Occupy Wall Street: Right Anger, Wrong Direction
Occupy Wall Street is an enemy of its own cause.
For almost two years the Tea Party movement has voiced its anger, and now a counter-movement is providing balance to a dialogue that is badly needed in America. Corruption and dysfunction in both markets and politics have caused us to reflect on our values and social institutions.

Like Tea Partiers, the Occupiers represent a range of different concerns, but generally speaking, if the Tea Party protests are anti-government, the Occupy protests are anti-corporation—specifically the greed associated with them. In a sense, the two movements are two sides of the same coin—they are populist ("grassroots") movements sparked by anger at authorities ("elites") for abusing their authority.
Yet, clearly they are calling for radically different policies. In fact, they represent ideologies directly in opposition to one another, so a victory for one is a defeat for the other. That's called "zero-sum," and it is the nature of political action, whereas markets operate on the “positive-sum” principle that all voluntary parties gain.
This distinction draws attention to the misguided agenda of the Occupiers. What they want, at least ostensibly, is more opportunity for the have-nots, and justice in our economic and political dialogue. But the policies they are demanding can result only in the opposite outcome.
Businesses—even large corporations—must operate on the basic formula of customer satisfaction. If people are not happy with a product, its price, or how a company is being run, they will go elsewhere and the company will collapse. Corruption and bad business can sometimes go under the radar for a time, but it always backfires. Despite its tainted reputation, the business community is directly beholden to consumers; or “the people.”
In politics, however, only the will of the majority prevails, and accountability is loose at best. And in a nation that has gradually pushed more power to the federal level, and especially to the executive branch, decision-makers are more separated from the people than ever.
The Occupy movement is mistaken in targeting the corporate world as an enemy of opportunity and justice. And they are mistaken in thinking that government is the answer, as though government could not itself be corrupt and oppressive. Indeed, problems in the world related to oppression and corruption are far more prevalent among the political classes than entrepreneurs and business owners. Corporations look for ways to meet the demands of the community. On the heels of Steve Jobs's passing, some have pointed out the irony of a group using Apple devices to promote their anti-corporate message.
But the Occupiers are not entirely wrong. There are legitimate rebukes to be cast against bailouts, fraud and interest groups. But the way to correct these problems is not a tighter relationship between government and business (i.e. regulation), but a clearer picture of their separate and individual roles in society. Markets provide material needs and laws protect the innocent. Governments should protect citizens against fraud, abuse and harmful neglect, thus businesses should be legally held accountable to fulfill their contracts, be honest with consumers and not pose an undue health threat.

More regulations and redistributionist policies work against the Occupiers' goals by constricting the economy, reducing overall economic opportunity and actually encouraging greater special interest activity in Washington. When congress decides to regulate, all interested parties descend on the Capitol to argue their case and gain the favor of politicians. Rather than being a solution to "crony-capitalism," regulation just becomes another political tool as government selects winners and losers.
Markets operate on a voluntary basis, where all parties win. Governments operate on a coercive basis, where the strongest win. Blending the two together in an effort to achieve an idealistic view of economic equality is to place America on, as Friedrich Hayek put it, The Road to Serfdom. The Occupy protestors, and America generally, would do well to see that free enterprise is the only true democracy.
Share this Article
Recent Comments
-
I view myself as both a Christian and a Libertarian (maybe I should use the small "l" libertarian).
@MRR17944783 in Christianity and Libertarianism... -
Very interesting articles, I would say that the extent of the fusion of conservative and libertarian is probably endless, and therefore of people that might disagree as well.
Jerry Botha in Is Conservative and Libertarian... -
Every so often they reveal themselves for what they really are.
Stan1026 in Who Is Julia and Why Should I Wa... -
Up until a couple years ago, I never really thought that much about politics.


4 people are talking about this
This is an important and interesting perspective worth hearing, but, in my opinion, it does not go far enough in addressing the role of greed among larger banks, real estate companies and others on Wall Street which have been in collusion with many in government for years. Also, it does not recognize that the protests of the Occupy movement are born out of people's desperation over and against the anger of largely upper-middle-class participants in the Tea Party movement who are not generally suffering to the same degree.
I think a definition of "greed" needs to be established from your perspective so we can have meaningful conversation, and understand each other. Is greed a high profit margin? If so, what % would constitute "greed" in your eyes? I ask because this is where the two sides fall off the rails. You speak of "greed" in very broad and general terms. We ask you to be specific so we can pinpoint the anger and start a dialogue.
I don't see a lot of desperation in OWS. A small smattering, yes. I see a lot of folks just down there cuz they think it's cool, or they have some vague notion that they are angry because.... their college was expensive or they *think* they can't get anywhere. And no doubt it is VERY difficult in this climate; however, any one of those people could start a business in their home with a very, very small investment on their part. They could clean houses, wash windows, or any number of service businesses which can be very lucrative after a time. I know it doesn't fit their Art History major, but what does?
To the tea party movement, if you think they are upper middle class in general I think your exposure has been limited. And the number of college grads in the OWS crowd belies their own economic status. YES, they are in or just got out of college, so they may be young-person poor, but it's not a terminal condition unless they want it to be.
Come on Scott, greed is not bad. If you weren't greedy, you would be living in a tent and would ride a donkey to move around. (I did not mention to work).
A different situation is when the government gets in bed with Wall Street and gives them money at the expense of the people. That would be a different situation. It's time for people to tell the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism.
Good to see a discussion developing here. JulieBean is right in asking for a definition of greed, and I'm not sure Edson's response is sufficient. This is one area where I distinguish my view from those of Ayn Rand, who argues that greed is good. That's inconsistent with biblical truths, and basic human sense—greed, along with pride, is the essence of evil.
What fuels the marketplace is not greed, but rather self-interest. There's a subtle but important distinction: most of our actions are oriented toward some goal of self-preservation or -actualization; the pursuit of survival, comfort and happiness are natural, and not necessarily selfish. I eat food to live, but life is better when the food is more tasty, and more nutritious, and no one would call that greedy. At what point, then, does self-interest become greed? I don't believe it is excess alone, but perhaps excess that inflicts intentional harm on others, or on one's spiritual health. I would invite the more theologically sound voices at V&C to share their perspective.
To the point about private-public collusion, I hoped to address it by pointing out that such things will necessarily happen when the government steps further into the private world. Companies only lobby because Congress has declared powers over their industries. Kingmakers have a lot of friends, though none worthy of being kings.
Join the Discussion