The "Brains" Behind the Wall Street Protests (and the Money)

Very interesting stuff

Hey Marilyn how about we send this kid a message and tell him he can have a real job just trying to keep up with your posts! Not complaining, they are great! But it can easily take up your whole day!

Coincidentally I got a book from Amazon for $4, $3.99 of which was postage, that I am reading now. David Horowitz's Shadow Party, which is about how Soros and the far left hijacked the Democratic party!

Although written in 2006, Horowitz anticipates the demonstrations and violence as part of the American Communists' longstanding strategy to collapse the system by

1, applying both a "pressure from the top" policy of having stealth Communist politcians inside government create crises by bad policies designed to discredit freedom, democracy and Capitalism, and

2. "pressure from below," by agitating people to demonstrate, riot and otherwise create a sense that a "revolution" is necessary to "restart" the system along Communist lines. In other words, what Communist agitator Frances Fox Piven, who spoke at the NYC demonstrations over the weekend, and Obama's Communist friend Van Jones call a "top down, bottom up" strategy.

Just what they're doing. And the sheeple cannot see what's happening.

Sorry about all the posts. I figured out the other day that I get about 22 conservative newsletters, some every day, some once or twice a week. And each one usually has about 5 articles or blogs of focus. Imagine if I tried to share them all. Then there's also what gets shared at Facebook...

:)

The media won't keep us informed, so we have to help each other.

Absolutely! You never need apologize, least of all to me! I love what you do and marvel at your dedication and the wisdom of your choices. There has never been a time in our lifetimes when active political diligence has been more important. You help keep everyone right up to date on the latest.

Remember Wisconsin??....

Remember what they said after they lost in Wisconsin??....

My Comment is no comment..ore points..LOL

Wow, how surprising that Fox News would choose to cover the Occupy Wall Street protests negatively.

The speculation from O'Reilly here about who's funding the protesters is hilarious. Adbusters! Anonymous! GEORGE SOROS! Oh emm gee! Does that mean that every unemployed person at a Tea Party rally (do they still have those any more?) is being paid to protest by Rupert Murdoch, the KKK, and the Koch Brothers?

Yes, someone is providing protesters with blanks, food, water, etc. Actually, lots of someones. There are a number of groups set up to take donations, distributing supplies, etc. and people from all over the country and the world are making donations to help.

As I understand it, a lot of it is still pretty disorganized, but it's becoming less so the longer the occupation continues (and spreads to other cities).

And funnily enough, this Fox News interview seemed to go a little differently, but hasn't been spread around the right-wing blogosphere in the same way as the O'Reilly bit.

Wil, the guy on the video said that his parents told him to get a real job. That certainly implies that this is his current job and that he's being paid. We know that they're being given heat sources and food for free. That doesn't grow on trees. Folks came from all parts of the country. Travel isn't cheap. Someone paid unemployed people to get there, don't you think?

Big difference from TEA party events. Most folks there have jobs or are small business owners. Do we still have them? Oh you betcha. We're hard at work here in Ohio to make sure people vote yes on issues 2 and 3. There are still quite a few major events throughout the country (you mean you've never bothered to listen to a Herman Cain speech at one?) And locally we're meeting now as often as twice a week. We also know exactly why we're doing what we're doing.

"Wil, the guy on the video said that his parents told him to get a real job. That certainly implies that this is his current job and that he's being paid."

I don't think it implies that participating in the Occupy Wall Street protests are his current job, or that he's being paid to be there.

"We know that they're being given heat sources and food for free. That doesn't grow on trees. Folks came from all parts of the country. Travel isn't cheap. Someone paid unemployed people to get there, don't you think?"

I know they're being given heat sources, food, blankets, etc. because I'm one of the people who've donated to help provide those things, like I did to help the protesters in Egypt. That doesn't make me George Soros, and it doesn't make me anybody's employer. Do I think someone is paying for their travel? I doubt it. Ever heard of carpooling or hitchhiking?

