Oltz said:
Defending ones right to be wealthy Does not equal defending the wealthy
Being Anti Socialism does not equal Anti Poor
The "99%" does not ever have the right to take assests from the 1% no matter who is rich or who is poor.
Any lawfully gained property is protected period I don't care if it is a homeless man's shoes or a billionaires Jet.
That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom.
The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential.
Life Libety pursuit of happiness, Protection from unlawful seizure, Unjust Taking, Right to Bear Arms, Freedom of speech and press
How many of those rights would you willingly give up? Why do you think you have the right to take them from somebody else just beacuse they have more money then you?
The only people who do not have those rights are those convicted of crimes with due process and sentenced to prison where there rights are restricted in response to the actions they Chose to take.
Okay, I think the biggest fallacy of your argument is assuming there is a connection between "using abilities to their full potential" and "accumulating money and amassing wealth."
There's really not much of a connection there. There are a rare few individuals who, when they use their abilities to their full potential, they also happen to accumulate wealth. But in general those who accumulate wealth is just a matter of being in the right place at the right time, while using your abilities to full potential is a life of work and inspiration.
A second fallacy here is that those convicted of crimes are "choosing" to take the actions that they do. In their own minds, at least, they are put in situations where they "have no choice" Maybe they are mistaken, but there are certainly white collar crimes that do just as much, or more damage to society. And many of those white collar crimes are actually legal to commit.
A third fallacy here is that people who do "unjust taking" are prosecuted and go to jail. That is based on the level of the crime. With good enough lawyers, a congress in your pocket, and an environment where you can get the media to look the other way, you should be able to walk away without any punishment, or maybe a slap on the wrist.
A fourth fallacy here is that the 99% are interested in unlawful seizure, and unjust taking. I think they are more interested in changing the law so "unjust taking" becomes unlawful.
A fifth fallacy here is that "rights are restricted" when prisoners go to jail. No, they are stripped away entirely. Paid three cents an hour for labor, and when they get out, they no longer have access to welfare or food-stamps or jobs. The only place for them to go is back to prison.
A sixth fallacy is that "anti-socialist" and "anti-poor" are NOT synonyms. Unless you are actively pursuing or promoting some OTHER reasonable way to support and protect the poor, and bring them up to a level where they have the education and opportunities wealthier people do, then you are supporting an imbalanced field.
Finally, one more fallacy, when you say: "That is the difference between the OWS crowd and poeple who actually defend the freedoms of this counrty. Freedom. The freedom to amass and do whatever you want with your abilities and wealth as well as the freedom to not use abilities to your full potential."
The Occupy Wall Street crowd is not happy with this freedom to "not use abilities to your full potential." We do not WANT to be offered the freedom to NOT use our abilities. We want to work. We want to be productive.
I would almost guarantee that if somebody went out and started handing out jobs to those kids, (especially if they were jobs to help others) they would disperse. But right now, they are using their other freedom you mentioned, "the freedom to amass," in order to make their presence clear.
