Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

I am a two-time cancer survivor.

I get to have prompt, efficient medical care because my parents are wealthy.

While in treatment, I watched so many parents leave their sick child’s room to fight with their insurance provider to try and get sufficient coverage.

Most of them lost that battle.

And those were the “lucky” ones- they had insurance to begin with.

People die because they don’t have enough money to treat their illnesses.

It happens EVERYDAY.

Healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege for the rich.

I stand with the 99%.

So, they are occupying private property, and believe they have a right to do so.

So, they are occupying private property, and believe they have a right to do so.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Thank you Thomas, but Cyclo is just one of those low bred scoundrels who twisted by cramping envy, strikes out at his betters.

... or those who would style themselves that way, at least.

I don't know why people assume that others who are happy with their lives would be envious of people that happen to have more money. Why is that? Do you honestly believe that I'm envious of you, or anyone else?

What I am angry about, isn't that others have more, it's that I have to deal with the fallout of their incessant attempts to garner more at the expense of all other considerations. I don't give a **** if someone's wealthy as long as it doesn't affect me negatively; why would I care? It's immaterial to my life. But what DOES matter, is when the job market is destroyed by these people. When my environment is destroyed by them. When we see tremendous amounts of household wealth lost because of their gambling addiction and need to prove that they have a bigger dick than the next rich guy. I shouldn't have to deal with these negative effects - nobody should - and yet we do, precisely because those who are driven by avarice are unwilling to blunt their ambitions out of respect for others.

Cycloptichorn

Zuccotti Park, the half-acre plaza in Lower Manhattan now synonymous with Occupy Wall Street, exists in a strange category of New York parkland, identified by a seeming oxymoron: a privately owned public space.

The park was established in a wave of development that spurred corporate plazas after changes were made to the city’s zoning laws in the early 1960s. The laws generally give real estate developers zoning concessions in exchange for public space.

[...]

“The city had a policy for encouraging commercial developers to create open space in exchange for more height,” said Mitchell L. Moss, a professor of urban policy and planning at New York University. “But until now, no one has thought about the issue of what the rules are. This has highlighted one of the gaps in New York’s planning system.”

In my view, you do Cyclo a disservice to place his anger as an aspect of class envy.

In any case, whether or not you are personally envious, you are mistaken if you think envy does not play a very large role in the success of class warfare strategy.

If you recall, you accused me of being a "economic feudalist," (Whatever the hell that means).

.........He denies absolutely that misguided attempts by government to steer mortgage lending to low ingome folks and to limit the customary down payment requirements tracitionally imposed by banks had anything at all to do with the Mortgage bubble and the subsequent collapse (primarily resulting from the large scale default on sub prime mortgages). He resolutely denies that the profligate giveaway spending of the current administration can jeapordize our financial future and demands even more.

Instead he lays it all at the feet of evil members of another class.

Without looking into the details of this particular situation, it would be my guess that a developer at some point made this kind of deal that resulted in Zucotti Park.

That helps explain why it happens, and some of why it makes sense to the participants. I wish that they would have agreed that such designated areas for public use would also be administrated publicly (even if it has to be then paid for), as the interests of the public and the private administration are inevitably going to have conflicts of interest over things like this.

Assuming that you're guessing correctly, where does that leave protesters and their first-amendment rights? Do such parks count as public space, where they have a right to peacibly assemble, or do they count as private space, where they would be tresspassing against private property? And what defines the distinction?