OWS shuts down Port of Oakland

[Dragon]

3) Contrary to popular belief on the right these days, the Tea Tax was actually a tax CUT, not an increase -- a cut for corrupt mercantile interests, increasing their profits at the expense of the little guys..

It had nothing to do with that, and almost everything to do with forcing the colonists to buy highly taxed tea, and to cement the right of the crown to tax the colonies in the first place.

Well, no. As you say yourself:

Duties on tea (charged in Britain) destined for North America "and foreign parts" would either be refunded on export or not imposed . . . the only reduction of tax was in Great Britain, not the colonies

Exactly. It was a tax cut for the rich, specifically in this case the East India Company.

and it was designed to force the colonists to purchase tea on which Townshend duties were paid...

No. All tea sold in the colonies without exception and regardless of the source was subject to Townsend duties. (Tea was the only part of the Townsend act that remained, incidentally, the other taxes having been repealed.) The tax cut applied to East India tea was to the benefit of the company as it competed with, among others, American merchant shipping. The tea tax was hardly onerous, and amounted to no more than a maintenance of the theoretical right of Parliament to tax Americans directly.

The protest carried out by S. Adams & co. was directed at a British government perceived (with much cause) as favoring the elite, especially the British nobility and chartered companies like East India Co., and not performing its duty to the common people. The parallels to today's circumstances are quite marked, although the details of course differ.

 

[Si modo]

And yet, the OWS shut down the Port of Oakland and thousands of workers involuntarily lost wages because of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And yet, the OWS shut down the Port of Oakland and thousands of workers involuntarily lost wages because of them.

They're just looking out for the little guy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

These idiots are falling for what they've been fed by thier handlers...and nevermind they don't care how it affects the lives of others.

Bunch of petulant children.

It sounds to me like these people are after a revolution. Would you have said the same things about the Americans who fought the War of Independence?

 

[M14 Shooter]

These idiots are falling for what they've been fed by thier handlers...and nevermind they don't care how it affects the lives of others.
Bunch of petulant children.

It sounds to me like these people are after a revolution.

None of them have the testicular fortitude to actually pursue any such thing - as soon as someone visits their violence upon them in like and kind, they will run away screaming.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Deflection. The Boston Tea Party was a dispute over taxation without representation. It was not a bunch of people claiming they wanted an end to capitalism and jobs for everyone.

It was a group of people intentionally destroying the private property of others, in hopes to influence and provoke political change. I think we should be grateful that the Occupy movement is doing nothing more than impeding traffic and hasn't resorted to malicious destruction of property. At least not yet.

 

[Inthemiddle]

None of them have the testicular fortitude to actually pursue any such thing - as soon as someone visits their violence upon them in like and kind, they will run away screaming.

Why must revolution require violence? Perhaps they want to provoke a revolution by forcing economic factors.

Ever since this Occupy movement began I've had this hunch that this thing would develop into a revolutionist type of movement of some kind. I've not said it so far, but this event indicates to me that that's exactly the direction this is heading. I'm keeping an interesting watch because I'm starting to become more convinced that, for better or worse, we are witnessing a truly major event in history. The question remains, however, what kind of revolution would they be after? A full scale political revolution? A social/economic revolution? What practical alternatives can they, or anyone else, propose? And what's next if revolutionaries win without ever figuring out a direction?

 

[M14 Shooter]

None of them have the testicular fortitude to actually pursue any such thing - as soon as someone visits their violence upon them in like and kind, they will run away screaming.

Why must revolution require violence?

Eventually, revolutions reach a point where once side is willing to use violence.
If you are not willing to respond, then your revolution ends. These people will dissolve at the sight of guns leveled at them by people who are more than willing to use them.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Eventually, revolutions reach a point where once side is willing to use violence.

Nonsense. There are many kinds of revolutions, not all of them forceful, and even the "forceful" ones are not always violent. It seems to me that the intent in occupying the port is to create economic pressure with the intent to eventually force big business to redevelop it's ways of doing business. Who knows. I, personally, don't really think that there is a concrete and measured plan. But it seems to me that these people all probably agree that they want to make "the man" feel the pain where it counts most.

If you are not willing to respond, then your revolution ends. These people will dissolve at the sight of guns leveled at them by people who are more than willing to use them.

Okay, so at best, your criticism here is that if the Occupy crowd attempts a peaceful revolution by creating economic pressure, then "the man" will eventually decide he's had enough and will start shooting them all up, and they'll die because they're going to stick to their principles of peaceful revolution. That's your "criticism"?

 

[DiamondDave]

Their right to protest, IMHO, ends where it infringes on my right to earn a paycheck to feed my family.

So it ends when it inconveniences you.

But don't paint the dock workers as victims. Most of them are supportive of this move and participated in it.

Which reminds me. Would you say the same about a union going on strike? That's essentially a protest, and it certainly infringes on the right of the workers belonging to the union to earn a paycheck. So on that ground, would you abolish unions?

If so, would you go back to the 14-hour day, no benefits, no job security, and subsistence pay? Sometimes you have to risk, struggle, and disrupt in order to obtain a fair shake.

