Personally, I think that this kind of argument comes up because people don't understand the difference between representative democracy and direct democracy ...


Regardless of whether you are talking about a Westminster parliamentary system or the American Constitutional Republic, the representative democracy is a system that is designed to protect the rights of minority groups against the power of the majority. While it may not seem obvious why this is the case, everyone is a member of multiple minority groups at the same time with rights that would be threatened/eliminated in a vote of the general public. Being that very few people can get elected based on the popularity of a single issue, and politicians only get elected when they can get enough support from a multitude of groups who would have differing views on countless issues, the rights of these minority groups can not be threatened by these politicians; because these issues tend to act like "poison pills" to many different groups.

The occupy movement's central theme ("We're the 99%, this gives us the ability to eliminate the rights of the 1%") is a demonstration of what is wrong with direct democracy and the reason why we have representative democracy. After all, would anyone who supports the OWS crowd support a similar argument for eliminating the rights of any other group? Would a plurality of votes justify eliminating the righs of ethnic minorities, or the rights of people based on sexual orientation?

You see calls for direct Democracy today, because increasing numbers of people are feeling that Representatives are being bought by lobbyist money and their views are not heard, and one where the only way to have an effective voice is to have lots of money.

As far as saying the "central theme" of Occupy is elimination of rights of the 1% that is very simplistic. It is "We are the 99%" meaning there is a feeling the 99% is getting the short end of the stick, and the system is rigged against everyone but those in the 1%.

In this is the issue where a system bails out the 1% that took too many risks, because it is said if they didn't, everyone would be worse off as a result of it.

Again, go back to the comment, "The United States is NOT a Democracy, but a Republic" and that is either incorrect, or dangerous if it is. It would be better to say that America is a Representative democracy rather than a direct one.

No, a corproation is an assosiation of people.

People don't lose their rights because they decide to work together.

However, in the past whenever we have plebiscites and referendums especially in the US, it usually goes against left wing ideas and many of the left then act like snobbish elitist saying such decisions should be left to politicians and the courts.

How is a democracy that is not a republic not dictatorial in nature? Is it okay that 51% of the people can strip the other 49% of their rights simply because they hold a slight majority?

How is a majority voting for one guy automatically mean the other 49% no longer have any rights?

In Western countries, there are consitutions and courts to prevent the govt from trully opressing the people.

Also, the US is far to democratic. Having the President seperated from the legislative process is a great idea in prinicple but it requires people willing to compromise at both ends.

To me, I have a beleif that govt should be elected for 4 years and should able to go forward on the ideas it got elected on and frankly if a certain idea is very unpopular, the govt will either not go forward on it, to save themselves in the next election. Or the public and the opposition should speak up and demand the govt to change its way and convince the public as well. If the govt still proceeds with such things, the next election is the perfect time for the opposition and the public to change the govt.

Of course, what happens is young people do not vote and the incumbent party stays in office.

That is how it has been in Canada and imo it has worked over our history. Minority govts do work but in todays hyper partisan world, they are just a recipie for disaster.

A corporation is a legal structure that enables its owners to suffer no legal liabilities for what the structure does.  As corporations are structured now, they outlive the lives of individuals owners, and the people in them.  Corporations employ people, and are owned by people, but they are different than a mere association of people.  Their structure of owners not facing any legal liability makes them more prone to doing bad things than say sole proprietorships or even partnerships.

Because of this, there is no way you can place them on the same footing as any mere association of people at all.  Because they are an artificial construction of the state, to get around natural constraints that are there if you take the state out of the picture.  Because of this, normal rights don't apply at all, and can be totally determined by rules states set up.  Governments can, for example, forbid them from donating any money to anything political, if it has been determined that doing such is better for the state of Democracy.  

In short, any rights corporations have is given completely and totally by the state, because they are the creation of the state.

No... no you still can.  Because they are a assosiation of the people who own their stock.

That people in assosiations receive benefits in no way means that they can be stripped of their rights.

And no... governments can't forbid them from donating money.  At least not governments that protect free speech.  Hence why the Supreme Court ruled like it did.

In a corporation, the holders of stock have no say in how the company is run. They are silent investors, who merely are involved in the electing of officers, if that. Because they don't have a say in how a company is run, they are sheltered from personal liability. This is different than other associations type arrangements.

In regards to corporate personhood, this has a long history, and involves things the founding fathers never intended. Wikipedia goes into details here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

No... if you own stock you do have a say in how the company is run. 

http://www.investorguide.com/igu-article-818-stock-basics-common-and-preferred-stock.html

Additionally... your link doesn't say anything of the kind... it argues that Gore thinks letting them vote would cause monopolies which jefferson wanted to prevent, but never put any anti-monopoly legislature in the Constiution.

Which is a dumb arugement considering we don't have monopolies anymore really.  (Outside of the government.)

Aside from which Jefferson =/= founding fathers.  There is a reason they had to rewrite mass amounts of things he wrote.