I'll quote Michael Flynn's blockquote:
"It's turning into us against, them," says a 36-year-old Occupy Boston protester quoted by the Boston Herald's Howie Carr. Wait, wasn't that the idea? Not exactly. It turns out that when he says "them," the guy is referring not to billionaire Jewish bankers but street vagrants. "They come in here and they're looking at it as a way of getting a free meal and a place to crash, which is totally fine, but they don't bring anything to the table at all."So here we have a socialist protestor complaining about "free riders".
The same is true in New York, where, according to the Daily News, "Zuccotti Park has become a haven for the homeless," who are abandoning shelters and camping out at the park, "enticed by the allure of free food and a community of open-minded people." But as in Boston, open-mindedness goes only so far. "We have compassion toward everyone. However, we have certain rules and guidelines," says Lauren Digioia, 26, who belongs to the "sanitation committee":"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back," Digioia said. "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled."
The "platform" of the entire OWS protest is for government to do certain things--like provide free medical care and education--yet in their own affairs the people in charge of things are upset that there are freeloaders taking advantage of their goodwill.
...if you take the food and the medical supplies and books, you "need to give back". That is to say you must provide something in exchange for the goods you consume.
Gee, if only there were a simple word that describes such an exchange...maybe something that ends with "-ism". It could even be a term coined by a Marxist and meant to be derogatory.
Oh, how about capitalism? I think that would describe that sort of exchange. Or we could go with a two-word phrase, something like free market. That would do.
The point is, when you say "you need to give back" you're giving the lie to the notion that things like food and education and health care and housing can be free. These things cannot be free; someone must pay for them because they are scarce resources.
(The economic definition of "scarce", I mean, which essentially means there's not an unlimited amount of it. The air, for example, is free, because there's so much of it and it surrounds the entire planet. Pollution is an excellent real-world example of "the Tragedy of the Commons" and it's the entire reason we have the EPA.)
Socialism treats goods and services as if they are free, when (of course) they are not. There's a limited amount of medical care available, and if people are given no incentive to conserve it (by, for example, having to pay for it) they'll use as much as they possibly can. This inevitably leads to rationing because there isn't enough money to pay for each person using as much medical care as he can--not even at the cut-rate prices a government usually pays--and so both the quantity and quality of care suffer dramatically.
We're seeing this in our socialized educational system. The law states that everyone must go to school until age 17; the result is an extremely poor outcome for anyone who cannot afford to escape the system by attending private school. And the system consumes an excess of money. (NYC, for example, spends nearly $13,000 per student per year.)
Further? Socialism means high taxation:
The drummers claim that the finance working group even levied a percussion tax of sorts, taking up to half of the $150-300 a day that the drum circle was receiving in tips. "Now they have over $500,000 from all sorts of places," said Engelerdt. "We're like, what's going on here? They're like the banks we're protesting."No, they're like the government you're shilling for. I'd be interested to know what justification the "finance working group" gave for implementing this tax. Probably something like, "If it weren't for the protest, you wouldn't be getting all these tips," I'd wager. Hauntingly similar to the nonsense recently extruded by that idiotic congresscritter who said that businessmen owed the government more money because they couldn't have become successful without it. Yeah.
It showcases how these people operate: "Don't take my money! I need my money, and I need all of it! Take those other peoples' money, those people that have more money than I do!"
...but the policies and programs they advocate will end up with the government's hand in their pockets and everyone else's.
The problem, of course, is getting these idiots to internalize the lessons that life is attempting to teach them through example because they were too stupid to learn it vicariously in school.