"Big difference from TEA party events. Most folks there have jobs or are small business owners."

Really? The polls I've seen say that only about half of Tea Party supporters are employed full-time, and that at least 45% of them aren't employed at all.

"Do we still have them? Oh you betcha."

I had no idea. If half the Tea Party supporters don't have jobs, I wonder how they fund all those meetings? Speakers, refreshments, Gadsden flags, tea bags, etc. all cost money, right? I hope Jon Stewart sends one of his hot-shot investigative journalists to look into it! LOL!

We pay our own way, Wil, as it should be. This week there's a class about "True the Vote" - volunteering at the polls. The cost is $10, to cover the cost of the hall. It was a night we couldn't go, but we'll be at the next one.

I would doubt any lamestream media reports about TEA party groups. I know that most of our local groups in Cincinnati and Ohio are employed persons and many with their own businesses. Sure, there are some retirees, but not a majority, that's for sure.

"We pay our own way, Wil, as it should be."

Sure you to, Marilyn. Sure you do. And how exactly do you know what every single Tea Party supporter does, and where they get the money to do it?

"I would doubt any lamestream media reports about TEA party groups."

LOL. Sorry, I find it very hard to take someone seriously when they use the term "lamestream media". But in any case, I didn't need to rely on any media reports, lamestream or otherwise, but at the polls themselves, which were conducted by Gallup and Selzer & Co.

"Sure, there are some retirees, but not a majority, that's for sure."

I didn't say the majority of them are retirees. The polling data I've seen says about a quarter of them are retired, and another 10% or so are homemakers who, by choice or otherwise, don't work outside the home. The other categories of non-working Tea Party members included students and unemployed people, although from memory the polling was done last year so the percentage of unemployed people might've gone up since then.

"This week there's a class about "True the Vote" - volunteering at the polls."

True the Vote? Is that the group that was investigated after a bunch of complaints about voter intimidation in Houston? The one that one of the TV news stations (yeah, I know, "lamestream" media, LOL) investigated and found that they were sending poll-watchers into predominantly black neighborhoods but not into predominantly white neighborhoods?

I'm not a big fan of voter intimidation and suppression. I read today about Dorothy Cooper, the 96-year-old lady who was refused the photo ID she is now required to produce if she wants to exercise her right to vote. She brought a rent receipt, a copy of her lease, her voter registration card and her birth certificate, and they said that because her birth certificate has her maiden name and the other documents had her married name, they weren't sufficient and she wouldn't be given a photo ID and allowed to vote. How ridiculous!

What we have here is a left wing tea party, unfortunately many of them are very confused on economic issues, they need to be attacking corporatism and demanding capitalism and liberty. That would accomplish what they claim to be seeking.

I think it's an insult to the TEA party to call this a "left wing tea party". :) They certainly are confused.

I only meant that in the sense that it is a seemingly spontaneous protest, there are lots of differences though, too. All the tactics that have been used against the tea party could probably be used on Occupy Wall Street, if we wanted to stoop that low...

What do you think of the tactics that are currently being used against the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Matthew? The tactics being used by the police, I mean. The mass arrests, the pepper spray, the penning, etc.?

And with regard to your comment about the economics, in many cases I don't think they see a difference between corporatism and capitalism.

The police abuse is unacceptable, no matter who is the victim.

You are right, many don't understand the difference between corporatism and capitalism. Some do, though, including Michael Moore, but they don't care about mixing it up. That's disingenuous of them, of course.

I agree about the police abuse.

As for what Michael Moore does and doesn't know, I can't really comment since I don't pretend to have psychic powers, nor am I up-to-date on every single comment he's made about or to the people involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Also, there are a number of different definitions of corporatism, and some of them are very different from others.

But to the extent that some libertarians and other "free market" types are opposed to corporatism (if we're talking about the same type of corporatism; I'm not sure we are), I think it's something that they often don't do a very good job of communicating. But then, as far as that goes, I think the same could be said about their opposition to the abuse from the police.

