Here is an editorial piece on Black Friday, and its madness and how it reminded someone of Occupy:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/11/26/black-friday-is-like-occupy-wall-street.html

Yes, now the in thing to do is to use pepperspray while shopping.

By right away, i mean without actual research or expeirmentation.

From the communist manifesto. "Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel.""

Isn't that line referring to the utopians or the reformists?

The Utopians were the reformists at that point... though yeah.

He's saying that experiments are useless as are attempts to see how socialism works in smaller doses and that the only answer is through violent revolution.

You would need more than well-intentioned and responsible stewards. In order to replicate the kind of quality of life a capitalistic system provides, you would require agencies that were capable of measuring every individual's demands, without a price mechanism, and distribute all of the resources accordingly. Even if that grand feat was achieved, you would have serious rights infringements, through a destruction of privacy, and coerced labour.

You know what, I actually agree with you on the second point. In order for liberty, you need peace and security, and for that, people do need to have the basics. Where we differ, though is that I do not believe it is the Government's role to provide these things, nor do I believe that the Government is any good at providing these things. Did you know that the poverty level in the USA was a trending decline up until the point when the Government decided to "fight poverty" - where it then flatlined as a percentage of population, and has been at that level ever since (1). It was the Government trying to "put a roof over everybody's head" that led to the 2008 financial bubble. Government gets involved in health care, health care costs sky rocket, alienating more and more people. Government gets involved in backing student loans, student debt skyrockets.

The reason why the things in the second paragraph happen, is because of what I implied in the first paragraph - it is physically impossible for one person or agency to make such wide-scoping decisions, especially without the pricing mechanism.

Now, even if the Government weren't involved in those things, and the costs were much lower, and taxes were much lower (ultimately leading to more jobs, greater wealth), there will still be those who cannot catch a break, and they will need the help of society. However, as I have argued in this thread, I do not think it's the Government's role to provide this help, I do not think it is morally just for Government to provide this help, and I think the Government are terrible at providing this help. This is where charity steps in, I think it is the role of charity for these issues. People would have a lot more money to donate without all this tax, and the cost of care for the charities would decrease without the Government messing up the prices. In other words, in a Libertarian society, those who still cannot provide will be at the receiving end of a far better (and morally just) charity system.

1 - http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dramatic-increase-in-poverty-rate-one-small-step-for-obama-one-giant-step-for-the-so-called-war-on-poverty/

Of course!

On the bolded point, i would respond that there is a difference between the government providing minimums and the government attempting to provide too much. The incentives for home ownership were irresponsible, and i would argue more economically motivated than from a humanitarian motive (shortest way to express this point being: a privately-owned home is different from shelter).

In most of these cases i'm speaking about really treating the underclass, rather than most of the incidents you cited being attempts to mess with middle-class welfare: Medicaid serves that purpose, as does welfare (although open-ended welfare payments should be checked). The moral calling here is to treat the homeless, the hungry, the unemployed or unemployable, the truly poor. In a society with excesses like ours, such things should not exist.

I'm not convinced that progressive taxation systems and subsidies do anything except for increase the number of people in the economy who earn a low income ...

While I could write up a long explaination about this, subsidies to low income earning individuals act as a subsidy to low wage paying companies and progressive tax systems act as a cost to high wage paying companies.

Henry Ford was highly successful and paid remarkably high wages for the time. The reason why he was able to both be successful and pay so well was because he could attract highly skilled labour from his competition and the value they added to the company was greater than the cost of their increased wages. Had there been food stamps at the time, Henry Ford wouldn't have a similar ability to attract skilled workers or he would have had to offer higher wages to maintain the advantage Ford had (as an employeer). To make matters worse, had there been a progressive tax system in place at the time, increasing wages would have had diminishing returns because for each additional dollar Ford paid the government would be taking more and more money out of the employee's pay-check; and, once again, Henry Ford wouldn't have a similar ability to attract skilled workers or he would have had to offer higher wages to maintain the advantage Ford had (as an employeer).

The "War on Poverty" created an economy that punishes companies for seeking out or creating skilled labour and paying them well, and benefits companies that pay poorly, and people wonder why there are fewer and fewer companies that pay high wages or provide training to attract/develop highly skilled labour.

Jesus if you look at his messages would be considered a liberal in today's world.

About do all Human beings have the right to a house, a job, food and water.

Imo if people did not have to work to get such things, many in society would simply not work.
So the Govt had a big hand in causing the housing crisis as it wanted to give poor people mostly blacks and Latinos homes. Frankly, a lot of those people should have not gotten mortgages as they did not have enough income or steady income to support a household + mortgage.

Everyone was talking crap about the Tea Party, then the 2010 elections happened. We have to wait and see the 2012 elections.