No.. it ends when they infringe on the rights of others... not just 'inconvenience'

They can picket, without blocking streets... they can chant and scream, without throwing feces and trash at cops... they can complain all day about their enemies of their communist ideals, without using the mob to shut down the free enterprise

 

[editec]

All this talk about violent revolution is rather premature.

Even though the OWS movement is about to face its Valley Forge winter, I can't really imagine those unarmed patriots attacking Trenton, can you?

I also doubt the Redcoats are coming.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Eventually, revolutions reach a point where once side is willing to use violence.

Nonsense. There are many kinds of revolutions, not all of them forceful, and even the "forceful" ones are not always violent.

Exceptionally rare indeed is the revolution where -all- sides are unwilling to use violence to assert their position. That it has happend in a tiny percentage of 'revolution' in no way means it it is anyway likely to happen in any given instance.

It seems to me that the intent in occupying the port is to create economic pressure with the intent to eventually force big business to redevelop it's ways of doing business.

Blocking traffic in/out of a major seaport forces big business to go so far out of their way to call the police and have the streets cleared. Public saftey, you know.

Okay, so at best, your criticism here is that if the Occupy crowd attempts a peaceful revolution by creating economic pressure, then "the man" will eventually decide he's had enough and will start shooting them all up, and they'll die because they're going to stick to their principles of peaceful revolution. That's your "criticism"?

Your malcharacterization speaks volumes. The point is these peoples' 'principles' will end once they are presented with sometning that threatened their lives. Their impetus is based on the petulant notion that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, and they are more than happy to whine and cry about it - but when it comes to actually fighting, then not so much.

 

[Conservative]

I think we should be grateful that the Occupy movement is doing nothing more than impeding traffic and hasn't resorted to malicious destruction of property. At least not yet.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/192557-chaos-oakland-erupts-in-flames-started-by-ows-mob.html

 

[Inthemiddle]

Their impetus is based on the petulant notion that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, and they are more than happy to whine and cry about it

So, they are much like the first Americans who rebelled against their country.

but when it comes to actually fighting, then not so much.

1) On what basis do you make this claim?

2) How is it a criticism that they are not willing to resort to violence?

 

[AmericanFirst]

So OWS disrupts trade in one of our ports and the people who named themselves after the Boston Tea Party have a fainting spell.

lol, too funny.

You idiots should have named yourselves the Loyalists.

You idiots should just call yourselves comrade. Go away nitwit.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Their impetus is based on the petulant notion that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, and they are more than happy to whine and cry about it

So, they are much like the first Americans who rebelled against their country.

but when it comes to actually fighting, then not so much.

1) On what basis do you make this claim?

2) How is it a criticism that they are not willing to resort to violence?

You are so wrong. Our forefathers fought to free us from totalitarian rule so we could have the freedom to choose our own way in life. But you idiot socialists want us to go back to being ruled by the good ole king. Go away.

 

[Listening]

A good water cannon....

Problem solved.

 

[Dragon]

The following revolutions were accomplished with very little, if any, violence on the part of the rebels.

The overthrow of the Soviet Union in 1991.
The overthrow of various Soviet satellites the same year.
The overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines.
The overthrow of the Shah of Iran.
The overthrow of Hosni Mubarrak in Egypt.

Violence connected with revolutions is usually a case of the state attempting to put down the movement by force, and is possible only during the period when the movement has insufficient popular support to overthrow the state. For example, it was used by the Kuomintang against the Chinese Communists in the years before the Communists had enough support to take over. The Communists had to arm themselves in order to defend the territory that they did control, so as to be able to appeal through their actions and through propaganda. When they finally did overthrow the Chinese government, there was very little fighting because the Kuomintang had very few supporters left.

When a revolution is ready to succeed, there is little violence because the government's armed defenders desert it and join the other side. The violence happens before that, and if things go badly sometimes after that.

In the U.S., the government is forbidden by the Constitution from using violence to suppress a nonviolent movement. For that reason, even if a revolution is the end-game, there will be no Long March for Occupy, nor any need to turn to violent solutions. There is no way for any popular uprising to fight the U.S. military successfully in any case. The only way for a revolution to succeed is if the military joins it and does not have to be fought.

 

[Dragon]

Our forefathers fought to free us from totalitarian rule so we could have the freedom to choose our own way in life.

Oh, please. Great Britain was, by any standard, the freest country in the world at that time. To call the British government "totalitarian rule" is beyond absurdity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Their impetus is based on the petulant notion that they are entitled to a certain standard of living, and they are more than happy to whine and cry about it

So, they are much like the first Americans who rebelled against their country.

Your (factually inaccuate) red herring indicates you have no effective counter to what I said.

but when it comes to actually fighting, then not so much.

1) On what basis do you make this claim?

The fact that self-interested snotty-nosed spoiled children rarely do more than throw a tantrum when then cannot get what they want - few use force to take what they want from their parents. No reason to expect anything different from these poeple.

2)How is it a criticism that they are not willing to resort to violence?

Not sure how this question follow from your previous question, or anthing that I've said.
The idea of "revolution" was brought up; I stated that this was unlikely as these people weren't willing, on the whole, to place their lives in a position of immediate mortal danger to push their point to its conclusion.
:shrug: