Occupy Wall Street Is Not an Altruistic Movement

Occupiers should stop pretending they know what’s best for everybody else.

Of all the chants and slogans to come out of Occupy Wall Street, none stinks more than “We are doing this for you.”

“We're doing this for you...love us back,” protesters in New York chanted at the NYPD last month. “We’re doing this for you! Po-lice are the nine-ty nine percent!”

“We’re doing it for your generation,” Occupy Portland protesters told a little girl as she wandered through the crowd interviewing people on Nov. 1.

“I can't believe they are being that aggressive over a paycheck, over your own people fighting for you," an Oakland Occupier said when a truck-driver refused to stop at the blockaded entrance to the Port of Oakland.   

“My boyfriend and I try telling so many people also that, ‘We are doing this for you,’ but so many don’t understand. It is a shame,” a commenter wrote on an article titled, “Why I Joined Occupy: A Letter to My Hometown.”

The phrase, “We’re doing this for you,” and its variations, have been trotted out countless times since the Occupy movement began in September. And countless times, protesters have expressed their frustration that other people don’t seem to get that this is all for them. But it begs the question to say that people who aren’t on board with Occupy Wall Street don’t understand what the movement is trying to accomplish. What if those people simply don’t want what Occupy is offering? Will the revolutionaries give it to them regardless?

Bernard Shaw’s "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion," which the socialist playwright published in conjunction with his play, Man and Superman, contains a section called “Maxims for Revolutionists.” The most well-known of those maxims is a rebuttal to the Golden Rule, which states, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Shaw’s version of the rule goes like this: “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”

It now appears that an increasing number of Americans do, in fact, have different tastes than the Occupy protesters. When Public Policy Polling took the temperature of Occupy Wall Street in October, “voters were split, with 35% supporting the movement’s goals and 36% opposing them.” As of today, the “split is 33-45, 11 points worse.” And it’s worse among everybody. The percentage of Democrats opposed to the movement “has risen from 16% to 24%. Meanwhile, both Republicans (from 13-59 to 11-71) and independents (from 39-34 to 34-42) have moved 13 or 14 points against O.W.S.”

With political support waning and cities feeling less and less charitable towards the protests, now is the time for Occupy to revise its assumptions. The first idea it should abandon is that critics of the movement are afflicted with False Consciousness, which is the rather boring Marxist concept that anybody who disagrees with the need for revolution is ignorant of the actual state of things. A condescending attitude is no way to win allies, and it is certainly no match for a police officer's pepper spray. Nor is the promise of an Occupy soup kitchen a substitute for a steady paycheck—which most cops have, even if it’s not as big as the ones going to the their municipal bureaucrat overlords.

While they still have a modicum of momentum, Occupiers should make their rhetoric match their behavior. Taking over a public park is not an act of generosity, no matter how many times a camper coos, “we’re doing this for you” to harried passersby. Likewise, it's not altruistic for unemployed college graduates to demand student loan forgiveness for themselves, especially not when they’re demanding costly general strikes, encouraging businesses to shut down, or asking police officers to defect from their jobs. Nor is it altruistic to demand higher taxes on workers in the financial services industry if you want those taxes redistributed in your own direction.

“People tend to know much more about what will enhance their own lives, or they at least are in the best position to find out, than do their fellows,” writes libertarian philosopher Tibor Machan. “So helping people comes down too often to meddling in their affairs, even creating messes for them with all that butting in.”  

The Occupy movement seems to know what it wants for itself. It should stop pretending that it knows what’s best for everybody else.

Mike Riggs is an associate editor at Reason magazine.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Meh.||

    Fuck this article.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Occupy Chicago Security Guard Arrested on Child Porn Charges

    Please STOP "doing this for [me]." Please. Now.

  • BRM||

    Or in his case, maybe it should be "We're doing this because of you"?

  • Coach Sandusky||

    "That's exactly what I kept trying to tell them, man...!"

  • OWS Sheepfuckers||

    "We're doing this for ewe!"

  • Sine Wave||

    LOL

  • ||

    The best part of this collapse of the OWS movement and all the shit exposed from it is how angry it makes the fools and morons who were emotionally invested in it.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Oh, they're so bitter. I love it!

  • Almighty||

    Yummy yummy tears:)

  • ||

    What if those people simply don’t want what Occupy is offering? Will the revolutionaries give it to them regardless?

    Good and hard.

  • ||

    Amen brother.
    Cherry picking slogans off of children's signs to make an ideological point is what is wrong with our current system of disseminating facts and ideas in the media overloaded 21 century. These kids know something is wrong, and I think most people reading this would agree with them. We shouldn't mock them for not understanding "what" is wrong, we should help guide them to some form of truth.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Cherry picking slogans off of children's signs

    Beats jacking off in their wee, innocent faces, don't you think?

  • AcK||

    "Those little shits will eat my hot, revolutionary spunk and like it, dammit!"

  • Brubaker5||

    Some of those "children" are approaching retirement age.

  • moop||

    i hate that i am stuck here in beijing. can someone send me some OWSer's tears in the mail?

  • Nat||

    Fuck you.

  • moop||

    i'm sorry nat. did you miss out on your chance to rape because you were too busy hitting up a soup kitchen will using your ipad?

  • Art Vandelay||

    @Nat: Everything you touch turns to suck.

    Just thought you ought to know, is all.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • Sine Wave||

    Go fuck yourself!

  • wingnutx||

  • WWJGD||

    Oh god you made me break my No Feministing Ever Again rule....

  • wingnutx||

    I only went there because I thought it would be about feminine fisting.

  • BeverlyHillsNOP||

    Ah, but it is.

  • ||

    ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    What a cunt.

    But I guess we should thank her, since her little article exposes that the consensus process they advocate is actually a lie.

    If they were truly operating by consensus, and if everyone was truly given an equal chance to participate, it wouldn't matter what order people spoke in and her "progressive stack" would not be necessary.

    Since she declares that the "progressive stack" is necessary, we can conclude that everything we have been told about the merits of the consensus system is a fucking lie.

  • ||

    Well, we could have already concluded it because humans just do not work that way.

  • Feminist Occutard||

    It is equal, since moving a straight white cisgendered male to the back of the line balances out his straight white cisgendered male privilege.

  • wareagle||

    on the other hand, it means the chance for forward advancement is delayed until the privileged white male gets back to the front.

  • Almighty||

    Lol:)

  • Almighty||

    Lol:)

  • ||

    Who speaks first: gay white male or straight native American male? Gay white woman or straight black woman? Hispanic male-to-female transexual, or blind paraplegic Muslim?

    Diversity is so complicated!

  • ||

    Look, the important part is that white males are in the back!

  • ||

    that's the way, a huh a huh, she likes it...

