bbauska wrote:Great video link, Steve. Very succinct.

Indeed it was. Not sure if it's completely objective, but I've seen similar videos from other sides of debates as well. They look good, anyway.

However, I am a little confused. I didn't think that 'flat taxes' were a central plank of the Tea Party aims. I get that they are for fiscal responsibility (balances budgets), smaller government and lower taxes, and more oversight, but Flat Tax is a bit specific and it struck me as odd that the video started with that as a basis of 'classical liberalism' that the TP espouse.

I wonder if the people who complain about the delay to the Keystone Xl pipeline are so concerned about 'property rights' and 'freedom of contract' as well (the next planks). After all, Keystone XL will need to go through a few dozen eminent domain cases in order to build through South Dakota and Texas. Clearly supporting a government fiat on allowing the pipeline does not square with property rights or freedom of contract.

I agree that Property rights and freedom of contract are important pillars of 'Classical Liberalism', but I think Flat Tax is too specific (I would expect that in reality it is 'limited government') and also that there are some big missing planks, such as Free Trade, Constitutionalism, Social liberties (if you go back to the original 'Classical Liberals' like Locke and Smith, Mill and Ricardo).

And I'm not convinced that the Tea Party are really 'Classical Liberals' anyway, especially when some of their concerns are about a strong military, secure borders etc (depending which bit of the Tea Party movement).

On the other side, I don't agree with his portrayal of 'progressives'. I suspect that many of the OWS protesters are on the 'Anarcho-' side of the left, and would also like to see less government (albeit that the bits they'd like to have reduced will differ from the Tea Party bugbears). Indeed, I would not be surprised if a lot of the original protestors were from this tradition, rather than the more social-democratic, central-statist 'Classical' Left that's based around labour unions.

However, I don't think it's actually just 'Progressives' who support government regulation in many areas. It may be that the US government does things wrong (inefficiently, too heavy handed, too blanket, overcomplicated), but consumers ended up getting ripped off before anti-trust laws came in. Employees ended up being exploited before labour laws came in. Honest and moral businesses get undercut by less salubrious competitors if they are not in some way distinguished.

At the end he attacks the 'downward spiral' that progressivism would cause. And to be sure, we should be concerned that policies do not destroy wealth (I'm not convinced that the New Deal did, seeing as the US was pretty wealthy and getting wealthier and most Americans shared in that growth). But he ignores the 'race to the bottom' argument that is a counter to 'Classical Liberal' policies. While the USA as a whole is much richer than it was in 1980 (even after the 2008 crash), most Americans are not much better off (even before the 2008 crash) while a few are much more wealthy.

Oh, and to go back to his opening thesis, that the two movements have nothing in between them, I don't get it. About 20% of people 'support' the Tea Party, and about 20% of people 'support' OWS. Active participants are lower. So about half of America or more are not really backing either extreme. They may have sympathies in one direction or other, but that doesn't mean complete agreement.

And as for commonalities, both movements are populist. Both have attracted nutty-fringers. Both have libertarian strands (and both have an authoritarian streak that they would deny). Both are angry. Both feel oppressed by the powers that be, denigrated by the media, ignored etc. Their tactics are different, for certain, but ultimately they are aiming to have an impact on the 'mainstream' political sphere which until now has been dominated by the Republicrats and the 'machines' of parties and governments working with other elites like business. That impact they want to have on behalf of what they see as the 'ordinary' people.

I'm not really that keen on either of them. I understand what they are about, and I can have empathy and sympathy for people who are involved. But they are not the be-all and end-all of political debate in the USA, and to make them so is actually likely to increase the damaging entrenchment that is going on.

http://www.nwcn.com/home/?fId=134770338&fPath=/news/local&fDomain=10202

$85,000 damages from the Occupy Portland

I have yet to find any damage from conservative based rallies.

So are we all agreed that the Tea Party has yet to commit even one act of civil disobedience and therefore really has nothing materially in common with the Boston Tea Party?

Neal Anderth wrote:So are we all agreed that the Tea Party has yet to commit even one act of civil disobedience and therefore really has nothing materially in common with the Boston Tea Party?

