As the remaining Occupy campsites in Canadian cities are being dismantled, it is hard to pinpoint any achievement the movement will have been responsible for. Reading the recent headlines, I wonder however if some of the protesters will not be leaving Victoria Square in Montreal with a renewed appreciation of some of the fundamental aspects of the capitalist system they've been denouncing for the past two months: private property, personal responsibility and the rule of law.
One of the most revealing and ironic illustration of the importance of those basic rules occurred last week. As in other cities, the camp had gradually been invaded by drug addicts and homeless persons who found there a place to stay and food distributed for free. The situation finally became untenable: at night especially, there were continual fights, some tents were transformed into shooting galleries, death threats were being uttered.
The occupiers, who had appropriated land that did not belong to them* in the name of a vague right to express their indignation, got a taste of their own medicine: they themselves became occupied!
And how did they react? Just like typical property owners would do when faced with invaders: they asked the police to expel these "undesirables," as they called them. Hilariously, the police said they had no way to justify expelling some of the occupiers while tolerating others. And indeed, from a legal as well as a moral perspective, nobody had more reason to be there than others. The two groups, occupiers and undesirables, are interchangeable, depending on one's perspective.
A group of occupiers then decided to take drastic action to get rid of the undesirables: they refused to give daily food rations to those who could not prove that they participated in the camp's organization. The food distributed in Occupy "people's kitchens" across the continent was of course not bought by the participants themselves but donated by outside organizations and supporters. Occupiers realized that handing over free stuff encouraged unproductive and parasitic behaviour, and that this could not go on without obvious economic and social disadvantages.
For someone who understands the fundamental laws of economics, all of this was of course entirely predictable. This is fundamentally the same problem that our bloated and bankrupt welfare states have been facing for decades. Money does not grow on trees, and getting something in exchange for nothing cannot serve as a basis for a sustainable economic system.
The final blow came when thieves got away with $10,000 out of the $25,000 collected in donations from the public that was being held in an improvised piggy bank in one of the tents. Some of the organizers admitted to the media they had a good idea who was responsible, and that they were... other organizers of the movement!
If we are to believe the official discourse of the occupiers, wealth belongs to everyone, we should tax the rich to give to the poor, and everyone should get as many goods and services as possible for free. So, one might ask, what's wrong with some of the organizers deciding to "spread the wealth" in a way they thought more appropriate?
The reason why we need private property and its legal enforcement by social institutions is precisely to avoid the chaos that would ensue if anyone could take over anything he wanted, be it money, food, or a piece of land.
Private property was invented by our ancestors as an alternative to the barbarian notion that "might is right." It is because we have a widely respected process to determine what belongs to whom that we don't need to protect our personal belongings with clubs or private armies. And the rich are not those who benefit most from such a system: they would have the means to defend themselves anyway. On the contrary, it is those without connections to the rich and powerful who most need the rule of law for protection.
Unfortunately, the occupiers are so confused by their collectivist theories that they can't even logically defend their own interests. The article relating the disappearance of the $10,000 has a picture of the campsite showing a placard with the words (I translate): "Thieves, stop here. We are a people." That may sound poetic, but if wealth belongs to nobody in particular but rather to "the people," then thieves, "undesirables," rich capitalists, corrupt politicians, opportunist Occupy organizers, etc., are also arguably part of "the people" and can justifiably take a portion of it for their own benefit.
Only a clear definition and enforcement of private property can prevent this war of all against all. But of course, a group of activists who believe in private property would never have defined their whole movement as based on the "occupation" of land belonging to others.
Let's hope some of the occupiers at least learned that lesson. Next time they organize a protest, perhaps their demands will be a little more realistic.
_______
*Whether the land being occupied belongs to a private sector landlord, as was the case with the Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, or is a public park administered by the municipality, as in Montreal and other cities, is irrelevant. A public park does not "belong to everyone" and cannot be used by anyone as they like. It has usage rules which allow for optimal social benefit. Those who contravene those rules, like the occupiers, violate the rights of other users.
