From what I can tell, the so-called Declaration of Occupation was released a little over a month ago. But I only noticed it in its most recent media resurrection, and I thought it was worthy of commentary. In short, sorry if this is all too repetitive.
The primary intent of the document is to list some of their grievances, which I will get to below the fold. But I think the preamble requires comment as well. One of the most problematic statements is "[...] corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth." First of all, the idea that corporations or any conscious agent requires consent to do something is not the attitude of a free people. I am not an anarchist or even that hardcore of a libertarian*. However, I am distressed by the pervasiveness of statements like the above, or that tax cuts cost the government money. But the occupiers claim is the worst I have heard, because the restriction they seek to place on corporations is against economic agency. Furthermore, the idea that wealth is something that can be extracted is incredibly naive. Better writers than me have tackled the subject, but just in case any occupiers happen across this post, wealth is not some sort of finite good. As the wealthiest 1% gain more wealth, it does not necessarily mean there is less for the rest of us. As Penn Jillette, Matt Ridley, and lots of other libertarians like to say "Things generally get better." (more below the fold)
There is not enough time to go over all of their listed grievances against corporations, so I will focus on the most obnoxious ones. The worst offender on the list is the claim that corporations "have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right." Let's begin with the ending clause. To borrow a phrase from Steve Landsburg: if it is a right, it is a right that the vast majority of human beings have died without ever thinking of experiencing it. One could argue that this is a false argument, that people in this or that dictatorship die without experiencing the rights of free thought, free enterprise, or self-ownership. However, I cannot imagine a person who lives out their life without thinking about any of these ideas. Once you accept that education is not a right, the rest of the grievance falls apart.
Aside from asserting that corporations somehow promote colonialism at home, the other main notion at work in the OWS movement is that corporations are not people. In The Daily Show's extended interview with President Bill Clinton, Jon Stewart claimed that "the other side is always going around claiming that corporations are people." The sole Republican I have heard defend the notion is Mitt Romney. While Romney is problematic on many levels, his analysis of "corporations are not people" was right on. At a rally in Iowa, he argued with a citizen saying that "[corporations] aren't people, but they are made up of people." This is the maximum defense I have seen anyone offer for the idea. To put it simply: Since corporations are groups of people and groups of people have rights, corporations have the same rights as any group of people. If you and a bunch of your friends want to get together, why should we a priori limit the amount of money you are able to spend on elections.
The only reason proffered for such a limit is to prevent groups of type X from having too much influence. However, if you really want to get the corporations out of government, take away the government's powers to be beneficent to corporations. Fight for the end of all subsidies, and to make government smaller in general.
{*For instance, I think that one needs the government in order to make sure police officers obtain the consent to use force against the citizenry only after passing under the most strict of scrutiny}
No comments:
Post a Comment