Your premise is fine. Your conclusion, particularly "nothing" is ridiculous. This Tea Party is not protesting a far-off monarchy. I could go on, but I think you need to make your own case with more than one supercilious sentence.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:So are we all agreed that the Tea Party has yet to commit even one act of civil disobedience and therefore really has nothing materially in common with the Boston Tea Party?

Your premise is fine. Your conclusion, particularly "nothing" is ridiculous. This Tea Party is not protesting a far-off monarchy. I could go on, but I think you need to make your own case with more than one supercilious sentence.

Perhaps I am being dense but I don't even understand the point of his post.

I believe he is saying the Tea Party is not Tea Party enough like the original.

bbauska wrote:I believe he is saying the Tea Party is not Tea Party enough like the original.

And that means what? Obviously it is an attempt to delegitamize them. However, I fail to see how it does so.

Other then being a typical NA non-sequiter, I don't really see the point of his comment.

Agreed

Archduke Russell John wrote:Other then being a typical NA non-sequiter, I don't really see the point of his comment.

Sometimes, I think that IS the point!

If NA wanted to make sense, he would go back to Santelli's original rant and ask, "Why Tea, Rick?" I think Santelli was just looking for a 1770-era symbol to tie to a protest against excessive taxation. He never called for people to dress like Indians and dump tax into the ocean.

"Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?"

The UN is asking the US government why it isn't protecting citizens from human rights abuses by local law enforcement.

Yes I'm sure friend comrade Obama is going to unleash the Justice Department to help protect the Constitutional right of OWS.

Neal Anderth wrote:"Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?"

The UN is asking the US government why it isn't protecting citizens from human rights abuses by local law enforcement.

Yes I'm sure friend comrade Obama is going to unleash the Justice Department to help protect the Constitutional right of OWS.

One needs to differentiate between evil and not ideal. If you cannot, then all government is evil. I've heard others of OWS point to the situation in Egypt. At Tahrir Square they protested they they don't have the vote or basic rights.

It's always entertaining to say something pithy that compares the US to a repressive Arab (or Russian or Chinese, etc.) regime. You get clever points. But it also displays a certain ignorance about life in a truly repressive country. If you truly knew what it was like, you wouldn't be using emoticons, or taking your own liberties so lightly.

To be accurate, Ray Jay, Egyptians had a vote under the old regime. It was just that the options of who to vote for were strictly limited.

In the spirit of appreciation, a big thanks to the job creators, manufacturing jobs none the less:

CAIRO: The arrival of 7 and half tons of tear gas to Egypt’s Suez port created conflict after the responsible officials at the port refused to sign and accept it for fear it would be used to crackdown on Egyptian protesters.
The shipment has been moved by the ministry of interior to its Cairo storage facility, amidst strict and secretive security measures. Local reports say the staff, initially under investigation, have been spared investigation after having a discussion over the matter with their superiors.

Local news sites published documents regarding the shipment shows that the cargo that arrived in 479 barrels from the United States was scheduled to be delivered to the ministry of interior.

The reports also mentioned in the documents that a second shipment of 14 tons of tear gas was expected, making the total 21 tons, in one week.

The importing of tear gas comes after thousands of tear gas canisters were fired at Egyptian protesters last week as clashes raged in downtown Cairo, just off from the iconic Tahrir Square, where thousands of protesters had gathered.

Made in the US. Thank you job creators...thank you.

Your capacity for the tangential is truly stunning NA. In fact, maybe you should consider a slight alteration to your name. Rather than "Neal Anderth," some call you "NA," as I just did. I think N/A might be even better.

Back on topic:

How about the "Occupy Wall Street" protest against Glenn Beck? Does it make any sense that people who allegedly are concerned with bailouts and a government in bed with big business would protest a guy who is, essentially, a libertarian and was 100% opposed to the bailouts? Yet, they show up at his book signing?

Now, it's legal, I think. The question remains: is this whole thing really about "Wall Street" or is it simply a Leftist, socialist, unionist attack mob?

ray

It's always entertaining to say something pithy that compares the US to a repressive Arab (or Russian or Chinese, etc.) regime. You get clever points. But it also displays a certain ignorance about life in a truly repressive country.

Unfortunately some things that are seen as insignificant, and often are terribly insignificant, sometimes achieve powerful symbolism .
I doubt the UN pronuoncements or the OWS comparisons will ever have an effect, ..but I'll bet the shipment of US tear gas resonates within Egypt for a while.