  • ||

    My progressive stack usually involves smoked turkey, rare roast beef, bacon, smoked cheddar, Swiss, olive oil, oregano, two thick slices of tomato, mayo, and spicy mustard on thickly sliced, home-baked bread. Washed down with a pint of something hoppy.

    Although, after reading that stupid bullshit, I'm gonna wash it down two or three times. What the fuck is it with Feministing? It's like a supermassive black hole of PC, stupid, and self-righteousness.

  • ||

    I wonder how many of these fucks realize that a stack means "last in, first out". IOW, the next person to speak was the person speaking previous to the current speaker and only speaks once the current speaker is finished.

  • Michael||

    I'll bet that oversized papier mâché anal beads would illustrate the concept in a way she could understand.

  • ||

    So a kid who grew up white trash gettin' Sanduskied by his shine-swillin' daddy has to give up his place in line to Janeane Garofalo or even the Hermanator on account of his "privilege"? Sounds fair.

  • Sine Wave||

    What do you mean? That is how me run the rest of the country. Progressive stacking is why Obama is president. And it is the only reason he is president.

  • Sine Wave||

    correction: how -we- run..

  • A Serious Man||

    You know who else was selfless and did everything for the people? Go!

  • ||

    Andy Kaufman?

  • PantsFan||

    Bernie Ecclestone?

  • Almanian||

    lol!

  • Suki||

    Jack Ruby? He did it for Dallas, or Jackie-O or something.

  • Almanian||

    Iggy Pop?

  • A Serious Man||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I always dig the Stooges. They are the great antidote for the starry-eyed, moon children of the '60's. No political posturing, plenty of hard drugs, and Detroit fucking rock-n-roll.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Mr. Thompson?

  • ||

    Jackson Pollock?

  • Skip||

    Robert E. Lee?

  • Sine Wave||

    Al Capone?

  • ||

    I initially read the post headline as "New at Reason: Mike Riggs on the Occupy Movement's Hollow Autistic Language." Strangely, I think I was right the first time.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Great article. Right on the nail.

  • Naomi Most||

    Libertarians, please try looking beyond your own noses for a few minutes, then perhaps you will discover that the Occupy movement has a lot more in common with your ideals for a socio-economic system than you think.

    Also, +1 to A Serious Man.

  • Shorter Naomi Most||

    Occupy Seattle Protester Takes Crap on Sidewalk (Video)

    "We're doing this for YOOOOOOUUUUUUU -- !!!"

  • GrizzlyAdam||

    You're doing it for us? Thank you!

  • JoJo Zeke||

    HIPPIE 2: [a blonde with a psychedelic fish on her shirt] "The corporations run the entire world! And now they fooled you into working for them!"

    STAN MARSH: "Are you serious? We never heard that!"

    HIPPIE 1: [smugly] "We just spent our first semester at college. Our professors opened our eyes!"

    ... and, once again, real life imitates South Park.

    You are a caricature.

  • Sandy||

    I really do sympathize with their protests against the big corporations that have a blank check from the government to take stupid risks and pass the costs onto us.

    But then they go off on some quasi-socialist rant and I just shake my head and walk away.

  • BRM||

    +1

    Stayed too long (Sherrod Small's observation on Red Eye),

    Got too socialist,

    Got shown as posers when they wouldn't share food with homeless,

    Got shown as creepy, evil, sociopathic, power grubbers when they tried to keep women who were raped at these events from reporting the crimes to police.

    Even if you agree with their basic concerns, you have to distance yourself from them.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Got shown as goons when they demanded that homeless shelters provide them with resources dedicated to actual homeless people.

  • Chaos Punk||

    that's fuckin' embarrassing

  • Skr||

    Where's that cite? Sounds good.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/20.....-struggle/

    Jackson visited the Occupy protesters at a homeless shelter that has become their base of operations since Atlanta police forcibly removed them from a downtown park last week.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    http://www.necn.com/11/08/11/O.....eedID=4206

    The new troubles also came as the Boston Herald reported that Occupy Boston tenters have been mooching off the nearby St. Francis House homeless shelter, nabbing free showers and meals until the shelter director finally asked the Occupy website to stop encouraging tenters to take advantage of the Boylston Street facility.

  • Suki||

    Like that whole communal Libertarian thing where everybody works in whatever way they can and anybody in need gets whatever they need?

    I think you have the wrong happy hour.

  • NotSure||

    Sorry no common ground with socialists, the problem is government, you are protesting Wall Street last time I checked. You want more government, more welfare, more regulations, more taxes, more "fairness" etc. etc. These are all pretty much as anti-liberty as you can get.

    Only an utter fool would ever want to give those idiots any levers of power and hope for a good outcome. Those people are tyrants, libertarians do not like making allies with tyrants.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Succinctly put.

  • Anyway||

    They rant against capitalism but they cannot even define the word.

    Any OWSers here? Read this:

    "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

    You're welcome.

  • Chaos Punk||

    DING DING DING, we have a winner!

  • Anyhow||

    They [drone on about] capitalism but they cannot even define the word.

    Any [propertarians] here? Read this:

    "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights [for those controlling capital], including property rights, in which all property is privately owned [in increasingly concentrated hands]. The recognition of individual rights [for those controlling capital] entails the [increase] of physical force in human relationships: basically, rights can be [suppressed] only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group [excepting those that exert power of the only organ of legitimated violence with capital] may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting [extracted wealth from the hands of its makers], i.e., the task of [violently suppressing opposition, peaceful or not]; the government acts as the [club for those controlling capital and convenient scapegoat] , and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who [threaten the interests of capital]; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under [elite control]."

    You're welcome.

  • psst||

    We aren't doing this anymore, remember?

  • ||

    Oh for fucks sake!

    You gotta use more CAPS if you're gonna do this shit.

  • DLM||

    You gotta use more CAPS if you're gonna do this shit.

    He might not know the html tag for capital letters.

  • Juice||

    Anyway,

    You've got an apparent contradiction in your definition of capitalism (which is not the definition of capitalism, btw, since you've expanded it way beyond it's simple original definition).

    If the government can only use retaliatory force, how is it funded? Donations only? Usage fees? But all property is private, right, so it can't be usage fees.

    How about we just leave the definition of capitalism as the old "private ownership of the means of production" eh?

  • Art Vandelay||

    the Occupy movement has a lot more in common with your ideals for a socio-economic system than you think.

    As in "Less governmental influence/control over day-to-day personal economic decisions?" As in "Less confiscatory governmental robbery of my purse?" As in "Greater adherence to the principles of capitalism, and the free market?" Those baseline libertarian ideals, you mean?

    Eat me.

  • sevo||

    "Libertarians, please try looking beyond your own noses for a few minutes, then perhaps you will discover that the Occupy movement has a lot more in common with your ideals for a socio-economic system than you think."
    Awright, let's stop the arm-waving and read some specifics.
    Where's the commonality?

