Ah, yes. Free Camping is now Free Speech. I somehow missed that one.

Please see the 10th Amendment to find where the US Constitution gives power to the States to regulate things like permits for the use of public grounds. The States then use their own founding documents to hand that responsibility down to lower levels of government, such as the City of New York or your own local municipality.

Hoo boy! So I'm too stupid to know what's good for me? Niiiice. Just sit back and take your medicine, little taxpayer boy. The Smart People are going to decide things for you now.

I wouldn't let most of them decide what flavor of ice cream I'd have for dessert, let alone anything important to my life and my business.

No, they are pushing for the changes that they think will benefit THEM. Those changes will help some, and they will hurt some. They will not automagically benefit the so-called 99% simply because the protesters arbitrarily choose to lump everyone else in with their group. I pointed that out, quite clearly, back in this post:

http://www.gog.com/en/forum/general/the_occupy_movement/post37

where I showed that while they think their little port blockage is doing favors for some port workers and "sending a message" to who-the-heck-knows, it can do some crappy things for some of the people downstream of their protest. Too bad us stupid tools can't figure out that, really, it's all for the best and just shut the hell up.

Stop saying you speak for me, OWS. You don't, I do, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

No, it's the freedom of Assembly bit that was particularly relevant, the Freedom of Speech is just applicable. Even without freedom of speech we still have freedom to peaceably assemble.

By your argument the states can regulate free speech as well because of the 10th Amendment. While we're at it, why don't we let the states regulate who we associate with as well, as I'm sure that's fine.
This attitude right here is why we can't have nice things. If you don't like democracy then why do you live in a country with one? There are plenty of places in the world where they don't get to vote.

Unless of course what you mean is that you don't think people should vote for candidates with whom you disagree in which case, you might want to rethink your whole position as it's pretty astonishingly arrogant.

When we are born and ultimately choose to remain in a democratic society, we ultimately sign on to a social contract that involves governance. The system is set up so that we have an organized body which makes policy decisions. As long as people vote for the best qualified politicians that are doing their best to improve condtions for the entire area, things work.

However, when folks decide that they don't want to research the candidates or the issues or they vote for candidates that are going to do things that aren't in their best interest that contract gets damaged.
As I suggested earlier, you apparently don't understand the concept of democracy or you don't accept it. In either case, they are speaking for you and the rest of the people in the US. Democracy isn't pretty and it isn't always efficient, but at least they understand democracy and are trying to improve it for all. When you combine the many ideas as to how best to run a country they tend to end up with the best ideas. That is as long as people don't willfully sabotage it for a bit of short term gain.

I can't blame the unions there, in the short term they are being hurt, but it's pretty ignorant to look at that sort of short term result and ignore the long term just because somebody flashes something shiny. It took decades for this to happen and it's going to take a while for it to turn around.

Focusing on the short term is an easy way to lose sight of just how much of the American dream has been stolen so that libertarians can have the illusion of freedom. You know that in most of the developed world, they don't have to worry about losing their health insurance when considering whether or not to open a small business? And that in Europe they actually have consumer protection laws that mean that if a purchase goes bad because of misbehavior by the vendor that there's real consequences for the vendor? And that they have a guarantee to have vacation time during which they are free to relax and have hobbies?

You are asking the wrong question. Or rather, what you are asking isn't what you think you are asking.

Here's the answer to your questions.
1. The message is, "We're suffering and we think it's because of the system. Fix the system!"
2. They're targeting you and the government. You because you can vote. The government because they're supposed to fix the system. By bringing attention to them, they're hoping to make you realize the issue and cast your future vote accordingly and therefore moving the government to fix the system.

I suspect what you actually want to ask was:
1. What exactly is the problem and what do they propose to do about it?
2. Having figured out the answer for 1, why don't they tell the politicians to do it instead of bothering me?