What I said about Michael Moore is based on what I've heard him say over the years, not physic powers.

So you're basing your accusation that Michael Moore (and unnamed "others") is being disingenuous about his understanding of a term you haven't defined, based on unspecified things he's said over an unspecified number of years.

I think it might be slightly more meaningful (although to be fair, it's a pretty close call) if you'd said it was because you had psychic powers. ;-)

Michael Moore understands that there is a difference between corporatism and capitalism; he's said so himself.

to the extent that some libertarians and other "free market" types are opposed to corporatism (if we're talking about the same type of corporatism; I'm not sure we are), I think it's something that they often don't do a very good job of communicating.

I disagree. I think the more prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions go to great lengths to distinguish between the corporatism that is the political and economic status quo here and in much of the world today, and the ideals of free market capitalism.

I think that it is the self-professed "conservatives" who do a poor job of making that distinction (people like Bill O'Reilly); and I think that's mostly because they lack understanding. For some, it may also be because they are beneficiaries of corporatism, and of course are happy to have everyone falsely believe that what we have is "free markets."

It couldn't have worked out better for the interested people who benefit from the interventionist system.
One half of the country falsely believes that we are a free-market capitalist society, and therefore attribute our socio-economic ills to that ideal, and (like the Occuply Wall St. protestors) wind up demanding, supporting and voting for even more of what ails us, and what serves the interests of the very people they are protesting against: interventionist government.
The other half of the country also falsely believes that we are a free-market capitalist society, and they (correctly) get a sense that interventionism screws things up. but they have been so misled by demagogues and/or have so much emotional investment in partisan politics, that they wind up demanding, supporting and voting for the status quo: interventionist government.

Thanks, Steve! That's a video I had in mind.

"Michael Moore understands that there is a difference between corporatism and capitalism; he's said so himself."

Well, I heard them talking about corporatism and about capitalism, but I'm not sure I heard them agree on any definitions or talk about the differences. So how is this evidence of him being disingenuous?

"I think the more prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions go to great lengths to distinguish between the corporatism that is the political and economic status quo here and in much of the world today, and the ideals of free market capitalism."

Well, I can't really comment on that since I don't have a clue what "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions" you're talking about. But whatever lengths (great or otherwise) they may or may not go to, I'm not sure that has much to do with how well they communicate their views to non-libertarians.

In any case, I wasn't really thinking of any prominent libertarian institutions (whatever those might be) when I made my comment, I was talking about the libertarian-types people are most likely to actually have conversations with either in meatspace or online. The ones that seem to spend a lot of time telling non-libertarians how stupid and ignorant they are, and about how much better things would be without government and welfare and civil rights legislation, etc. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that often when libertarians defend "free market" capitalism, what a lot of people get from that is the idea that with government out of the way, all the Fat Cats™ and the GlobalMetaCorps will be able to do whatever they want. In short, I think for a lot of people, a lot of libertarians come across as wanting to help (or at least not trying to stop) TheStinkingRich™ stomp on the LittlePeople even more.

And I think that those kinds of ideas can be reinforced when people notice that some of the same libertarians who constantly rail about how evil it is for governments to give food to the hungry and medical care to the sick say little or nothing about cops abusing protesters, etc.

"...like the Occuply Wall St. protestors) wind up demanding, supporting and voting for even more of what ails us, and what serves the interests of the very people they are protesting against: interventionist government."

That's weird, because I've been listening to quite a few interviews with various Occupy Wall Street protesters, and quite a few of them not only aren't supporting or voting for any government, interventionist or otherwise, but they seem at least as pissed off at the government as they are with Wall Street/the corporations/TheRich™ or whatever. I haven't been to Liberty Square myself, but from what I've heard, seen and read, there are a lot of different people down there with a lot of different views coming at a lot of different things from a lot of different angles.