  • wingnutx||

    Rape, drug use, filming cops, and rape.

  • Hedley Lamarr||

    Why rape twice?

  • Steve Smith, Jr.||

    You rape once, smoke a cigarette, flip'em over and go in for seconds.

  • Skr||

    I see you like rape.

  • Butthead||

    I like rape too. Wanna do it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Naomi Most,

    the Occupy movement has a lot more in common with your ideals for a socio-economic system than you think.


    Defecating in public?

  • ||

    Weed.

  • ||

    Naomi, as we can see by the "progressive stack" idiocy above, you guys aren't qualified to do anything on anybody's behalf. Please stop.

  • ||

    Wait, are the OWchies secretly declaring that, when someone puts up their capital, they deserve to be compensated as much as they and someone else can agree to? Oh, I got it. When no one is looking, they are discussing how it's no one's business how much anyone else makes, right? Maybe they're conspiring to keep secret the fact that they believe that the problem with the U.S. economy is that there is too much government intervention and the government is cavalier about private property rights and the sanctity of contract. Is that it?

  • Sine Wave||

    Like what? The right to shit wherever you want and make someone else clean it up?

  • Bill||

    But, but, they're college students (and crusties).

    Of course they know what's good for everyone else.

  • Chaos Punk||

    fuckin' crusties.. makin' real punks look bad for decades. crass-head hippie fucks. Ruined punk

  • Gojira||

    Frylock: We should have cloned 20s. Jackson wouldn't have given a shit.

  • ||

    Frylock: You can't use the cloner to counterfeit money, Shake.

    Master Shake: Look, we will discuss this when I feel like it. Right now, I gotta go get a new Camaro, 'cause that's where the shit is, baby!

  • Michelle Lecours||

    Excellent reflection of the point of view of many. But this begs the question, what is the underlying motivation of the Occupy movement? Is this a faux-revolution?

  • Dylboz||

    "Beg the question" does not mean what you think it does.

    Google it.

  • yonemoto||

    mike didn't know either.

  • ||

    Thank you for saying it.

  • pvh||

    Really guys? This is a rare proper use. The OWS people assert that those who disagree with them do so only because they do not understand the OWS position. This assumes that the OWS position is correct, which is classic question begging. Get a fucking life and go after people who don't know what the hell begging the question is.

  • ||

    Yeah, Riggs used "beg the question" correctly. I was glad to see it. Although, I remember reading in some textbook or other that the misuse of "beg the question" has become so widespread, it's basically hopeless trying to fight it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The next time you hear someone misuse "beg the question", remind them that question begging is an informal fallacy, not an invitation for them to keep saying stupid shit.

  • Redefiler||

    On please, spare us your feeble grasp of linguistic minutia!

    Everybody knows that "beg the question" is a totally different BDSM party game than "informal fallacy".

  • yonemoto||

    The proper tactic is to use it correctly, aggressively. I once spoke out at a meeting when someone was using circular logic, saying "AHA! But you're begging the question!" and people looked at me like I was crazy.

  • GeneralWill||

    Mike Riggs knows what's best for Occupy Wall Street. He's giving them tactical advice: Don't pretend you know what's best for non-Occupy Wall Street people, especially cops and Mike Riggs. Mike Riggs knows you're actually selfish, so don't pretend to be altruistic. Don't pretend you're trying to help others, be like Mike, who definitely isn't trying to help you! AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Go take a deep breath, and come back when and if you have something coherent to share.

  • GeneralWill||

    "Something coherent" !
    You're killing me.

  • Almanian||

    shorter GW: "derp"

  • ##||

    I always get a chuckle when they tell the cops that OWS represents them. I don't know about Mike Riggs, but the cops have a union for that and certainly don't need OWS help.

  • Sine Wave||

    LOL very true

  • ||

    Nice.

  • Jake||

    The aspect of OWS concerned with ending corporate control over the government is the right kind of selfish.

  • ||

    Yes, but they ignore the basic reality that the only way that can ever be a possibility is to remove the government control of business. If someone is going to have a knife at your neck, you're going to make damned sure that person is one of your own.

  • Tony||

    What if those people simply don’t want what Occupy libertarianism is offering? Will the revolutionaries give it to them regardless?

  • Almanian||

    They can do whatever they want. As long as they stay off my property and leave me the fuck alone, I'll do the same to them.

    How's that sound, Tony?

  • Tony's Head||

    [::explodes::]

  • Tony's Other Head||

    [::explodes::]

  • Suki||

    See? You are being so unreasonable there! You don't know what you want. There is a 20-something hipster with hundreds of elective hours in literature on the line to tell you what you need.

  • Tony||

    Wanting people to leave you alone is the same as wanting to tell others how they should live. Since you do not have my intellect, you will never understand this simple truth.

  • ||

    Wanting people to leave you alone is the same as wanting to tell others how they should live.

    Sorry you failed Ethics 101.

  • A Serious Man||

    Spoof Tony, right? Just making sure since I hate to waste virtiolic rebuttals on sockpuppets.

  • Hugh Akston||

    ProTip: never respond to Tony.

  • ||

    Double ProTip: never respond to obvious sockpuppets.

  • sockpuppet says...||

    avoidance rings of cognitive dissonance.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    While Tony does consider himself superior, and looks down his nose at those he considers ill-equipped to comment on issues of import... I smell a spoof in the post above.

  • sevo||

    "Wanting people to leave you alone is the same as wanting to tell others how they should live."
    Wrong, shithead.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Stoopid in Amerika,

    Wanting people to leave you alone is the same as wanting to tell others how they should live.


    Now that is funny!

    I mean, it was intended to be funny, right?

  • DLM||

    I mean, it was intended to be funny, right?

    What's funny is that you can't tell. (Nothing personal.)

  • ||

    Wanting people to leave you alone is the same as wanting to tell others how they should live.
    And war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.

  • Tony||

    But they can't have strong social programs or most of the aspects of a modern state, right?

  • obvious||

    Sure they can. They just need to find a completely voluntary way of funding such programs.

  • NotSure||

    There are no libertarian "revolutionaries". Unless for you a revolutionary is someone who want others to leave them alone, you really are a stupid oaf.

  • GroundTruth||

    True. SpoofTony actually makes a good point.

    Revolution which is typically a violent event requires joiners, whereas the most hardcore libertarians are basically solitary folks. This is the paradox of the libertarian.

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    Yes.

    I am not telling you that I am doing this for you.

    I advocate what I advocate for the sake of justice and right.

    If that benefits you, great. If that fucks you over, tough shit you lose. The only way it could fuck you over is if your interests are served by the unjust and the wrong, so GFY.

  • Yeeeeah!||

    U Fukn fooker!11!1!!!!

  • ||

    Then please move.

  • ||

    "University Students, Immature Activitists and the Permanantly Disgruntled offer unrealistic altruistic prescriptions for society's ills."

