OWS

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? (Romans 8:31 New American Standard Bible) A simple enough or even a tired, trite mantra of the fervent evangelical right, but the multiplicity or wealth of connotations derived from such an utterance ultimately argues to motive that may find some commonality in the Occupy Wall Street movement. That is, what is the driving force? Unequivocally, one could say, “God! You’re Honor. He is the reason!” Obliquely, one may invoke the scriptures to convey authority or justify the merits of their case by implying a higher authority as the significant source of belonging to the “larger-than-life” cause or rightness thereof.

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has a robust list of demands that is as divergent as it is communally diverse. Their statements and slogans imply that they are many, suffer for the greater good -- thus a higher calling, and that they are not going away any time soon. Rather than to hone in on any one single “demand”, it may be more prudent to view the list and their mantra, WorldRevolution, as a collective to understand what they want and the motive behind the movement. To start take a look at their mission statement; while it is riddled with grammatical errors and smashed together words, this should not detract from understanding the content of their message. Care has been taken to keep their exact wording and coloring including bold face type. Some liberty has been taken to reduce font size and parenthesis is used to correct indefinite articles.

Occupy Wall Street is (a) leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants. This #ows (the # is not a type error, but means something updated via Twitter and is referred to as a Twitter tag) movement empowers real people to create real change from the bottom up. We want to see a general assembly in every backyard, on every street corner because we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better society. (T)he only solution is WorldRevolution (OccupyWallSt)

There are several interesting items within this statement. Most intriguing are the phrases Arab Spring, “from the bottom up”, and WorldRevolution. Arab Spring tactic refers to the democratic uprisings that “independently” arose and spread across the Arab world in 2011. The movement originated in Tunisia in December 2010 and quickly took hold in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. The term was previously used beginning in March 2005 by numerous media commentators to suggest that a spin-off benefit from the invasion of Iraq would be the flowering of Western-friendly Middle East democracies. (SOURCEWATCH)

“…from bottom up’ is a phrase popularized by Van Jones in a speech at the America's Future NOW! Conference in 2010 and again at the 2011 Union Delegates Conference, “From despair to hope to change … Despair must be transformed into hope, but hope must transform into change; and when change becomes difficult, we mustn’t retreat to despair, but rather continue the struggle for change…Change must be top-down, bottom-up and inside-out.” (Jones, 06-09-2010 )

“…WorldRevolution” conveys the Marxist concept of overthrowing capitalism through the conscious revolutionary action of the organized working class. These revolutions would not necessarily need to occur simultaneously, but where local conditions allowed a revolutionary party to successfully replace bourgeois ownership and rule, and install a workers' state based on social ownership as the means of production. (Wikipedia) The phrase summarizes the principles that, in a communist society, every person should contribute to society to the best of his or her ability and consume from society in proportion to his or her needs. (Marx, 1875)

This begs the question, “What then shall we say to these things?” Countless interviews of individuals protesting by the “mainstream” media reveal that there isn’t a real consensus that alludes to one specific reason, but a plethora of causations that if scrutinized reveal that the protesters (cognizant or not) are enamored with the euphoric ideal of equal Arianism.—A division of the Substance of God, without a recognition of more than one equal God. That is, an equal distribution of wealth without recognition from which it came. Moreover, the concern is with the concept that you, me, we are owed a piece of the fortune and glory without having actually earned it; we are a part of society, have contributed to that society, and society should reciprocate the gesture.