Follow Michel Kelly-Gagnon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/iedm_montreal
Jeffrey Sachs: Fairness and the Occupy Movement Revisited
Occupy Montreal protesters evicted from camp
Occupy Montreal seeks new avenues for change
Simply put, Michel Kelly-Gagnon has a greater love for law and order then he does for democracy and for that matter; real justice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/29/big-five-banks-ottawa_n_1119336.html?ref=canada
However what you have failed to mention is the movement brought about meetings on addressing these types of issues worldwide. In Edmonton, discussions on sustainability and the rights of non-citizen children were held, in Vancouver upcoming topics include climate change and educational reform.
In your article you suggest that it is somehow wrong that the food given out was bought with donations from supporters and organizations. That's how these things work, we can't all be in the street, so many of us choose to support those who can by donating money and supplies.
And if asking police to remove people making death threats and inciting violence within a group that has continually stated its commitment to peaceful protest is more than just asking that they remove undesirables.
Personally I do not agree with the choice to Occupy private property. However, as I understand it, most of these properties were owned by banks and financial institutions. Economic reform is a primary objective of the movement. And given how generous the people have been bailing out the financial community, I'm not really feeling much pity for the bankers.
Perhaps business and community leaders could join in the conversation about how to inact positive change, rather than concentrating on how to stomp it out.
That Occupy camps become a centre for our most troubled and in-need citizens simply points to our failure to address the causes of addiction and homelessness and to assist the victims. Addressing the causes is difficult, but in the long run helping someone turn their life around is more cost-effective than turning a blind eye while that person spirals downward through the jails and hospitals. A compassionate society benefits all.
Yes Occupiers occupy and some behaviour is well outside our daily norms. That is what has stirred so much discussion the world over. That discussion is one achievement the movement is responsible for. Raising the whole range of issues in the collective consciousness is a vital first step in bringing about positive change. However messy it may be, none of us should disparage people for being more engaged in democracy. My hope is that the mind-share generated by Occupy will lead to greater participation come voting days at all levels of government. That would be a fine achievement for this movement.
I'd say it was to CHANGE THE MEDIA NARRATIVE, away from austerity and deficits to how the 99% has been screwed.
It's not over.
Indeed it is not over. The occupy movement is the most hopeful sign I have seen since the Leman Bros. bankruptcy in 2008 opened my eyes.
No, money does not grow on trees. It is created out of thin air (plus a little ink and paper - or plastic now) by the central bank, thereby inflating its balance sheet, in exchange for government debt - on which taxpayers pay interest. Banks then get their hands on it and through the miracle of fractional reserve lending, they create more money out of thin air and charge the borrower interest on that. This little scam is at the heart of our banking system. How is this NOT getting something for nothing? Oh wait, it is because the beneficiaries are among the 1%.
Could it be that the present global financial situation is demonstration of the veracity of Mr. Kelly-Gagnon's statement "...getting something in exchange for nothing cannot serve as a basis for a sustainable economic system" ?
The ironies are not lost.. There are some basic realities of capitalist system the movement re learns.. but the dialogue, and the terminology 99% have be come lexicon terms.. no... it has had effect already.. and it's far from over.
Finally! Finally!
A man who truly understands how capitalist government works: property and the rule of law trump everything. Everything!
Justice, poverty, truth, hope - throw them away Occupiers!
We have property, the rule of law and the police to enforce them.
Resistance is futile.
A man who truly understandÂs how capitalist government works: property and the rule of law trump everythingÂ. EverythingÂ!"
Capitalist Government, what capitalist government?
Does nobody understand what capitalism is? It is really quite simple. Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and used for profit.
It says nothing about the monetary or banking system. Neither does it define government.
That said, the occupy movement has shed some light on the fact that our government, which for kenl77's enlightenment is a parliamentary democracy, does seem to be pretty much under the influence of the corporations.
I stand enlightened. In fact, blinded by your light.
A parliamentary democracy - imagine that!
Imagine if that were true.
Then again, you concede my whole point in your last twelve words so perhaps I shouldn't be too sarcastic.