    I believe that, in an early example of authoritarian overreach - the Athenian rulers gave Socrates the hemlock for doing exactly that. Nothing new here.

  • Britt||

    The Athenian rulers? You mean the democratic government of Athens. AKA the mob. The execution of Socrates is one of the best arguments against democracy there is.

  • Chaos Punk||

    fuck democracy

  • Pious ©unt||

    let the powerful rule

  • ||

    And countless times, protesters have expressed their frustration that other people don’t seem to get that this is all for them.

    It might help if they weren't a massive pain in the ass for all the people who come into contact with them.

    It's really hard to convince someonethat you are trying to improve their life after you've just done the exact opposite:

    You kept up all night with your drum circles, or

    You made late for a meeting (or getting home) with your commute-time march down the street or "occupation" of the subways, or

    You drove away their customers, or abused their staff, or crapped all over their restrooms, or tried to extort free shit, or

    Made them walk past your ugodly stink every day.

  • Gojira||

    You know what word I haven't seen around as much the last few days, that could really liven up this article?

    Gambol.

  • ||

    You fool!

    You risk invoking He-who-is-too-boring-to-name.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Tony Danza...?

  • Trespassers W||

    In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits gamboling.

  • A Serious Man||

    All you got to do is trick him into saying his name backwards, thus sending him back to the fifth dimension where he belongs.

  • ||

    Jerry Seinfeld?

  • PantsFan||

    Kirk Cameron?

  • MNG||

    Me?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Gojira, please do not mention that word again. It's really annoying. Thank You.

  • ...||

    Gambol.

  • ¢||

    "You over there! Yes you, the gang of sadists, violence cultists, and racist word-salad tossers. I have a suggestion. Why don't you guys try, like, considering people's feelings?"

  • PantsFan||

    But they want simple things, like less corporate greed and more "social justice".
    I can't type that with a straight face.

  • ||

    Social justice is when white men speak last. I read it on Feministing.

  • Jamie Kelly||

    Where do I sign up for my free OWS pussy?

  • ||

    You have to share it.

    With 276 others who have not bathed in 10 weeks.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Is there free malathion at the OWS dens of iniquity?

  • wareagle||

    right after they spray the DDT to keep out the mosquitoes.

  • Joni Mitchell||

    Give me spots on my apples, but leave me the birds and the bees.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Boink a female-bodied OWSer, and I'll all but guarantee you'll end up with spots on your apple.

  • Sine Wave||

    ROFL

  • ||

    If the Stupefy movement is based on something other than this, I'd be surprised.

  • ||

    Be sure to sign up for your free HIV screening, penicillin shot, and pubic lice treatment right afterwards, Jamie.

  • Christina||

    This whole preoccupation (haha) with camping out has killed any goodwill OWS, etc., ever had. Seriously, why not just protest during the day and then go home, like normal people?

  • ||

    It's easier to have sex in the park if you can do it in a tent.

  • Christina||

    No, seriously, what is the stated reason? I can't find anything, except some blather about it violating the 1st amendment to prevent it.

  • NotSure||

    Seriously, a lot of people really are there for the sex. If shouting anti-capitalist slogans can get you some action, a lot of guys will do it.

  • Christina||

    So when in court trying to stop the eviction from Zuccotti Park the lawyers say, "we just want a place to have sex in semi-private?"

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's probably a better argument than anything they came up with:)

  • Chaos Punk||

    Seriously, a lot of people really are there for the sex. If shouting anti-capitalist slogans can get you some action, a lot of guys will do it.

    I was actually thinkin' some of those college artsy girls looked like they needed a real man to set 'em straight.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "some of those college artsy girls looked like they needed a real man to set 'em straight."

    That can be interpreted multiple ways...

    Just take protection with you, 'K?

  • OWSer||

    It's easier rape women in the park if you can do it in a tent.

    Had to correct that for you.

  • djconnor||

    Protest is 0% message, 100% physical presence. It's a fucking filibuster. A 9-5 protest will be shutdown immediately--good luck getting back into a park once the riff-raff is removed.

  • ||

    My Occupy friends are constantly surprised that this "revolution" IS in fact being televised. But getting that wrong has not shaken their faith in all the other things they're wrong about

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    They need a list of specific and coherent aims before they can assert that "we're doing this" for anybody.

  • ||

    I realize it is a libertarian cliché, but whenever somebody says that they want the government to do something "for" me, I always retort "Whatever government does FOR you, they wind up doing TO you."

  • Gojira||

    I think I could be OK with that in the case of fellatio.

  • ||

    "I'm from the government, and I'm here to blow you."

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    And they can't get rid of the false consciousness argument.

    Even if it wasn't directly embedded into their dialectical materialism, they would still need it because it makes them feel superior.

  • Mirror||

    "The Occupy movement seems to know what it wants for itself. It should stop pretending that it knows what’s best for everybody else." This is such a perfect note to end on considering pretending they know what is best for everyone is what Libertarians do best. +10 for lack of irony or self awareness.

  • ||

    Exactly wrong.

    Libertarians admit they do not know what "is best for everyone", which is why we try to follow the Hippocratic dictum "Primum non nocere."

  • ||

    Why are you engaging in serious discussion with rectal?

  • Supreme Generalissimo Fluffy||

    I don't claim to know what is best for everyone.

    I just claim to know what is just.

    Justice is good for those who deserve good, but bad for those who deserve bad.

    A just social order by definition would not be "best" for everyone. "Everyone" includes murderers and child rapists, who would be imprisoned or exiled or dead in a just social order.

    I would never in a million years tell you that libertarianism is best for you. If you're a parasite, it might give you the full Sandusky.

  • Gojira||

    But one thing we do know from earlier today: Iran is definately bad for you, and should be destroyed.

  • pot||

    "pretending they know what is best for everyone is what Libertarians do best. +10 for lack of irony or self awareness."

    kettle!

  • Shorter Mirror||

    "Huh? Wha -- ? Whuzzat that whizzed over my head, just now...?!?"

  • Christina||

    Person A: I believe everyone should eat right and exercise, and that government should subsidize those activities.

    Person B: I believe that the government should leave us alone to eat and exercise (or not) however we want.

    Person A is a liberal. Person B is a libertarian. Notice that Person B makes no normative statement about personal behavior, only that government shouldn't be involved in those decisions.

  • marcia brady||

    Really..libertarians really crack me up. Because every man is an island, and what we do doesn't affect other people.

  • Christina||

    OK, think really hard about what you just wrote. If no man is an island, and every action has possible externalities, then why would you increase the repercussions by having decisions made by someone else and for many other people?

  • ##||

    Other than the fact that libertarians don't believe that every man is an island and do strive to minimize negative effects of government on everybody (which does happen to include other people) you're right to be amused.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Because every man is an island

    ... whereas every woman, in Greater OWSLandia, is a receptacle; and one bullied into not reporting their violent abusers to the authorities, "for the good of the movement," in the bargain.