I heard them talking about corporatism and about capitalism, but I'm not sure I heard them agree on any definitions or talk about the differences. So how is this evidence of him being disingenuous?

He admits that the present political conditions are more accurately described as corporatism than capitalism. I don't think it's presumption to state that the world over, the term "capitalism" connotates free markets, free trade, private ownership and control of the means of production, what is often described as "laissez faire" government policy. Michael Moore explicitly admits in the video to the fact that government policy in the U.S. does not reflect those ideals.
Yet, in his movies and printed tirades, he refers to the conditions he is denouncing as "capitalism." The association of the current economic crisis with capitalism is implied right from the title of his latest movie. I have seen him go so far as to assert that the best solution to the socio-economic problems of the U.S. would be the elimination of capitalism.
Given his open admission that we haven't even really had capitalism, then how is any of this not disingenuous?

I can't really comment on that since I don't have a clue what "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions" you're talking about. But whatever lengths (great or otherwise) they may or may not go to, I'm not sure that has much to do with how well they communicate their views to non-libertarians.

Sure you don't, Wil.
Prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions I'm talking about: Mises Institute; Future of Freedom Foundation; Foundation for Economic Education; Cato Institute; LRC.
I think the fact that they go to great lengths to distinguish between what they advocate (free markets) and the status quo corporatism that many self-professed "conservatives" advocate, has a great deal to do with how well they communicate their views to non-libertarians. You're saying that you're "not sure" that the time and effort libertarians put into explaining themselves to non-libertarians "has much to do with how well they communicate their views to non-libertarians"?

The ones that seem to spend a lot of time telling non-libertarians how stupid and ignorant they are, and about how much better things would be without government and welfare and civil rights legislation, etc.

I think a lot of that can be attributed to the agitation that many libertarians might experience from constantly being told how stupid and ignorant they are for suggesting that initatory violence might not be the best solution for all the ills plaguing society; and that it indeed may often be the culprit.
Personally, I think a lot of ideas are stupid and ignorant; but the rigidity of adherence to certain ideas can often be attributable to the power of customs, traditions, habits of thought passed down from one generation to the next. There have been quite a few scientific studies that show the power of social pressures to conform, and the incredible capacity of the human psyche for cognitive dissonance and the ability to block out or rationalize away facts that conflict with more comfortable established beliefs before the conscious mind has a chance to even take notice of what has happened. So the adherence to certain ideas that I consider stupid or ignorant are not necessarily indicative of the intelligence of the person who adheres to them.
I do come across a lot of people who denounce libertarian ideas in certain terms and with strong language, when it is evident that they haven't taken the least time or effort to get any kind of real understanding of the ideas they are denouncing. Such a person I typically will not hesitate to classify as being either stupid or ignorant.
The thing is, I was once a person who considered myself a "progressive liberal" and often said the same things that I see other people saying today in argument against me. I do understand the beliefs of people who call themselves "progressive" or "liberal." I know where they are coming from. But it's because I felt a need to better inform myself about the ideas that I was denouncing, and felt a need to address the incessant feeling deep in my gut that there was a disconnect between what I believed to be true and what actually makes sense, that I decided to really put forth the effort to educate myself about economics, history, and political philosophy, and to have the humility to adjust my worldview according to what I discovered to make sense, whether it conflicted with my cherished worldview or not.
I don't think I'm any more intelligent than the next person. I only give myself any credit for having a desire to seek truth and the humility to accept it when I find it even if it conflicts with the things I have previously accepted.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that often when libertarians defend "free market" capitalism, what a lot of people get from that is the idea that with government out of the way, all the Fat Catsâ„¢ and the GlobalMetaCorps will be able to do whatever they want.

