So, what's the LPSF position on the Occupy Movement"?

Les,

  I certainly agree with you that most Occupy protesters are not for
liberty as libertarians understand it. Then again, how many groups are
there in society about which it can be claimed otherwise?

  I would argue that corporate welfare *does* tend to be somewhat worse
than individual welfare, for reasons including (but perhaps not
limited to) the fact that the recipients are determined less by need,
and more by politics, that a "crony capitalist" relationship between
large corporations and government is more dangerous than similar
relationships between individuals and government, and that
institutions tend to be better prepared than individuals to lobby to
protect their subsidies.

  I also consider statism, not socialism, to be the problem. I used to
attack socialism, but came to the realization that there's nothing
wrong with socialism when it's voluntary -- most people practice
something like socialism in their families ("from each according to
his ability, to each according to his need"). The problem comes when
people try to impose socialism by force via the State. To any
objection to calling what happens in typical families "socialist", I
would say that we can hardly call the small-scale free trades we
engage in like selling things at garage sales without any permits or
taxes, or paying people under the table "capitalist", while refusing
to acknowledge the small-scale voluntary communitarian relationships
we make in our lives as socialist.

  You mention that the occupiers do not all have the same agenda, which
indeed is true, and ask "How is it possible to know whether the flyer
represents the views of the occupiers?" I refer you back to my
original message about the flier, from October 14, posted below, which
explains the flier. The fact that it does contain terms from differing
points of view suggests to me that it was compiled in the way it bills
itself as having been compiled, which makes it at least somewhat valid
as a sampling of Occupy opinions. You might also ask yourself, "How is
it possible to know whether what I hear on news broadcasts represents
the views of the occupiers?" My guess is that there is some truth to
both sources, but I would not suggest taking either as gospel truth.
Short of actions such as giving Occupy protesters the Advocates quiz,
or gathering more personal observations, we're usually going to be
relying on some kind of second-hand info.

  Thank you for your other message responding to my suggested points
for things to support and oppose about Occupy. I'll respond to that
separately.

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

On Oct 14, 2011, at 9:21 PM, Starchild wrote (in part):

Starchild:

I am sure that there a very few organization that are for liberty as
libertarians understand it and we don't normally issue statements of support for
them either. I have no problem with issuing a statement of support for any ideas
which a consistent with libertarianism, but I would argue against issuing any
statement of support for the occupy movement itself since so much of it seems
distinctly unlibertarian.

Corporations are people. Mitt Romney caught a lot of flack when he made that
simple observation. A corporation is a relationship between investors, managers
and workers. Any corporate welfare will ultimately flow thru to the people who
comprise the corporation. I am NOT trying to justify corporate welfare. I hate
it. But I stand by my assertion that corporate welfare is no worse than any
other form of welfare.

I dont understand your distinction between statism and socialism. IMHO socialism
is a form of statism along with fascism and communism. Socialism on a national
level CANNOT be voluntary; it always has to be imposed by force. Socialism
within a family is vastly different from socialism within a country.

My infomration regarding the occupy movements is not solely derived from news
broadcasts. It is also derived from magazines such as The Nation and The
American Prospect which are broadly supportive of hte movement. One can also
note the banners and signs of the occupiers, few of which display any
libertarian sentiment.

As I have said, I have no problem with any supporting ideas which are consistent
with libertarian philosophy, but not for supporting the movement itself which
seems to me to be broadly statist and unlibertarian.

Les

Just a comment on this discussion. The LPSF is a political organization. Politicians seldom lead a parade. They find a parade…then march in front of it. We have principles but OWS is a parade and a big one. It is not a bad idea to get in front of it and start marching….stating our reasons for being there loud and clear. If we don’t do it…then other voices will prevail.

Mike

So was the Tea Party. Did you advocate getting out in front of that parade?

That's my point. I am suggesting I post the blurb on the website unless there is a realistic, cogent reason why LPSF should not weigh in with a libertarian perspective to solutions to obvious challenges.

Marcy

I did and do now too

I did, and was shouted down, so I am hoping that does not happen again.

Marcy