Occupy Wall St.

No middle ground

"Don't Tread On Me"  v. "Tread On Us All."  From Tina Korbe at Hot Air:

...it’s crucial to remember that Tea Party protests and Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are just outward and modern manifestations of a more-than-a-century-old battle between classical liberalism and progressivism. Tea Partiers aren’t just trying to make a case for the Tea Party and Occupiers aren’t just trying to make a case for OWS; they’re trying to make a case for the ideas that formed them into these movements in the first place. Remembering those ideas makes the choice of which side’s narrative to believe even easier. For that, this video based on the work of NYU law professor Richard Epstein is particularly helpful:

Appropriate (v.) vs. Appropriate (adj.)

The ongoing tug-of-war over Zuccotti Park in New York City is an interesting reflection of the political landscape.

#occupywallstreet has been squatting on private property, monopolizing land leased for other purposes and violating the owner's rights.  The occupiers are claiming that "their rights" are being infringed if they are made to leave the premises for cleaning, or if they must refrain from putting up tents or sleeping on the ground -- that is, they are insisting on treating the property as their own.
 
In Dryden, the anti-energy development crowd is claiming that "their rights" are being infringed if property owners use their own property to access their mineral rights.  Like the occupiers in New York City, they are appropriating the property of others.
 
The 99%ers want to take it all away from the 1%ers because they are envious of what others have that they don't.  Drumming, chanting and handsigns help to cover over the rationalization.  Shouting that people don't really deserve what they have makes it easier to justify taking it away from them.
 
Envy is pretty powerful and it pops up from time to time in the local "appropriate (v.)" discourse. You can hear it right after, "I'm all for property rights but..."
  
* * *
None of this should be construed to mean that people don't have legitimate concerns.  
 
Unemployed because of "crony capitalism" (certainly a problem in the previous administration and Congress and on overdrive in the current administration)?  Check.  Impeach and replace.  Maybe some jail time is in order.
 
Wanting recourse if someone pollutes your well or nearby waterways?  Check, you should sue.
 
The point is that appropriate (adj.) means should be used to address valid concerns, not appropriate (v.) ones.  Use the system, don't tear it down.
  • Did you game the financial system and make a mess?  You're gonna pay.  
  • Did you frack and make a serious mess?  You're gonna pay. 
But we need the financial system and we need energy. Both are legitimate activities and can be done well and responsibly.  Keeping them from working is as egregious as the above messes.
 
* * *
It's interesting that the #occupiers are having food delivered (students are quoted saying that they eat better in the park than they do at their mom's) and the newspapers and fliers they're producing are printed with expensive 4-color process.  Just who is funding all of this, and why?
 
Has the Town of Dryden become a subsidiary of the Park Foundation?  PF is one of the main financiers of anti-natural gas activity in the nation, supplying cash to just about every "activist" group opposing natural gas development.  Is PF funding the legal team for Dryden's ill-conceived attempt to ban natural gas development in the town?
 
                             NYC...                                                                                       Dryden...


(h/t tvm)

Subscribe to Occupy Wall St.