Exactly. And therein lies the rub. The reason a lot of people come away with that is because they have been conditioned for so long to think of the government as a priori force for justice and the interests of the common man, and that the reason the Fat Catsâ„¢ and GlobalMetaCorps have had their way is because of a lack of government action. The fact is that government has been proactively working to benefit the interests of the Fat Catsâ„¢ and GlobalMetaCorps, and the last thing that all the Fat Catsâ„¢ and GlobalMetaCorps want is to have government get out of the way.
The problem is not free markets, it is the lack thereof. The politically-conntected corporate interests do not go to DC to lobby for freer markets; they go because they want the government to stifle competition for them, they want special privileges and subsidies, they want potential or actual losses to be partly or wholly socialized. And it's because they have been successful in their lobbies that we have the problems we are experiencing today.

a lot of libertarians come across as wanting to help (or at least not trying to stop) TheStinkingRichâ„¢ stomp on the LittlePeople even more

Do you think that's what I want, Wil? Have you considered the possibility that I believe it is through interventionist government that TheStinkingRichâ„¢ are able to stomp on the LittlePeople the way they do, and that if the government just focused solely on establishing equal justice then the only way the TheStinkingRichâ„¢ or Fat Catsâ„¢ or the GlobalMetaCorps or anybody at all would be able to get rich is by mutually-voluntary social cooperation to serve the most urgent wants and needs of the most people at the least expense to the consumers?

I think that those kinds of ideas can be reinforced when people notice that some of the same libertarians who constantly rail about how evil it is for governments to give food to the hungry and medical care to the sick say little or nothing about cops abusing protesters, etc

For one thing, the government doesn't give food to the hungry or medical care to the sick. They just compel other people to give money to certain others to provide certain services, according to political priorities as opposed to the priorities of individuals at the business end of the barrel.
It is presumption, that if the government doesn't use coercion and threats to bring about charity and philanthropy, then charity and philanthropy would cease or be insufficient.

And how would you or the supporters and activists of OWS know what libertarians are saying? Have you bothered to look? I opened the first link I found related to the subject at mises.org, and found this, from a Mises Daily post by Anthony Gregory:

"Despite their ideological problems, however, most of these protesters have been peaceful, which brings us to the next party to the drama that we certainly cannot cheer: the police. In New York, they have corralled people into fenced-off areas, indiscriminately pepper sprayed them without provocation, and slammed at least one peaceful protester's head into a car. Seven hundred protesters walked onto the Brooklyn Bridge, many or most of them apparently thinking the police wanted them to take this path, only to find themselves arrested. Insofar as the protesters see their cause as one against institutional violence and exploitation, the police are doing more to bolster this narrative than the activists themselves."

quite a few of them not only aren't supporting or voting for any government, interventionist or otherwise, but they seem at least as pissed off at the government as they are with Wall Street/the corporations/TheRichâ„¢ or whatever.

I've been listening to quite a few of them, too. And to the extent that what you're saying is true, that they are pissed off at the government as much as anyone, the vast majority of them are pissed because they hold this notion that the government has not been involved enough, when in reality government has been involved up to it's figurative eyebrows, and none of this mess would have been possible were it not.

"I don't think it's presumption to state that the world over, the term "capitalism" connotates free markets, free trade, private ownership and control of the means of production, what is often described as "laissez faire" government policy."

I imagine that hardly anybody means those things when they use the word "capitalism". And not just in terms of a contemporary notion of "capitalism" but I've read a few accounts that claimed to discuss the history of "capitalism", and they usually include Marco Polo, the Medici Family, Popes, Kings, Emperors, the Hanseatic League, chartered companies, etc. none of which seem to have much of anything to do with those "free markets" and "free trade" and stuff that you mentioned.

"Given his open admission that we haven't even really had capitalism, then how is any of this not disingenuous?"

I think it's not disingenuous because he's a filmmaker using the term "capitalism" in the way that most members of his intended audience use the term. Also, didn't one of the authors (Higgs) at one of the Steve-approved ominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions you linked to say that the system in the United States isn't corporatism?

"Sure you don't, Wil."