Two years ago “futurist” Glenn Beck, famous for his longwinded, bombastic tirades, aired a video clip on his show alluding to or predicting an upcoming WorldRevolution. Beck is more apt to snarky jabs and witty libertarian quips that boost ratings, but his “insight” regarding future civil unrest in light of the current OWS movement bares some consideration. Is OWS a “grass roots” movement as it claims or is it a conscious organized effort from the myriad of liberal organizations/foundations funded by George Soros and/or other liberal elite as Glenn Beck claims?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We must kill capitalism or it's going to kill us. The working class will fight because it must. The question is: will there be a revolutionary party present available with trained organizers and cadres to take advantage of that struggle, to take advantage of that moment and build for a fight? …From the south, into the trailer parks, the ghettos, the barrios and prisons, and anywhere workers are and organize and to unite based on their class interest and overthrow the capitalist class.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BECK: Do you understand this? They are looking for pawns! Into the trailer parks and the prisons, and they're going to use class warfare. We've got our administration pitting the poor against the rich and you have people on the streets that they are connected with. Bottom up, top down, inside out. You get as many pawns as you can. (Beck, December 01, 2010)

 In many Marxist schools, such as Trotskyism, class struggle is a critical element and a chief explanation for the failure of capitalism/socialism in any one country (Wikipedia). Trotsky’s theory also emphasized the domination of the working class over the “capital class” because of their strategic position in industry and other advanced sectors of the economy (Encyclopedia Britanica). Pawns or not, these ideals bare an eerie similarity to the current socio-political climate, and in their own words proclaim, “We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%.” I am fairly certain that any one single protester would not espouse these ideals. However, since the inception of Social Security and numerous other legislative measures, our citizens, over time, have been lulled into condition of entitlement that is now translated into “deserves’ as a right of citizenship rather than individual who has worked for and thus “earned” their wages.

I fail to understand the reasoning that good fortune is debt owed to society. Being a member of a society regardless if it is a parishioner, a union member, or a citizen of a nation it comes with its own debt: tithes, dues, or taxes. To argue that any solution is even needed and that it should come from the government, or via tax reformation to better facilitate societal growth is at best naive. In essence it is shirking one’s own responsibility in favor of indentured servitude to the federal government. The problem is… that if you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand (Friedman). Unfortunately in today’s socio-economic climate political self-interest is somehow nobler than economic self-interest.

The world runs on individuals pursuing their self interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaucracies (Friedman). Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way. “The point is… that greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed… will save that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA” (Stone, 1987).

References

Beck, G. (December 01, 2010). The Perfect Storm Is Here. New York: Fox News.
Encyclopedia Britanica. (n.d.). Trotskyism. Retrieved from EncyclopediaBritanicaeb.com: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/606746/Trotskyism

Friedman, M. (n.d.). BrainyQuote.com. Retrieved from BrainyQuote.com : http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/miltonfrie387252.html

Jones, V. (06-09-2010 ). America's Future NOW! Conference.

Marx, K. (1875). Critique of the Gotha Programme. Moscow: Progress Publishers.

OccupyWallSt. (n.d.). OccupyWallStreet. Retrieved from http://occupywallst.org/

Romans 8:31 New American Standard Bible.
SOURCEWATCH. (n.d.). Arab Spring. Retrieved from Sourcewatch.org: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Arab_Spring
Stone, O. (Director). (1987). Wall Street [Motion Picture].

Wikipedia. (n.d.). World Revolution. Retrieved from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_revolution
Proverbs 6:6-11 New American Standard Bible.

Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome

We are not born into the same condition or endowed with the same abilities. One may be the son of a learned Tax-law professor born into a nurturing, intellectually stimulating environment; yet another may be the son of a self taught, GED recipient cemetery custodian who taught his son through the school of hard knocks. Relatively speaking, we are promised nothing, but that we all start the race at the same time. Then the question becomes who wants it more? What inner initiative or grit will the two sons draw upon to achieve it? And what is “it”? And who is the arbiter of the objectives or the valuation of the objectives should the sons choose different or similar career objectives?

In this country each is afforded the opportunity to attain their own personal zenith regardless of innate or endowed abilities in conjunction with or in spite of said conditions. That is the essence of equality of opportunity. Unfortunately, in politics and in the current socioeconomic environment there have been great strides to redefine or equate equality of opportunity with that of equality of outcome.

Equality of opportunity embodies the concept of equality before the law to pursue individually desired careers (Cooray, 1996). Perhaps best described as the absence of arbitrary obstacles that prevent people from achieving what their natural talents and values lead them to seek. That is, only talent and achievement should determine the opportunities available to a person.

