude and expect no consequences".

If anything, just seems 'rude' to me. I'd prefer a more organized, if not calm, approach - Though obviously the effectiveness (of either this, OR the loud current one) is debatable.


tl;dr - I don't care as long as I don't have to hear/smell them.

I don't support the OWS for several reasons.

When I first heard of OWS, back when it was a mere embryo of an idea, the thrust being focused on was "End Corporate Personhood." While I understand the notion behind this idea, I still maintain that current model of corporate organization in the US does far more to protect small businesses than it does to oppress the masses.

Do certain large corporations hold too much power? Absolutely. Do we need to seriously examine the hold that these organizations have over government? Absolutely. Will eliminating my ability to protect my small business by incorporating myself help? No.

Everything from the ice cream shop I worked in while in high-school to Carrionfields is protected by corporate personhood. I know it's not the intention of the OWS masses to hurt small business, but I feel that the notion of "End Corporate Personhood" demonstrates a woeful ignorance of what is important and what is just sloganeering, something that, while popular, accomplishes nothing.

This brings me to...After an informal survey of people in New York City, where I live, I realized that the people who are the most vocal supporters of OWS are the same people that I try to keep off of my job sites, as they the most likely to be lazy, yet overestimate their own skills, making them doubly worthless. I hate to throw around the term "entitled," as I fear it has lost almost all meaning in the wake of this protest, but frankly, that's the only word that applies.

Disclaimer: I work in the very-high-end event industry and a decent portion of my income comes indirectly from the pockets of the 1% into my bank account. If these people were not willing to spend multiple millions of dollars on their parties (hell, it's 1M to get Elton John for just a few hours) I would have to either find a different line of work or spend a lot more time working on smaller gigs that pay less money.

In my opinion there are two arguments at work here:
1. Some people have too much money.
2. I don't have enough money.

The truth is that these arguments, though they seem related, are two different issues. Tying them together turns it into a case of "Eat the Rich!" which, like most slogans, sounds good, but solves nothing.

Like people who support OWS I would like to see sweeping reforms in our system of corporate welfare. However, at the same time I'd like to see people who overspend, live beyond their means, and end up in financial trouble because they can't control their spending face the consequences of their actions.

If they can combine unrelated arguments, it seems I can too.

You can have a corporation without said corporation being given all the rights of a living, breathing, human being.

No corporation has " all the rights of a living, breathing, human being."

If there is a solution beyond the current definition of "corporation" I'm eager to hear it.

The difficulty, however, is that the proposed solution has to fit into an already complicated legal/economic framework.

"Corporate personhood," like the first amendment, is a double-edged sword. Sure, it protects huge awful companies, but it also protects millions of small business owners. Ending corporate personhood because it protects Unilever is akin to doing away with the first amendment because a lot of hate-speech is also protected.

I'm of the mind that corporate personhood, as it currently exists does far more good than harm and focusing on it as the root of the problem with America is simply naive.

Also, it's very easy to decry something. It's very hard to come up with a solution.

nt

Typical.

I do love dem argument tactics