I don't, and I can't imagine why you think I should or would know what "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions" you're talking about if you don't name them. Hell, even after you've named them, I only recognize a few of the names. And I don't know that many other non-libertarians would be familiar with any of those institutions, in which case I'd say they're probably not communicating their messages to non-libertarians very well. If at all.

"I think a lot of that can be attributed to the agitation that many libertarians might experience from constantly being told how stupid and ignorant they are..."

Well there you go. The "They Started It" Defence. Nuff said.

"I do come across a lot of people who denounce libertarian ideas in certain terms and with strong language, when it is evident that they haven't taken the least time or effort to get any kind of real understanding of the ideas they are denouncing. Such a person I typically will not hesitate to classify as being either stupid or ignorant."

I can't imagine how that could possibly fail to convince them that you're right, and bring them around the anarcho-capitalist libertarian viewpoint immediately.

"The politically-conntected corporate interests do not go to DC to lobby for freer markets;"

No, I'm sure they don't. I'm guessing they also don't fund "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions", either. And none of the people associated with these genuine libertarian institutions would also have connections to these "politically-connected corporate interests" or with government or any government-funded universities or anything like that, right? Because if they did, that might come across as a bit disingenuous, don't you think? Not to mention have the potential to screw up their efforts at effectively communicating their messages with non-libertarians. Or, well, pretty much anybody who wasn’t really enjoying the taste of their Kool-Aid™.

”Have you considered the possibility that I believe...”

I’ve considered the possibility that you believe all sorts of stuff, Steve. Including the possibility that when I say something about “a lot of libertarians”, you think I must be talking about you.

”And how would you or the supporters and activists of OWS know what libertarians are saying? Have you bothered to look?”

Yeah, but I have to admit that I didn’t limit my looking to only Steve-approved “prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions, so I don’t know if my looking counts.

”I opened the first link I found related to the subject at mises.org, and found this, from a Mises Daily post by Anthony Gregory”

I think it’s great that Gregory took the time to include a paragraph commenting on the actions of the police. I had a quick look at some of the other articles at Mises.Org discussing the Occupy Wall Street protests, and I didn’t see any other authors who bothered. I also noticed while reading the comments, that not everyone at Mises.Org thought Gregory’s disapproval of the cops behaviour was appropriate. After a quick scan of the OWS-related articles at LewRockwell, I didn't spot any condemnation of the police brutality. But given Rockwell's history on the subject, I guess that doesn't surprise me.

”I've been listening to quite a few of them, too.”

Maybe we’re not listening to the same ones, then. I've heard and read stuff advocating more government, less government, no government, direct democracy, anti-authoritarianism, and even something that I think might be best described as some sort of back-to-nature Earth-worshipping neo-pagan theocracy.

Wil, have you seen the video that shows all of the actors at OWS?

You might want to take a look.

http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2011/10/08/soros-hires-actors-to-stage-violence/

"Wil, have you seen the video that shows all of the actors at OWS?

You might want to take a look."

Thanks, Marilyn. Wow, that's one of the most pathetic and ridiculous conspiracy theories I've come across in a long time. Thanks for the link, and thanks for letting me know about the New Hampshire Tea Party's involvement.

As disgusting as Chiarini's claim that Jesse LaGreca is actually deceased actor Ryan Dunn, it's nowhere near as disturbing as his claim that the Tucson shooting that killed six and wounded thirteen people including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords didn't happen.

That's some seriously nutty stuff, Marilyn.

I guess I missed that.

Oops. :)

I imagine that hardly anybody means those things when they use the word "capitalism"

Sure they don't. Sure those aren't the ideas that are being denounced when people like Michael Moore talk about "capitalism."

I've read a few accounts that claimed to discuss the history of "capitalism", and they usually include Marco Polo, the Medici Family, Popes, Kings, Emperors, the Hanseatic League, chartered companies, etc. none of which seem to have much of anything to do with those "free markets" and "free trade" and stuff that you mentioned.