    The only thing sadder than a shameless hypocrite is a self-loathing shameless hypocrite.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Anyone who doesn't think that some men are islands has never seen an episode of Mike and Molly.

  • Chaos Punk||

    I love how people try to say libertarianism is "right-wing marxism", like we're utopian thinkers engage in the lunacy of demanding others to think and feel exactly as we do.. and that paradise is only possible if we remove the state. Individualism vs Collectivism, both are nightmares! bullshit.. only collectivism is a nightmare.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I thought fascism was right-wing Marxism?

  • NotSure||

    Another idiot product of public education. Your people say they speak for the 99%, libertarians don't. That simple.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I am the 3.2 * 10^-9 %.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So are we self absorbed, Rand worshipping bastards that think only of our selfish desires? Or are we busybodies ready to intervene in everyone else's life? Because your narrative about what libertarianism is, as if you know dick about libertarianism is outside of your cute little caricature, is so confusing that it's tough to keep all of the versions in order.

    What you don't get is that with libertarianism, you can have everything you desire up to but not including forcing me to have it too.

    Run along and play now.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Libertarianism is freedom. liberty doesn't appeal to the masses because one must be fearless to accept the responsibility of governing their own individual lives.

    Rand was an obnoxious bitch, but it didn't make her wrong.

  • Pablo||

    We should be responsible for each other.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Dude, you don't even know my favorite color or way to eat chicken. How the fuck are you supposed to look out for me?

    Leave me the fuck alone is what the fuck you can do for me, and I'll repay that favor by doing the same.

  • Art Vandelay||

    We should be responsible for each other.

    YOU be responsible for you. I'm not even remotely interested.

  • Pablo||

    When someone you love is hurting, do you just stand aside or offer to help?

  • Art Vandelay||

    Irrelevant, as you're not "someone [I] love." Next slide, please.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    None of which has anything to do with "looking out for one another" in a political sense.

    Either way, being as libertarianism is all about the empowerment of individuals and protecting the rights of individuals, I am looking out for you.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    When someone you love is hurting, do you just stand aside or offer to help?

    A principle which can of course be generalised to "if anyone within a certain geographic area is hurting, it's okay to put a gun to your head to make you help them". Obviously.

  • ||

    When someone you love is hurting, do you just stand aside or offer to help?

    Don't be ridiculous. I hit them again.

  • DLM||

    When someone you love is hurting, do you just stand aside or offer to help?

    A great deal of 'help' has more to do with the helper feeling better about *himself* rather than actually improving the long-term situation of the person being helped. People have a strong aversion to considering the difference.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Fucking squirrels...

    What makes you angry is that I'm not allowing you to dictate the rules of what it means to "look out for one another", and I'm sure as fuck not going to allow that term to be conflated with having to give you my earned money via the use of government force. Because it's clear that a redistributive society is exactly what you mean by "looking out for one another."

  • Pablo||

    If you "love someone" then it's not force when you are helping them, is it?
    Why do you hate poor people?

  • Skr||

    No. When you help someone you love, you do so voluntarily. No force is needed.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Drink!!

  • ||

    Why do you hate poor people?

    Because they're So. Fucking. Uppity.

    And they won't carry my sedan chair.

  • moop||

    Why do you hate poor people?

    they make shitty art

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Why do you hate poor people?

    Because their meat is all stringy and gamey.

  • ||

    Is Pablo the new Chony?

    Forcing people to help someone they don't know or care about is wrong. You seem very invested in the idea that it's right to use force.

    Maybe Pablo is really the new Steve Smith.

  • ||

    Because they are poor. And smell funny.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    They don't burn as evenly as briquettes do.

  • GroundTruth||

    Ok, you can wipe my ass first.

  • Mirror||

    Ah, the fun thing about Reason forums is that many of its denizens have plenty of it (Reason, keep up, kids) and then it goes out the window with their emotions. You're shockingly easy to bait, and you're quick to anger. I'm sorry, did I just exercise my freedom to take the piss out of you for fun? Go cry to Auntie Rand.
    Oh, and yeah, not a single prescription for telling people what to do here. Nope, not a one.
    http://www.lp.org/platform
    However, at least you're a step above Dems and Reps, which is something, if not much.
    Keep taking those blood pressure meds, and good evening to you, Lemmings

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Drink!!

  • Shorter Mirror||

    FapFapFapFapFap!

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Your commentary conflates, wrongly I might add, libertarian with Libertarian.

    When you can start getting basic facets of what being libertarian means get back to us. Until then, run along and play.

  • Christina||

    So if telling people to be free and responsible for their own lives is telling them what to do, what does that make the Republicans and Democrats? What does that make a communists? Are you some super anarchist sent from the future? I don't understand where you are coming from otherwise.

  • Chaos Punk||

    When somebody tells you that Libertarianism is extremism (extreme individualism), ask them to objectively define the concrete standard to which their conclusion was based.

  • sevo||

    "I'm sorry, did I just exercise my freedom to take the piss out of you for fun?"

    No, you exercised your right to prove you're an ignoramus. And you are "sorry"; more than you know.

  • ||

    I hate to break this to you, mirror, but we've mostly been mocking you.

  • ##||

    Let's see, you go to a forum that you disagree with for the sole purpose of baiting rather than debating, insult people, call them names, misrepresent their beliefs, and then declare your moral superiority when they take offense. You're a shining example of why OWS will fail. It's impossible to govern by consensus because you'll never get a large group, even of relatively reasonable people, to agree on much of anything. Then you throw in the professional jerks such as yourself who enjoy being intentionally disruptive in order to stroke their tiny ego and it devolves into nothing more than a shouting match. Looks like you're just pissing your own pants to me.

  • sevo||

    "This is such a perfect note to end on considering pretending they know what is best for everyone is what Libertarians do best."

    Ya know, showing up on a libertarian web site and admitting you're a total ignoramus concerning libertarianism doesn't make you look good.

  • Tony||

    showing up on a libertarian web site and admitting you're a total ignoramus concerning libertarianism doesn't make you look good.

    Oh, great. NOW he tells me.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mirror,

    This is such a perfect note to end on considering pretending they know what is best for everyone is what Libertarians do best.


    But I know what is best for you, and what is best for you is to wedge your head up your ass and see if you can find Uranus.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Agreed. I hate 2 things more than any other. 1. People who claim to speak/act for me like I'm some kind of fucking retard who can't speak/act on my own behalf; 2. People who insist I don't understand them when in fact it's a clear cut scenario of not agreeing with them (a popular tactic of the left - see the administrtion's arguments post-Obamacare when every wasn't beaming with joy at its passing).

    Fuck OWS and everything they claim to be doing for me.

