AS I write this there are “popular” demonstrations going on in the Wall Street section of NYC. There are similar actions in other cities. The demonstrators are against “corporations,” and in favor of people (and/or “the people”). From what I can gather from the few news reports that I have seen---suspect because they are from the Mass Media---these people have no real “program.” They are simply angry with, or jealous of, those who have done well, namely the rich. Of course, they also may simply also be stupid and/or evil.
These people seem to be the spiritual, and perhaps even the physical, descendants of the anti-war hippies of the 1960’s. Both groups seemed to be against something, and/or in favor of nothing. Maybe this is too harsh. They all seem to be in favor of “the people,” as in power to them. The BIG corporations have too much money, they say. I suppose that they would want this given to “the people.” Of course, maybe they do not know that a corporation is a collection of people who own something collectively, and profit from it. It is a means by which the rich work for the benefit of the poor(er). It is a type of socialism in action. In other words, it seems to be what they already want. But they seem to have problems dealing with reality. Maybe they simply want the fun of being against things.
One problem with them may be due to the confusion between people and “the people,” and/or the public. In fact governments can do nothing directly to serve the people (in any of those three meanings). All governments MUST restrict freedoms and oppress their people. All must become dictatorial. I use the current situation to illustrate. I heard one leader comment on the temporary and official permission the group had received to “occupy” a public park in Washington DC. She said that they were not going to leave when the agreement ended. After all, she reasoned, this is a “public” park and this is what (or who) “we” are.
As long as the occupiers are present the park can not be used by the rest of the “public.” It becomes use-less to the vast majority of people who might want to enter it. So, at some point, the park becomes the “conquered property” of this movement. And we all know that it really belongs to the Indians. It is no longer controlled by the government (representing, of course, “the people”), and this will prove that the park is not really for use by “the people” (or the public). Or, alternatively, the government will eventually take action and physically remove the demonstrators. This action will prove, of course, that the government park is not really for the public (or “the people” either). No, wait a moment. It is the first action, which is the exact opposite of the second, which will prove that the park is not for the use by people. No, wait, a moment… gee, I have become quite confused. How did two completely exclusive actions become the very same thing?
I am not really confused. Accepting contradictory premises routinely leads to lunacy. We use delusional and inconsistent language to describe what governments do. Actually it is not I who do this. It is “the people;” and it is the public too.
Comments