Sure. And you could also find a ton of accounts that claim to discuss the history of Christian religion, and they often include Jews, Pagans, Druids, Sumerians, and a bunch of others that have nothing to do with Christianity.
What's your point?

I think it's not disingenuous because he's a filmmaker using the term "capitalism" in the way that most members of his intended audience use the term.

Oh. So in other words, it's not disingenuous if it's demagogy. I see. He's just reinforcing the misconceptions of an already-deluded audience. That makes it okay.

Also, didn't one of the authors (Higgs) at one of the Steve-approved ominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions you linked to say that the system in the United States isn't corporatism?

I guess, if that's what you want to call this:

Nevertheless, recent American history has brought forth a multitude of little corporatisms, arrangements within subsectors, industries, or other partial jurisdictions. They have drawn on both national and state government powers.They operate effectively in the defense sector, in many areas of agriculture; in many professional services, such as medicine, dentistry, and hospital care; and in a variety of other areas, such as fishery management and urban redevelopment. These abundant “iron triangles” normally involve well-organized private interest groups; government regulatory, spending, or lending agencies; and the congressional subcommittees charged with policy oversight or appropriations. A political economy in which such arrangements predominate, as they do in the United States, is commonly called interest-group liberalism or neopluralism. (Elsewhere I have followed Charlotte Twight in calling it participatory fascism.) But it might just as well be called disaggregated neocorporatism or quasi-corporatism.

Participatory fascism, disaggregated neocorporatism or quasi-corporatism; but not plain-old Mussolini-style corporatism. I see your point. Mea culpa.

I can't imagine why you think I should or would know what "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions" you're talking about if you don't name them. Hell, even after you've named them, I only recognize a few of the names.

Gee, Wil; I guess I just figured that since you are always so authoritative and certain in your denunciation of libertarianism (we're such utopians and hypocrites and narrow-minded, and all) and always have a few quotes and citations handy to prove your points with, I assumed that maybe you had actually spent some time researching the subject, and therefore would have surely become familiar with the existence of the Mises Institute, FEE, FFF and Cato, and their stature in the world of libertarian philosophy. Again, I apologize.

I can't imagine how that could possibly fail to convince them that you're right, and bring them around the anarcho-capitalist libertarian viewpoint immediately.

I can't either. In the case of such people, I generally consider it a lost cause.

"The politically-connected corporate interests do not go to DC to lobby for freer markets;"

No, I'm sure they don't. I'm guessing they also don't fund "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions", either.

Actually, I'm sure that institutions like Mises and FEE, that devote themselves to dismantling the rationale behind economic interventionism, receive plenty of funding from politically-connected corporate interests who thrive on economic interventionism. It's just gotta be so.

And none of the people associated with these genuine libertarian institutions would also have connections to these "politically-connected corporate interests" or with government or any government-funded universities or anything like that, right? Because if they did, that might come across as a bit disingenuous, don't you think?

Do you intend to name names, or is baseless insinuation supposed to carry the day here?

I’ve considered the possibility that you believe all sorts of stuff, Steve. Including the possibility that when I say something about “a lot of libertarians”, you think I must be talking about you.

Again, I must apologize, for thinking that when you are addressing me in a comment thread, and you refer to "libertarian-types people are most likely to actually have conversations with either in meatspace or online," that you are probably including me in that frame of reference. How presumptuous of me?

I have to admit that I didn’t limit my looking to only Steve-approved “prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions, so I don’t know if my looking counts.

I didn't say that. I just asked how you know what libertarians are saying or not saying. Where did you look?

I think it’s great that Gregory took the time to include a paragraph commenting on the actions of the police. I had a quick look at some of the other articles at Mises.Org discussing the Occupy Wall Street protests, and I didn’t see any other authors who bothered.

I sympathize. I feel awful that libertarian website authors aren't setting aside the issues of the nature and ideological foundation of the actual demands and statements of the OWS movement in order to pay sufficient attention to the surprisingly few instances of police misconduct. They really need to prioritize.