However, people being people, there are probably about as many different answers for question no.1 as there are people in the movement. No one knows of a sure fix. Heck, they can't even agree on what the problem is. Now you may be tempted to dismiss them because of this, but that does not negate the fact that the American people are suffering. The Occupy movement is an expression of that. It's probably easier to understand if you consider the Occupy movement not as a single organized thing, but a whole lot of individual things that happened in the same area. The only thing they have in common is that they don't like the current situation. Since there are lots of individual things in the Occupy movement, you won't get a coherent "This is what's wrong and here's how to fix it" from the movement. That may happen later once the different strands of the movement coalesce into several strains of political thought.

So why don't they join the Tea Party? I don't know. Ask them. I will make a guess that the fact that the Tea Party sits at the extreme right of the political spectrum makes them unpalatable for anyone who isn't an extreme right himself.

You may have to put up with Occupy for a few more years. People do not birth political movements instantly. There will be flux, and this probably will take years.

Go read the Tenth Amendment. The powers not specifically granted to the federal government, by the Constitution, are retained by the states. That includes the states regulating the activities on public land. And those activities include long-term Free Speeching in a tent with a group of fellow Free Campers.
"This attitude"? Really? Once again, and I don't see how this point is being missed over, and over, and over again: And over again one more time. They don't speak for me even though I fall within their arbitrary purview. It is THEIR premise that these select few people speak for all of "us". Well, I refuse to be a part of their "us". Obviously I oppose at least some of what they're doing and I'm not going to roll over and accept those things I disagree with. What I don't like is your definition of democracy, where a small number of people try to take over as the voice for some 300 million other people.

Have I not advocated on this forum, more than once, that the people have their individual voices strengthened as the power is decentralized and given back to the states and municipalities? This is part of what the Tenth Amendment was about - limiting federal power and letting the people have a bigger say. In a nation this large, a true democracy is all-but-impossible when most decision-making is done at the federal level. It's still nearly impossible at the state level. When you get local is when a true democracy becomes feasible, and still then it's messy as hell. And that's why, even at that level, we usually resort to an elected representative system via city councils or whatever each particular municipality chooses to label it.

Last I checked, nobody elected them to represent you, me, or anyone else. They represent you if you choose to let them do so. I choose not to.

Okay, now it's obvious you're pulling my leg. Didn't you just get done saying:

"There's always going to be tools and those too stupid to recognize their own best interests"

I'm just blown away here. You got your backward interpretation of democracy, along with arrogance, rolled all up there in one nice little ball of OWS group-think. For the umpteenth time: OWS - stop claiming you speak for me. You are not smarter than I am. You do not know what's best for me. You know what's best for you. So speak for you. I'll continue to speak for me. I've said this all along and it's somehow being construed as anti-democracy. Incredible.

For what it's worth, I re-thought it as you suggest and have reaffirmed that I am correct in not being willing to give away my voice to a group that does not represent my views.

Yeah, and? Those actually in OWS are doing exactly what I said earlier: trying to do things in their best interest. Are you saying they're doing things in my best interest? If so, there goes that arrogance again, telling me what's best for me and would I please sit down and shut up. Quiet, little man, we're doing the Free Speeching for you. No you aren't. Out of all the crap OWS has said, some of it I agree with. And I certainly don't agree with much of the methodology of it. I know, I know, I should get all democratized and just go along with it, right?

Oh wait - that ain't democracy.
Oh boy, here we go. First of all, in a democracy, the people vote directly. This isn't what OWS is doing, so while they claim to be a democracy movement, they are not doing so in a democratic manner. Second, a representative republic is where the people elect individuals to speak for them. This still isn't OWS; it's getting closer, but OWS is not a representative republic movement, since they are not speaking with those 99% they claim to represent. Where OWS really is: they weren't elected. they simply assumed for themselves the voice of the people.

I am my voice. If I want it heard, I'll speak, I'll vote. That is the democracy you think I don't like, and think I don't understand. This "you're one of or you're one of them" mentality of OWS has nothing to do with democracy. I understand democracy juuuust fine, and OWS ain't it.

We have guarantees here, too. They're outlined in the US Constitution, and further in the founding documents of the individual states. To parallel what you suggested to me earlier, if you don't like the way things work over here with regard to the issues you listed above, there are plenty of other places one can live to get those things. Or work to change those things over here. In the meantime, OWS should stop stepping on the toes of other's ability to earn that paycheck, and stop telling them what they should think.