Thoughts on Occupy Wall Street
Jan. 31st, 2012 02:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beth_leonardI'm trying to organize my thoughts around Occupy Wall street. I think I'll start out with "what is a protest? Why have a protest? How is a protest different from a walk-a-thon?"
There's lots of things that are bad in the world. Some things nearly everyone can agree on: "babies shouldn't starve to death." Some things that represent legitimate differences of opinion: "WalMart shouldn't open in this town." And some things that (to most people) represent illegitimate differences of opinion: "All jews should die."
There's some things we can't do much about and others we can change if only enough people felt the same way.
In the US, there's lots of ways that people raise awareness for issues they care about -- the Breast Cancer 3-day walk for example. There's numerous walks and hikes for much less well recognized diseases, which fund research and hopefully cures, as well as raise awareness and support for those who are suffering. There's walks for education, rallies for political causes, campaigns for people to call their elected representatives and let them know people care about a particular issue.
In the world, when the tides of change begin to turn, there's even cases where governments are overthrown and changed. The people establish a new way of relating to one another and a new way of doing things. Sometimes change is for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Sometimes, enough people banding together can make a change that used to seem like an illegitimate cause (civil rights) into a legitimate disagreement, which can change the nature of the conversation. The pendulum can even swing to the other side, and the campaign to remove civil rights from others is now considered illegitimate.
So where is occupy wall street? Unlike many protest movements, the message seems to be without leaders, and many participants have different thoughts as to what is wrong and what needs to change. Some groups seem to be trying to get along well with neighbors (Image from Blimix's Occupy Albany post) while others seem to think that their message is the way, the truth, and the light, and if they hurt innocent people, take services away from others, or damage property it's all in the name of good. (I'm looking at you Oakland protesters.)
The message that comes out most clearly from the mixed signals is There is income inequality in America. The protests seem to focus on the number 99%, implying that 99% of the people are the have-nots and 1% are the haves. They seem to think that 99% of people agree with their methods, their message, and their remedy. The remedy is not exactly clear, but seems to be taking money from the 1% and giving it to the other 99%. The other main message seems to be I am Angry!
Ok. So a spotlight has been shined on the fact that there is income inequality in America. Can we call the nature of the conversation changed, and talk about other remedies?
I ask, what about the world? The poorest NICU baby of a drug-addicted American mother is in the top 1% of the world population in terms of income services received, and food and shelter needs being met. Would the occupy folks take from that baby to help hundreds more in India, China, Africa, or South America? After all, that baby is in the top 1% world-wide.
I fundamentally don't buy the OWS remedy, or the selfishness of the remedy. I was taught not to envy and I don't think it's healthy. There will always be someone richer than you. The poor will always be with us. Instead of trying to tear others down, why not spend your efforts trying to build yourself and others up? If all those people spending all that time at the OWS-Oakland protests had spent it instead volunteering at Oakland's schools, or becoming partners with a child in the BigBrother's BigSisters program, would more good have been accomplished?
I can agree that the system is set up to favor those already in power. I fundamentally don't get the party divide on this issue however. There are so many regulations and tax incentives for this or that form of economic activity, many of which favor established players who can lobby to get their own form of activity protected, while hurting newcomers to those types of businesses.
I favor removing barriers to economic activity, removing special cases, removing government incentives to do something different from what makes the most sense, and I favor allowing more people to enter the ranks of the wealthy. There will always be a top 1%. That's how it's defined.
--Beth
There's lots of things that are bad in the world. Some things nearly everyone can agree on: "babies shouldn't starve to death." Some things that represent legitimate differences of opinion: "WalMart shouldn't open in this town." And some things that (to most people) represent illegitimate differences of opinion: "All jews should die."
There's some things we can't do much about and others we can change if only enough people felt the same way.
In the US, there's lots of ways that people raise awareness for issues they care about -- the Breast Cancer 3-day walk for example. There's numerous walks and hikes for much less well recognized diseases, which fund research and hopefully cures, as well as raise awareness and support for those who are suffering. There's walks for education, rallies for political causes, campaigns for people to call their elected representatives and let them know people care about a particular issue.
In the world, when the tides of change begin to turn, there's even cases where governments are overthrown and changed. The people establish a new way of relating to one another and a new way of doing things. Sometimes change is for the better, sometimes for the worse.
Sometimes, enough people banding together can make a change that used to seem like an illegitimate cause (civil rights) into a legitimate disagreement, which can change the nature of the conversation. The pendulum can even swing to the other side, and the campaign to remove civil rights from others is now considered illegitimate.
So where is occupy wall street? Unlike many protest movements, the message seems to be without leaders, and many participants have different thoughts as to what is wrong and what needs to change. Some groups seem to be trying to get along well with neighbors (Image from Blimix's Occupy Albany post) while others seem to think that their message is the way, the truth, and the light, and if they hurt innocent people, take services away from others, or damage property it's all in the name of good. (I'm looking at you Oakland protesters.)
The message that comes out most clearly from the mixed signals is There is income inequality in America. The protests seem to focus on the number 99%, implying that 99% of the people are the have-nots and 1% are the haves. They seem to think that 99% of people agree with their methods, their message, and their remedy. The remedy is not exactly clear, but seems to be taking money from the 1% and giving it to the other 99%. The other main message seems to be I am Angry!
Ok. So a spotlight has been shined on the fact that there is income inequality in America. Can we call the nature of the conversation changed, and talk about other remedies?
I ask, what about the world? The poorest NICU baby of a drug-addicted American mother is in the top 1% of the world population in terms of income services received, and food and shelter needs being met. Would the occupy folks take from that baby to help hundreds more in India, China, Africa, or South America? After all, that baby is in the top 1% world-wide.
I fundamentally don't buy the OWS remedy, or the selfishness of the remedy. I was taught not to envy and I don't think it's healthy. There will always be someone richer than you. The poor will always be with us. Instead of trying to tear others down, why not spend your efforts trying to build yourself and others up? If all those people spending all that time at the OWS-Oakland protests had spent it instead volunteering at Oakland's schools, or becoming partners with a child in the BigBrother's BigSisters program, would more good have been accomplished?
I can agree that the system is set up to favor those already in power. I fundamentally don't get the party divide on this issue however. There are so many regulations and tax incentives for this or that form of economic activity, many of which favor established players who can lobby to get their own form of activity protected, while hurting newcomers to those types of businesses.
I favor removing barriers to economic activity, removing special cases, removing government incentives to do something different from what makes the most sense, and I favor allowing more people to enter the ranks of the wealthy. There will always be a top 1%. That's how it's defined.
--Beth