Maybe we’re not listening to the same ones, then. I've heard and read stuff advocating more government, less government, no government, direct democracy, anti-authoritarianism, and even something that I think might be best described as some sort of back-to-nature Earth-worshipping neo-pagan theocracy.

Yeah, just a regular-ol' mixed bag, those OWS protesters. Somebody ought to send that memo to the occupywallst.org website; because they seem to have the idea that the movement is quite united and singularly focused in it's opposition to something they call "neoliberalism" -- which I'm rather certain they would define using a lot of terms like "deregulation" and probably even "laissez faire," if they were to bother with such things as clearly defining concepts.

I think the fact that the movement has chosen Wall St. as it's "crime scene" to protest, and not Washington DC, speaks volumes about the underlying ideology that is for the most part shared amongst the greater number of them.

"What's your point?"

My point is that any discussion of the history of "free market" capitalism would be very short, if existent at all.

"So in other words, it's not disingenuous if it's demagogy. "

I don't think that selling a product by communicating to your customers in a way they understand doesn't qualify as demagogy.

"I guess I just figured that since you are always so authoritative and certain in your denunciation of libertarianism...I assumed that maybe you had actually spent some time researching the subject..."

I have researched the subject. Some of those organizations I'm familiar with, others I'm not. Either way, I had no way of knowing whether they were ones you consider "prominent (and genuine) libertarian institutions."

"It's just gotta be so."

I'm pretty sure it don't gotta be.

"Do you intend to name names, or is baseless insinuation supposed to carry the day here?"

Name all the people associated with these genuine libertarian institutions would also have connections to these "politically-connected corporate interests" or with government or any government-funded universities or anything like that? No, I don't plan on doing that. They're named on those websites, for those who are interested.

"I just asked how you know what libertarians are saying or not saying. Where did you look?"

I don't read it religiously, but I check in at the Mises website fairly regularly. Also the Reason website, and I have their Hit & Run blog and also Radley Balko's Agitator blog in my feed reader.

"I feel awful that libertarian website authors aren't setting aside the issues of the nature and ideological foundation of the actual demands and statements of the OWS movement in order to pay sufficient attention to the surprisingly few instances of police misconduct."

Yeah, clearly you're all torn up about it. I'm always impressed by the libertarians who constantly whine about being "forced to pay taxes at the barrel of a gun" who who don't seem to give a damn when cops use actual guns to shoot people in surprisingly few (yeah, just daily) instances of police misconduct. Not as impressed as I am with the libertarians who actually applaud instances of police misconduct, but I understand that everybody's got different priorities.

"Yeah, just a regular-ol' mixed bag, those OWS protesters. Somebody ought to send that memo to the occupywallst.org website; because they seem to have the idea that the movement is quite united and singularly focused in it's opposition to something they call "neoliberalism"..."

Got a link? I've seen some discussions about opposition to neoliberalism in the forum there, but I haven't seen any official announcement from the GA that mentions it at all.

Name all the people associated...

When someone asks for specific examples, they are not asking for an exhaustive list.

Hmm...I've seen a lot of quotes from the people involved in the New York protest, mostly on TV news. They strike me as par for the course for protester soundbites. Some of them sound completely nuts, some parrot slogans, and some appear to have thought about what they're saying. It's standard for news media coverage of protests of every kind. I haven't seen any BBC coverage of the protests yet. They take a different approach from US media. They aren't going for the highest entertainment value in a sound bite. They generally look for quotes that illuminate what's going on.

Calling that bit of "reporting" the "No Spin Zone" is just precious. What would a Spin Zone look like?

Well, Nippy, if you think this is representative of our country, then we're doomed. Every one that I've seen interviewed is either an old elite who thinks he/she is worth far more than he/she is or an idiot college student that has no idea about how either business or our government is run. We should be ashamed that many of them hold degrees or are in the process of getting them.