"So I'm in favor of involuntary commitment."
 

HA!

The trick: forcing someone with a worth (power) exceeding that of a small nation to 'do' anything at all.

If he or she can't buy you, then he or she will have you ended and buried deep.

It would be nice if 'right makes/is might' but the reality is 'might makes/is right'.

*shrug*

There is no proposal from the 'occupants' or elsewhere that would limit accumulated wealth. There's not even any proposal that would limit income. Even if the top tax bracket was 99%, a $100 raise would give you another dollar.

The sad part is the wealthy-wanabees who don't realize they too are in 99%.

Then too, the wealthy need to keep in mind the line from the old westerns:
"There's always a faster gun"
.

.

Is there a definition of the 1%/99%? I need to know which side I'm on.

There is no proposal from the 'occupants'…that would limit accumulated wealth.
 

I could probably find evidence to dispute this, but, it would be moot.

My point was clear, I think: 'the 'occupants' will not 'win' 'cause the rich 'won' a long, long, time ago.'

There will be no sweeping cultural reforms, no trials of the 'criminal rich', no redistribution of significant wealth.

Things are what they are and will remain exactly as they are 'till those in power (not the governments) decide otherwise.

Your options: divorce yourself as much as possible from the greater workings of things (self-reliance) up to and including taking a one-way *hike into 'the desert', or, settle in for the ride with someone else in your driver's seat.

#

"The sad part is the wealthy-wanabees who don't realize they too are in 99%."

If directed at me: I have no interest in being rich...too much work, too much baggage...I prefer what I have: solitary, anonymous, minimalistic, autonomy...I own little and am owned by little.

Your mistake, Lamp: assuming I admire the rich...I don't admire them or find them distasteful...they simply 'are' (and they're not going anywhere).

#

"There's always a faster gun"

Sure: but, faster is not always more accurate.





*even being prepared to do so sets you apart from the greater workings of things.

And, for the record: Elections DO NOT matter and words DO NOT matter: what matters is what YOU DO, FOR YOURSELF, BY YOURSELF.

#

"I need to know which side I'm on."

Pick the side that matters most: your own.

...

[quote=henry quirk;764830<snip>
"The sad part is the wealthy-wanabees who don't realize they too are in 99%."

If directed at me: I have no interest in being rich...too much work, too much baggage...
I prefer what I have: solitary, anonymous, minimalistic, autonomy...
I own little and am owned by little.

Your mistake, Lamp: assuming I admire the rich...
I don't admire them or find them distasteful...
they simply 'are' (and they're not going anywhere).
<snip>
[/QUOTE]

HQ, I don't think I assumed you "admire the rich", or even directed the comment at you, in particular.
But your assertions do, in fact, set up a fatalistic defense... (i.e., Be afraid, very afraid)
and so secures you to them, but still outside the 1% castle wall.

Advocating a solitary , anonymous, minimalistic, autonomy may be your preference... So be it.

But in a so-called real world, the other end of the distribution usually doesn't work out so well,
mainly because it's is not as "autonomous" as might be believed.

That's the whole problem in a nutshell.

"...your assertions...set up a fatalistic defense...and...secures you to them..."

Acknowledging a hurricane is coming up the mouth of the Miss. doesn't bind me to the hurricane...acknowledging the hurricane's existence and what the hurricane is capable of allows me to realistically prepare for it, and, to realistically respond to what it leaves behind: so, no, not really.

#

"the other end of the distribution usually doesn't work out so well"

Meaning, I guess, all those folks who chose something other than autonomy.

Hey, one gets what one deserves: Franklin said, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

He was wrong. Hanging together usually means you get hanged together.

#

"real world"

I live in the real world...am up to my neck in it...I believe, however, (and the status of my life is all the evidence I need) I have an awful amount of control over what 'I do' in the world (my actions, responses, cultivating and avoid certain consequences, etc.)...I understand many, perhaps most, folks don't share my perspective...that's okay...each and every one will do exactly as he or she likes and is able.

I just may be 'more' capable (of autonomy).

This is not a crime any more than someone being 'less' capable is a crime.

But: the lesser ability of the other is not my problem to correct or pay for (I have no interest in living in Harrison Bergeron’s world...if you do: more power to you...I, however, will not be hobbled).

The 'occupants', I think, would be very happy to live in Bergeron’s world...other folks would not.

#

"That's the whole problem in a nutshell."

No. The problem, as exampled by the 'occupants', is believing the 'rich' can made to care.

HQ, I hope your interpretations of my post were not intentionally askewed .

By fatalistic assertions, I meant that if the "hurricane" is coming,
your assertions to others here are along the lines that closing
and boarding up the windows will do no good. etc., etc.

By "other end of the distribution" I meant the 1% of the 99%... the poorest of the poor.

I did confirm your preferences for autonomy are yours to own.
Nothing was said about it being criminal,.
Only time will show if a competent, solitary life is sufficient.

It really isn't about making the rich care. Those protestors aren't talking to Wall Street. They're talking to Washington.

Politicians also probably don't care either (at least the ones who are powerful and successful enough politicians to be in a position to do anything) about the suffering or unhappiness of the protestors. But, if enough noise is made. If enough people stand up and shout. If a critical mass of discontent is reached, then politicians start looking at their majorities and asking questions about their next campaign.

@Henry: No individual can live entirely self-sufficiently and still be able to participate in and enjoy the advantages that technology and civil society have made possible.

My God what a cold world. Each to their own and nobody for the ones with noone. I do not understand why people persist in adhering to the notion of society as a jungle. It's the opposite of that. It's the sum total of our journey out of the jungle.

I was just walking past the Washington DC Occupy encampment. I'd estimate that about 20% of the visible participants were obviously veterans. That kind of surprised me, because I expected them to all be young folks. Not wheelchair bound Vietnam vets.

I'd guess there were about 50 people there, and about as many tents. 5 porta-potties, including a wheelchair accessible one, which was nice, since I saw two protesters in wheelchairs. Everyone was just sitting around, with signs leaning up against their tents. There was one fairly large group, huddled in a circle of folding chairs, talking quietly. No cops anywhere.

And some black teens off to the side, tapping drum sticks against a retaining wall.