Friday Feedback: Occupy’s Demands

friday feedbackEach Friday, LA Progressive presents a comment we editors find to be most profound, insightful, or just plain irritating.

This week, Jeremey comments on “I Am the Spokesperson for #OWS: These Are Our Demands” by David Kristjanson-Gural:

November 26, 2011 at 8:37 pm • Edit
I simply would like to see that while I agree with the anti-bank sentiments of these demands, the approach I find very erroneous and poorly thought out.

The notion that if work to open your own company that the government can force you to sell shares of it to employees is very much against what I believe in. Owning your company is no different than owning your own home, and I fee that right is very much overlooked and disrespected.

An expansion of government backed student loans is the last thing we need. Government involvement in college tuition funding is what has caused the prices to rise at triple the rate of inflation. We need government entirely removed from the scenario so that schools are forced to operate within the constraints of the marketplace.

If universities want to continue making tuition costs outrageous, may they suffer the consequences of low attendance due to those costs, such as any other over-priced service. The notion that working class people that were unable to go to college should be forced to subsidize inflated college costs for their would-be employment competitors is a ridiculous idea just from a stand point of principle or morality, let alone the financial reality that it does not really benefit those attending the colleges to begin with.

Health insurance needs only one revision- a revocation of every state’s individual power to regulate the industry within their state. The regulations are written to protect in-state monopolies and inhibits the natural market competition that would typically arise in the absence of these ridiculous regulations.

As an example, the state of Hawaii has 2 insurance companies that account for 98% of ALL active policies. Why would anyone expect reasonable pricing when there are no alternatives?

The problem is not the profit motive of these companies, it is that outside companies seeking profit by under-cutting those monopolies are prohibited from doing so by the state government of Hawaii. How hard would it be to price gouge on Ebay if all of your competitors were barred by law from using it?

I agree whole heartedly on stopping all foreign wars, but we must demand more. A closure to all foreign military bases, as Ron Paul has stated numerous times would be his intention as president.

Philadelphia Police Captain (Ret) Ray Lewis

Philadelphia Police Captain (Ret) Ray Lewis

We will simply agree to disagree on the addition of safety nets. I find no honor or compassion in asking your government to bully your neighbor on your behalf. If we want people in this country to be compassionate and care for their fellow man again, we must endow them with the moral responsibility of being personally accountable for helping others.

We must no longer simply allow others to wave off the needs of others using the crutch of state-sponsored aid programs as an excuse. It has been proven over and over that on a busy road, virtually no one will stop and help those that are stranded on the side due to the assumption that someone else will help them. On a desert road where they know not another car will come by again for hours, they stop almost every single time.

We must apply this same principle to caring for our elders and our downtrodden. Expanding these programs only further instills an attitude of irresponsibility. We need to work to phase these programs out and drill into the heads of today’s youth that they should not expect the government to assume what is their responsibility as an able bodied, young American. The government does not exist to do your chores and take care of others on your behalf. It exists to protect your person, your rights, and your property. It is your duty to take care of those less fortunate than you, not a government bureau.

I could write many, many more paragraphs on our disagreements, but I think a lot more critical thought needs to go into these demands. Pushing for public ownership of these particular industries and functions are not in the best interest of this nation, and I sincerely mean that.


  1. says

    Jeremey seems to assume that if the government provides a kind of aid, then that undercuts individual responsibility to help others. (His own example doesn’t illustrate that. It’s damn hard to stop safely on a busy road – and quite understandably, even with the best of good will, it’s even less likely you will stop if in fact you yourself are indeed busy.)

    On the contrary. When a given kind of necessary aid is left just to volunteerism, the freeloading bad guys will dump it all on the saintly good guys. And the hesitant middling wannabe reasonably good guys will lose heart, seeing as those who should be doing something get off by doing little or nothing.

    Jeremey assumes that ‘young able-bodied Americans’ not only should but will do their share if only we preach that to them. Some will but many won’t – unless they see that thanks to social compulsion (including laws and tax-supported efforts) they can’t help it. And not all young able-bodied Americans stay that way, or escape accidents and catastrophes that turn them into young disabled Americans unable to help others or even themselves even tho they would much want to do so.

    No, the government shouldn’t be into gold-plated programs which unconditionally aid free-loaders who are able to help themselves or others. But by the very same token, government shouldn’t let free-loaders off the hook from doing their share (thru taxes and the like) to ensure the basics of a compassionate and efficient society – including basic support of people in need and of vital infrastructure.

  2. George says

    I don’t feel morally responsible for helping anyone I don’t know. If I tried, I would just end up getting conned. Churches supposedly perform that function in return for their enormous tax advantages and the various lightly concealed government subsidies they receive, proof that they are more sophisticated con artists.

    The only sensible method of taking something from the rich to give to the poor is for various governments to handle the distribution. The various preachers and John Galt wannabes have their own more or less hidden agendas, none of which alleviate poverty

    On the subject of student loans, they have proven to be much more efficient if regulated by the government. A good education costs money, and for-profit schools offer very little value for their cost. A good education is expensive, so suck it up and let governments provide quality education. It’s good for the students and good for the country..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *