I don't know how similar the US employment situation is to the one in the UK where I live but It's hard to find full time employment at the moment. I hope it's not the same in the US but in the UK it's become more common for companies that would have handed out proper working shifts in the past to put people on 4 or 0 hour contracts so you never know if you will be getter 37 1/2 (standard work week here) or 20 hours (or 4!). It's annoying but large chains like GAME and ASDA are doing this as standard now :( My friend who works at GAME (our equivalent of Gamespot I think) only just managed to get a guaranteed minimum of 25 hours because he was a senior sales advisor.

McDonalds ran national hiring day. They hired 60,000 people or so, and over 1 million applied. I Know I also applied and didn't get called back. Must be that I am overqualified.

On another note, with the newer videos that have been released is anyone else starting to have flashbacks to reading/watching Lord of the Flies? A bunch of "kids" playing around trying to build an "ideal society" which is completely inadequate to handle the darker and more negative side of human nature.

Nope, but that sounds like a description of the current financial and banking system, holding society hostage to trillions in bailouts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o9BBNUBs1w

Just trust the Fed with your money... they will make it right, all along funneling the cash into the connected.  So, is the only response to darker and more negative side of human nature to go full-blown police state?  It is going to be hard to have people cocoon in their own homes and ignore what is going on, when they get evicted because they lost their jobs.

I was (kind-of) referring to this video in particular (and a few videos I saw from last week)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h1M4osgdPs

I have come to the conclusion over my life that the reason we see certain organizational structures across all stable societies has a lot to do with societal Darwinism; essentially that societies that lack these structures soon fail because they’re unable to handle the problems that exist within all societies. The Occupy groups have gone out of their way to "build a society" without most of these structures, and without anything to replace these structures, and (as a result) they’re struggling with some of the most basic issues (like ensuring the protection of all individuals within society). At the pace things are going, it is only a matter of time before something really bad happens ...

As I see it, there is a lot of experimenting going on.  Because it isn't top down, there is a lot different approaches towards things.  I am of the belief that, due to the current crisis, that there is a need to try a lot of random things, and find new ways to do things.  You do have Occupy Las Vegas, that is coordinating with the community around them.  And there are others who have issues.  Myself, I do believe that, if you are short resources, as they are, they need to use anything they can, include the local authorities and law enforcement.  People shouldn't be seeking to throw off all rules, but merely the ones that have issue, if that.

I posted this by Hayek up on a wall, and have asked people to look into sponaneous order and study it:

I am finding it interesting that the debate is being framed that there is a call for more government rules and regulation, while locally they are seeking to throw off constraints. 

On another note, I hear people complain about a "Nanny state". I do believe that, if people acted like adults, they would be less likely to have one. But the moment society starts to get filled with self-absorbed individuals with no sense of manners, empathy, and lack of self-restraint, society will end up becoming more of a Nanny state.

I see it the other way around. A nanny state will make people self-absorbed individuals with no sense of manners, empathy, and lack of self-restrain.

You are correct. Heck, most government exists because people are idiotic and self-asorbed. I'd venture to say 70% of government exists because the general populace is evil, greedy, dirty, or any sort of other negative adjective.

I would argue that it is the other way around ...

As the nanny state grows there is a minimization/elimination of the consequences of people's actions/decisions which encourages these negative behaviours. Poverty was in a steady decline before the war on poverty began, but after they started to "fight poverty" using the nanny state poverty stabilized at (roughly) its current level; while poverty continues to decline across most demographics, the explosion in the number of single mothers living off of the state has offset all other gains. The reason for this is simple, before the war on poverty men would be held accountable (by their community) for the children they had and women would know that there were significant risks associated with sleeping with deadbeats, and the negative consequences limited behaviour that would lead to being a single mother; with the intervention of the state the community pressure on fathers has been reduced (over time) because the state will take care of their children, and the risks of sleeping with a deadbeat have been reduced, resulting in a boom of babies born to single mothers.