Equality of opportunity means freedom, freedom to pursue one's private interest or vocation without arbitrary restrictions. It should not include a power to force others to pursue their private interests or vocation. In business, equality of opportunity means freedom to engage in a trade (Cooray, 1996). Arguably the workplace and business environment needs to be free of racism; however it should not mean a right to compel someone else to afford you an equal chance of participating in that trade. Unfortunately businesses are now compelled to choose minority in conjunction with talent. In some cases the weight of the ramifications of choosing the best talent are trumped by affording a lesser qualified minority the “opportunity”. This is a disservice to the business’s industry and all qualified applicants by lowering the “bar” of excellence in favor of equality of outcome.

Equality of outcome is a radically different concept than equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome attempts to ensure that everyone finishes at the same time. That is the goal of radical socialism. Everyone must be a winner, everyone must be equal. Socialists do not really point towards absolute equality but they point to a vague, nebulous idea of fairness and social justice. Essentially, government have usurped the role of parental right and individual initiative and become the arbiter of outcome for its people. 

The compulsory imposition of anti-discrimination programs upon private firms is an example of equal opportunity in action (Cooray, 1996). This version of equal opportunity is actually counteractive to the concept of equality of opportunity because it interferes with the freedom of others to pursue their interests as they see fit. There are MANY factors (family of origin, genetics, intellect, physical health, place of birth, psychological health) that provide opportunities one can utilize rather than submitting to and utilizing victimhood to subvert or manipulate the opportunities of others.

http://www.topnews.in/people/stephen-hawking

Steven Hawking, arguably one of the most brilliant minds on the planet; likely, history will recognize him as one of humanity’s more remarkable figures in science. He also has Lou Gehrig's disease that has left him almost completely paralyzed. In spite of his health condition, Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge for 30 years, and now Director of Research at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology University of Cambridge. If government had its hand in leveling the playing field, Mr. Hawking would have been dead long ago. He would have rotted away or been “resting comfortably” in a government subsidized nursing home and conveniently forgotten, or prevented from exerting himself that could have worsened his condition.

Government measures to achieve what Obama terms as a “fair share” actually reduces equality. The idea of equality of opportunity has been subverted, transformed, or redefined by the liberal left into a concept equal outcome. This version of equal opportunity departs from the ideals of personal freedom. They redefined equal opportunity to mean an equal chance of participation, wherever there is any opportunity of participation.

There is an inescapable, inevitable and fundamental conflict between the ideal of fair share and freedom (Cooray, 1996). Government measures to promote equality result in a movement towards communism. Action for equality must necessarily involve government regulation and thereby reduce liberty. If public ownership is the ideal, government ownership and centralization of power is a necessary consequence.

Equality based policies aim to impose equality but, in fact, increase inequality (Cooray, 1996). It destroys incentive and individual initiative. Modern economic development has systematically raised the lot of the ordinary man to a level of prosperity undreamed of in past ages, when such prosperity was confined to just a few. This development was the direct result of individual initiative and endeavor within a system which allowed individuals to reap the rewards of their labors and FREE activities.

 

If we espouse 1976 Nobel Prize Economist Milton Friedman's “Free to choose” ideals one must either be hostile to the ideals liberty and prosperity or (much) more likely, ignorant of them. This begs the question to whether we are a nation that still believes in equality of opportunity, or whether we are moving away from that, and towards an insistence on equality of outcome. By directly impinging upon individual incentive and free activity; current policies and programs actually inhibit the process of economic growth and development, thus inhibiting the only mechanism in history by which inequality has been systematically, successfully and continuously ameliorated on a large scale (Cooray, 1996).

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficial. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greater dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928)

 Works Cited

Cooray, M. (1996). The Australian Achievement: From Bondage To Freedom. Sydney: LJM Cooray, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Sydney NSW 2000 —July 1996.

Freidman. (1980). Free to Choose: A Personal Statement . New York: harcourt, Inc.