  • ||

    considering pretending they know what is best for everyone is what Libertarians do best

    False; Libertarians say that everyone does whatever they see fit as long as they obey some (simple) rules which apply to everyone.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Libertarians have a knack for discovering ways to blend in to popular protest movements like the Tea Party and the OWS. Niether group is libertarian, and even if you succeed in convincing a small number of people that you're right.. it won't matter.

  • marcia brady||

    I have not been physically present at OWS, but I agree with the general premise. I believe in it in part because of altruism, some self interest, and because my bull shit tolerance was maxed out about 2 or 3 years ago.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    I agree with the general premise of OWS] [...] my bull shit tolerance was maxed out about 2 or 3 years ago.

    As crystalline a working example of the concept of "Inherent Contradiction" as it has ever been my privilege to witness.

    You'll doubtless make a fine community organizer, someday.

  • Chaos Punk||

    hahaha, no shit!

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Heh. Check this out (excerpted from Last Night's Zuccotti General Assembly Meeting):

    • Not being allowed to go to the bathroom in the park is a violation of civil rights and qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment.

    • We need to march on the police headquarters tonight after GA to protest police walking by while women relieve themselves and are exposed. This is a sexual assault.

    I called them "caricatures" earlier, above... but these simps don't even qualify for that lowly status, ultimately.

    They're cartoons.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Unfortunately these kinds of nonsensical quibs, while personally very hilarious to me, are eventually going to become the norm. The more we consider it humor and ignore it, the more the insanity is allowed to perpetuate. The more we try to refute it sincerely, the more the insanity is allowed to perpetuate.

    Crazy ideas + College professors + Oppressed kids fresh out of highschool = movements like OWS, and there's no bottom to the amount of absurdity.

    This is how mantras like Heterosexuality is bigotry get taken seriously. And that protesting palmolive dish soap is a worthy cause because there is hidden sexist messages (the bottles are shaped like women in dresses).

    this kind of pc leftism isn't just funny, it's also a psychosis that has the potential to be very powerful in human society. London, and New York City, for example.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Oh thanks, now I'm gonna get a woody everytime I see a bottle of palmolive.

  • ||

    It's the reason my grocery store won't let me anywhere near the Aunt Jemima anymore.

  • Cognitive Dissonance||

    Why, yes, it's lovely to meet you, too!

  • GILMORE||

    ""The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, even those who practice utmost humility, is boundless.""

    - Eric Hoffer, The True Believer

    Nothing gives hatred a greater justification than believing that you and your absorption into a mass-identity is an act of *selflessness*, and that the failure of others to submit to the will of that holy mass is an act of pure, criminal selfishness.

    - GILMORE

    "We're doing it for YOU!!"
    - (99%r as he tries to ruin someone's livelihood)

  • poponimous||

    Hm.. an argument for the right to be selfish that claims the selfless are actually the selfish ones, nice...

  • ||

    Yup, those claiming to be selfless are lying.

  • Egoism||

    Honesty goes hand in hand with me.

  • ||

    Dr. Goebbels is smiling...

  • sevo||

    "the selfless"
    Would this be the New Soviet Man?

  • sevo||

    Oh, and:
    "the selfless..."
    So I presume the chant is: "Let us pay our student loans early!"
    And: "We'll donate our tents to the homeless!"
    Plus: "We'll work for your business for nothing!"
    Right?
    Or is your definition of "selfless" sorta 'we want free shit!'?
    Is that it?

  • Juice||

    "You all need a crowd. You all need a movement. You need to be surrounded by the wool of a million other sheep before you finally feel warm. You all have social consciences because you're zeros as individuals. Your compassion for others is ironically founded on your own self-hatred. You swim with "the movement" because you're lost on your own." - Jim Goad

  • anon||

    Talk about a condescending attitude....
    You can't take what an individual says and claim that's what the movement is about. Your right the cops are too well paid for a soup kitchen, so what. Are libertarians too cynical to care?

    Shouldn't you be using the mass confiscation of personal property to reflect on civil forfeiture laws?

    Protect our assets! Stop fighting about the people in the movement who don't understand and find those who do.

    The movements beauty is that it you choose what its about for you. Stop speculating on what will happen if crusty hippies gain control, they won't. Ever. It's utterly unimaginable.

    What they do provide is an outlet for the anger the young feel against the old before things get violent, in addition to a much needed ideological check against media generated bipolarization of political thought and here you are...
    singing the traditional songs,
    Like a happy bourgeoisie collaborator.

  • sevo||

    "The movements beauty is that it you choose what its about for you."
    Yeah, that always works with a mob.

  • ##||

    It provides an outlet for their anger alright but I think you missed the poll showing that 30% of OWS believe that violence is acceptable to further "the cause", whatever that is.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Your right [...] Like a happy bourgeoisie collaborator.

    Can't correctly spell "you're," but has no problem whatsoever with "bourgeoisie."

    Ladies and gentlemen... I give you: the modern American educational system, in perfect and appalling miniature.

  • ||

    Right on, Jojo.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Outlet for their anger? I thought that's what hard core rap was for?

  • Art Vandelay||

    I thought that's what hard core rap was for?

    There's an "e" missing, there.

  • ||

    bravo.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    More proof that YouTube is tracking you: this showed up as a sponsored link while I was listening to 80s music.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/Le.....729&kw=ron paul

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Works well enough.

  • Old Mexican||

    The Occupy movement seems to know what it wants for itself. It should stop pretending that it knows what’s best for everybody else.


    It's the same thing I try to tell my mother-in-law when I tell her to mind her fucking business.

  • Chris||

    And I thought Bush acted pretty homo when he was in the company of Saudi leaders. Michelle has a clear case for divorce here:

    http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.....TON-AD.JPG

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    No, this is a clear case for divorce:

    http://celebs.icanhascheezburg.....s-divorce/

  • Deadly Barack||

    Always french-kisses or masturbates foreign leaders before he assassinates them or undermines their regimes -- he does have moves on in South America (for the WOD?) and Australia (beefing up the military in the South Pacific to "check" the Chinese).

    The OWS crowd better worry too, since Barry blew them a few kisses -- hard crackdown ahead?

  • C.S Lewis||

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    A robber baron (though the industrialists of the Gilded Age don't actually meet that definintion) can be clearly shown as evil. A bureaucrat from HHS, not so easily.

  • ||

    What does it say about me that I first read that as 'tranny' just now, even though I've read that quote a million times.

  • Chris||

    And a big thankst riggs for reviving the memory of Bxxxxxd Sxxw. I can assure you he is nearly forgotten outside of a few hothouse like collections of delicate prose.

  • ||

    Yeah- Shaw's da bomb.

