Thoughts on freedom, programming and other type stuffs.

Occupy Wall Street: Mocking The Meat It Feeds On

I first learned about “Occupy Wall Street” a few days before it started.

It sprung up as a collection of people angry about the economy, but was steadfastly without a driving purpose from the start.  My initial thought was: with no actual message, this is bound to go sideways.  And really, that’s all it has done: go sideways.  The few protestors that have shown up — a few thousand total across several cities — have, left to their own AdBuster’s-inspired devices…well, they’ve gone sideways.

Consider the evidence:

The overriding theme seems to be this: we are here because we are jealous.

Now I’ll stop to be clear: crony capitalism is an anathema to productive society.  The idea that government should choose winners and losers in any capacity — from GM to Solyandra — is a reprehensible thing.  Government should play no role in subsidizing businesses through bailouts or tax breaks or any other form of favoritism.  And inasmuch, I can agree with a certain amount of the anger inherent in these “Occupy” protests.

But I am a very long way from being convinced that this is the message these protests are about.

Knowledge IS free.  It's called a library.

I'm looking forward to plunging head-first into massive amounts of debt and then complaining about it. I am the 99%.

Even the most cursory glance through the tumblr blog suggests that this is largely a movement made up of 20-somethings who want nothing to do with the reality of the decisions they’ve made.  College loans seem to be the chief concern.

And in this is the reason why I contend that jealousy is at the center of this whole thing.  College loans are an entirely voluntary thing.  The choice between taking on tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to study what you want at the best possible college vs. not going to college at all is a false choice.  Without really much brainstorming, the actual choices include (but are not limited to):

  • Learning a trade
  • Going to a community college and transferring to an affordable state college
  • Joining the military to let them pay for college
  • Attending an affordable state school outright

The list, I’m sure, goes on.  Suffice it to say, there is literally no one forcing anyone at gunpoint to attend a college which is beyond their means, to study any major they want, no matter how dismal the outlook.

Choosing to live outside your means is exactly that: a choice.

I’m not talking about unforeseen medical bills.  At one point in my life, I chose to go without health insurance and wound up in the hospital, needing surgery, with $37 in my bank account.  And despite all of my own personal poor decisions that led to that moment, I can still come away from that experience understanding just how much some people will always need a safety net.

But let’s be real: this is not about a safety net.

This is about protesting the very idea that educations cost money.  This is largely a 20-something crowd who is tired of paying back loans for a service they have already received.  And that…that doesn’t sit well with me.

Education is overpriced.  But not because education is an industry.  Government decided more people should be able to go to college and guaranteed loans; people took out more loans; colleges responded to increased demand with increased prices.

It’s not hard, people.  Government creates bubbles.  The solution to a government-created problem is not more government.  Not when it comes to crony-capitalism.  Not when it comes to pricing bubbles.

In other words, Occupying Wall Street to force government to provide a solution for a problem that government created is the very definition of a protest gone sideways.

But it’s more than that, because there’s a sizable amount of free will involved here.  Government may have created a bubble, but it didn’t force anyone to buy something they didn’t want.

When you look at other people getting a pricey education and say, “I deserve that too” regardless of how much you’ve saved up…when you look at what other people own and say, “I deserve to have one of those too” regardless of how much you’ve set aside…when you look at where other people live and say, “I should live like that too” regardless of income or savings…you’re driven by jealousy.  You lust after what your neighbor has at the risk of what you do have, and the decisions you make thereafter are your own.

Government has a legitimate role to play in helping the truly downtrodden.

Helping childish people live out their childish fantasies isn’t one of them.

In Which I Ease Back Into Posting By Breaking Out Rothbard and Discussing Free Will

Free Will(y)

Myth #5: Libertarians are utopians who believe that all people are good, and that therefore State control is not necessary. Conservatives tend to add that since human nature is either partially or wholly evil, strong State regulation is therefore necessary for society.

Rothbard’s Six Myths About Libertarianism.

I don’t know if everyone’s path towards libertarianism comes to the the fork in the road called free will, but mine certainly did.

Free will, for all intents and purposes, is a terrifying thing, and I suppose that’s why we ask the State to take it away from other people.  Free will means other people don’t always behave the way you want, it means they can do things which you consider morally reprehensible.  Enter the State: if my neighbor won’t make choices that I see as good for him, I can make the State mandate those choices for him.  One way or another, I can make my fellow man live rightly.

But somewhere along the way, I came to the epiphanic conclusion that asking the State not to play moral arbiter is not the same as complicity.  More than that, State-mandated morality doesn’t remove from us the weighty responsibility attached to having free will.  It does, however, hand back to the State bit by bit the freedom we wrested from it.

What really got to me in the end, though, was the power we were handing the government.  ”Control their lives,” may have been the goal, but implicit in that was “and not ours, please.”

As Rothbard puts it:

The State is the only social institution which is able to extract its income and wealth by coercion; all others must obtain revenue either by selling a product or service to customers or by receiving voluntary gifts. And the State is the only institution which can use the revenue from this organized theft to presume to control and regulate people’s lives and property. Hence, the institution of the State establishes a socially legitimatized and sanctified channel for bad people to do bad things, to commit regularized theft and to wield dictatorial power.

Handing the State control to regulate behavior you don’t like is a a disaster-in-waiting; when people you don’t like assume control of the machine you’ve built, the State already has the authority to regulate your life according to the whims of others.

Rothbard goes on to quote Hayek:

“The main merit of individualism [which Adam Smith and his contemporaries advocated] is that it is a system under which bad men can do least harm. It is a social system which does not depend for its functioning on our finding good men for running it, or on all men becoming better than they now are, but which makes use of men in all their given variety and complexity….”

And there it is: once you’ve handed the State the power to regulate lives, you have to hope the “wrong people” never come into power.  Fingers crossed, huh?

One of those William Chase Johnson blogs.