  • Charlie||

    If they're frustrated we're not getting their message, then hey, why don't they get Uncle Mikey and Uncle Georgie to buy them a big piece of land somewhere and live as democratically and as progressively stackish as they want on it (do those two principles agree?). They've probably got enough money to buy Vermont even, which is most of the way there anyway.

  • Charlie||

    Not that I don't think they have legitimate gripes - the bailouts for billionaires gripes. But the bloody consequences of their solutions have already been seen in other experiments in the last couple of centuries.

  • sevo||

    "Not that I don't think they have legitimate gripes - the bailouts for billionaires gripes...."

    I doubt you'll get argument about that here, but the actual gripe seems to me less about the bailouts than the recipients.
    They're not griping that the money shouldn't be taxed and spent that way, but that *they* aren't the ones getting the manna.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Their sole gripe is that they've yet to figure out how to force others to support their utopia.

  • Barack Obama||

    Soon, baby.

    Soon.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    What would be really fun would be for the OWS'ers to take over Vermont, and the Free State folks to take over New Hampshire. Wait 20 years and see if Vermont gets annoying enough for the New Hampshire libertarians to invade.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Annoying after 20 years? What about the smell after 20 days?

  • Charlie||

    Now that would be an interesting experiment. I'm betting that actually after 20 years, the people of Vermont would be so fed up, they'd vote to have themselves annexed to New Hampshire (though by that time, the authoritarian cream might have risen to the top to block any sort of democracy they naively thought they'd be getting going in).

  • roystgnr||

    The invasion could go in the other direction. Inhabitants of poorly-governed states don't like the poor results, so they "vote with their feet" by moving to better-governed states. But they don't recognize the connection between the poor results and the poor government, so they still "vote with their ballots" to replicate the failures they just fled.

    It's like "survival of the fittest" for democratic policies, except that it's exactly the opposite.

  • ||

    Which is why all these parentheses state libtards moving into Texas scares the shit out of me.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    We already saw that experiment in the 20th century--keep in mind that New hampshire and Vermont were solidly rural Republican states up until the late 1900s, after which it became increasingly overrun by wannabe hippies from Massachusetts and New York.

    So the odds are, in your scenario, NH would become an appealing, low-tax, low-stress, low-scale garden spot, and Vermonters would end up migrating over to NH after turning their state into a festering, nannyist shithole.

  • Occubation||

    I went to an Occupy meeting and whipped it out. I starting stroking it. People laughed. Something tells me that wouldn't have happened at a Tea Party rally.

  • PantsFan||

    If "it" was a gun, then you'd be fine at the Tea Baggers but not with the Occupados.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    If "it" was a gun, then you'd be fine at the Tea Baggers but not with the Occupados.

    Occupy San Diego Has A Moment of Solidarity for the White House Shooter

    You were saying...?

  • ||

    Our ill-defined, self indulgent hijinx cost the the taxpayers of New York millions-- we're doing this all for YOU!

  • Bee Flagger||

    Don't tell us, but we stole that schtick from Booooooooooooooosh.

  • sevo||

    OK, as if it weren't worn out enough, we have a new entrant in the "It's Bush's Fault!(tm)" competition.

  • mostinterestingmanintheworld||

    It seems that the only consistent goal of the "99 per-cent" is to increase their majority to 100 per-cent. (That is, broke) Not everyone wants to be a drum-beating hippie.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    Long ago I sort of wrote off John Stewart. Or Jon Stewart. I just left Comedy Central on after South Park ended while I was washing my dishes and shit. So I saw the bit about the (protestors/movement/hippies-what fucking word is right) which was some funny ass shit. They have their fucking business meetings at Deutsche Bank.

  • Colonel_Angus||

    I just realized I didn't type the gist of my comment. Possibly because high. I saw on the Daily Show a bit about the occupy hippies splitting in to two or more classes who don't give a shit about each other. Which was some funny ass shit.

  • ||

    Sounds like the author is trying to fabricate a talking point. The OWS were always doing it for the 99%, weren't they? Of which they are a part?

    I haven't seen many one-percenters in those crowds. Has it occured to the author that one can do something for others while also doing it for oneself?

  • Shorter ophu||

    [::hands over ears, eyes shut tight::] "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEEEEEEAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRR YOOOOOOOUUUUUUUU -- !!!"

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I haven't seen many one-percenters in those crowds.

    Unlike the Phaggot Striver Poors in OWS, the 1%ers have jobs where they make real, actual money. The OWSers have worthless degrees and a bucket of student loan debt that their dream job in the co-op non-profit won't ever be able to pay off.

  • ##||

    I'm sure it has but what hasn't seemed to occur to you is that others may not want you do it for them. THat's the point. OWS may be part of the 99% but they in no way represent the whole 99% as they like to claim.

  • ||

    White youth, black youth
    Better find another solution.
    Why not phone up Robin Hood
    And ask him for some wealth distribution?

    My 20 year old pothead daughter and her hippie/punk friends just mock the Occupiers; in their real, blue-collar world, sleeping in a tent in a public park is something to be avoided, and something that actually happens to people they know, so they know it's a lifestyle only tolerated by lazy ass drunken losers whose acquaintances distrust them too much to offer a couch to sleep on. The idea of choosing to forego jobs, beds and indoor plumbing for anything as lame as politics isn't a sign of moral superiority to them, it's the province of loser burn-outs and earnest crunchy girls with hairy armpits and full seventies style bushes. It's an idea that smells like greasy hair and patchouli oil, according to my daughter, who says that avoiding those smells is why she's happy to work six or seven days a week to afford the rent on a roommate-free apartment. So at least some young folks these days are unapologetically selfish, materialistic, and good smelling.

  • ||

    I don't believe anything about thiscomment other than the plagerism

  • Chaos Punk||

    Sounds like my type of chick.

  • Janeane Garofalo||

    earnest crunchy girls with hairy armpits and full seventies style bushes.

    "PRESENT!!!"

  • Doc Rocket||

    You guys are all missing out on all of the fun. You know deep down inside that government is out of control and that the FED & this big banks are in cahoots and destroying our economy and freedom. Even Ron Paul is sympathetic to the OWS movement. Stop playing the device games that big Gov. wants you to play. It is keeping everyone isolated and at war with each other. I'm not a socialist or a communist and I take support OWS. I'm probably more in line with capitalism that any libertarian but we don't have capitalism here. We have corporatism. This is bad for all of us. We are living with less liberties than ever before. We're being robbed and you guys are all on this thread arguing about distractions. If you don't like how people are protesting the corruption of our government, then get together and form your own group and get on board. Because fighting against the people who are at least trying to raise awareness and wake people up is nothing but counterproductive. Try picking on the government instead of the protesters. They're the real criminals here.

  • Concerned Citizen||

    No, we oppose all statists all the time. We love capitalism and know that what we have now ain't that.

  • Art Vandelay||

    Try picking on the government

    Try taking your own advice, douche nozzle. You simps are all studiously NOT protesting Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Rangel, Frank, etc., etc. -- the very people most directly responsible for your personal economies sucking wind, right now.

    Fucking. MORONS.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    +1

  • ||

    I think you're drinking the Koolaid being served up by the media. Although the movement has become the focus of the left, the focus of the movement is injustice, period. And since the movement as of yet has no voice, it might as well be yours. Even if it is angry and crass.

  • Chaos Punk||

    crass- worst band ever.

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

    Cleveland: 10/18/2011 — ‘Occupy Cleveland’ Protester Alleges She Was Raped

    Seattle: 10/18/2011 — Man Accused of Exposing Self to Children Arrested

    New York: 10/9/2011 — ‘Occupy Wallstreet’ Protesters Steal from Local Businesses

    New York: 10/25/2011 — Three Men Threatened to Kill 24-Year-Old Occupy Wall Street Protester for Reporting Rape

    Baltimore: 10/18/2011 — #OccupyBaltimore Discourages Sexual Assault Victims from Contacting Police

    Cleveland: 10/29/2011 — Rape Reported at Occupy Cleveland

    Dallas: 10/24/2011 — Police Investigating Possible Sexual Assault Of Teen At Occupy Dallas

    Glasgow: 10/26/2011 — Woman Gang-Raped

    Lawrence, KS: 10/25/2011 — Sexual Assault Reported at Occupy Camp

    Phoenix, AZ: 10/27/2011 — Neo-Nazis Patrol “Occupy Phoenix” With AR-15′s

    Manchester, NH: 10/28/2011 — Woman charged with pimping teen recruited at Occupy NH rally

    NY: 10/30/2011 — Woman Assaulted in Her tent

    Baltimore: 10/31/2011 — Woman Claims She was Raped at #OccupyBaltimore

    Ottawa: 10/31/2011 — #OccupyOttawa Violent & Sexual Assaults Not Reported to Police

    Dallas, TX: 1v1/1/2011: Man Arrested for Child Sex assault at Occupy Dallas Camp

    Wash. DC: 11/5/2011 — Rampaging Occupiers Attack 78 Year-Old Woman

    Portland, OR: 10/27/2011 — Sexual Assault: ‘nobody should contact the police’

    Austin, TX: 11/15/2011 — Occupier Accused of Masturbating in Front of 16 Year-old Girl

    Philadelphia, PA: 11/15/2011 — Occupier Arrested for Assaulting Woman

    Chicago, IL: 11/16/2011 — Occupier Arrested for Child Porn

    Los Angeles, CA: 11/15/2011 – Occupier Charged With Masturbating In Front of Children

    Aliester Alemaine, 11/17/2001 - "[...] the focus of the movement is injustice, period."

    Evidently.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    You guys are all missing out on all of the fun.

    The raping, public defecation and Zuccotti Lung, you mean? Pass.

  • alienrants||

    I'm not a socialist or a communist [...] I'm probably more in line with capitalism that any libertarian

    Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

  • alienrants||

  • romulus augustus||

    "If you don't like how people are protesting the corruption of our government, then get together and form your own group and get on board."

    Maybe you missed the Tea Party? The Libertarian Party is another group doing this from 1971 on (but, admittedly, they are easy to miss.)

  • ||

    Tea Party isn't Libertarian.

  • mostinterestingmanintheworld||

    romulus augustus was listing movements, not conflating them.

  • jane||

    If you are doing this for me, it is time to go home, and make sure you VOTE!

  • Juice||

    Voting changes everything.

    Well, something.

    Well, maybe something sometimes.

  • fred koch is a bircher||

    tell me something i don't know yet, riggy boy?

  • The Derider||

    "The first idea it should abandon is that critics of the movement are afflicted with False Consciousness, which is the rather boring Marxist concept that anybody who disagrees with the need for revolution is ignorant of the actual state of things."

    The members of Ron Paul's R3VO1ution don't think exactly the same thing?

  • ||

    It’s distressing how the Occupy movement has been so dismissed and derided by conservatives, who have themselves been angry with the media and big government for about as long as one can remember. That the protest has been seized by liberals has been enough for many conservatives to abandon their own idealistic remonstrations, such as those embraced by the Tea Party. Fox News, which had been particularly supportive of that movement, relegates the current protesters to a level just above sewer rats. Yet both sides want many of the same things: accountability, ethics, and justice, to name a few. Admittedly, the end goals are different, but we should remember the Founding Fathers had different visions of America at its inception; where would this country be if the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had refused to recognize in the other the common desire to mold and shape this country into a more perfect union?

    If we largely agree we are dissatisfied with our current state of affairs, that things are not as they should be, that government and corporations must be accountable to the people, that Big Business and Big Government should take a back seat to rights of sovereign individuals, and that the status quo is doing nothing to right this sinking ship, we might agree that the protest movement, despite it’s current unfocused state, is in the best interest of the goals of ALL people.

    Conservatives, Moderates and Progressives alike should join the protests and lay their own claim to the revolutionary changes necessary to the survival of this great country.

    .

  • Brian N.||

    So tell us what you would have the general public do? Nothing? The lower and middle class work hard and deserve a fair share of the profits reaped by their labor. Large scale protests are the only way to raise the issue to Congress who otherwise would be happy to let things continue as they have been. Don't be a fool.

  • ||

    As I recall, Ron Paul, and his supporters, were all about the OWS movement a few short weeks ago. While some of the more rational (Why call yourself REASON if you can't recognize the leftist claptrap that immediately poured forth from OWS) amongst us found the so-called movement to be as fake as Mitt Romney. You should have been running this about 6 weeks ago.

  • The Derider||

    There are still tents at Occupy LA with "Ron Paul" and "End the Fed" stickers.

  • Chaos Punk||

    Local politics is everything.. fuck the federal government and the military.

  • Koch Brothers Spokeweasel||

    This hit-piece against a middle-class protest of the growing plutocracy has been pre-approved by Koch Bros. Industries.

    Mr. Riggs, your employment contract has been renewed for one extra year.

  • OWSer Phaggot Striver Poor||

    Right on! We shouldn't have to spend our days living on rice and beans when we deserve taxpayer-funded caviar!

  • Shorter Koch Bros Spokeweasel||

    "GimmeGimmeGimme MINEMINEMINEMINEMIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNE -- !!!"

  • Ice Cream Bunny||

  • صورالجماع||

    thank you a lotssssssssssssssssss

  • Rodger Malcolm Mitchell||

    Why Mike Riggs is a damn fool: http://rodgermmitchell.wordpre.....amn-fools/

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • FreeLibertine||

    "We’re doing this for you! Po-lice are the nine-ty nine percent!"

    This just tells me that you can't trust socialists. Deep down they really love the police state. First thing they would do if they were in power would be to send the government thugs (police) to force us all into re-education camps.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement