I hate to say this, but I have been intentionally ignoring the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Unlike the presidential race ("If You Wear a "Kick me" Sign, Don't Complain About Getting Kicked"), where I have been ignoring the issue due to apathy, in this case I have been ignoring them largely because they seem so entirely irrelevant. I am sure, years from now, some revisionist historian will make them seem historically relevant, but for the most part, especially as they stand largely for nothing at all ("Just Amusing"), they are nothing more than a noisy annoyance, not even as relevant as the largely ineffective Berkley Free Speech Movement (another noisy annoyance given exaggerated importance by historians), more our version of the Diggers or Ranters, due to appear in history texts, but covered in a vague paragraph and then forgotten¹.

But I must admit, despite my lack of interest, I have not been able to completely ignore them, and especially a vague claim they have of being "the 99%". Apparently, they claim (as much as they have any coherent position) that they are representing the 99% of America who are not billionaires, the implication being that the rich receive special treatment, and that the state should pay special attention not to the rich but to "ordinary people"².

I know no one is expecting me to say this, but to a degree they have a point. Some rich people do have undue influence with the government. They are wrong to place this onus on all the rich, there are many quite wealthy people who have no government connections and are treated quite badly. (Think of the Justice Department's seeming crusade against Microsoft to see how wealth does not always buy one government favors.Or the way the states colluded to basically extort money from the tobacco industry to shore up state budgets.)  But there are those with wealth who have more influence over the state than the rest of us.

On the other hand, there are many poor and middle class people who have influence over the state in excess of the rest of us as well. There are those with personal connections, those who have a high public profile, those who represent causes that a particular politician favors, and others. There are all sorts of entry points to government power, and wealth is hardly the only one³.

Instead, I would like to state that I too am part of the 99%, but not the one they mean. I am certainly not a billionaire, but that is not what matters. No, I am part of the 99% of America that has no special influence over the state. And that is much more significant.

"Occupy Wall Street" seems to have two issues, only one of which is (somewhat) legitimate, and there their solution is wrong. Their first issue, the one which is far from legitimate, is simple class envy, the resentment against the rich, and that is simply childish, or, in some cases, dangerous. ("Those Greedy Bankers", "Greed Versus Evil", "Envy Kills", "Envy And Analogy", "Brief Discussion of Envy", "The Irrationality of Government Redistribution") Their other issue is legitimate, to a degree. And that is, as I said before, the influence (some) wealthy individuals have over the government. And in that they are correct. The rich should not have political powers the rest of us do not. ("Symmetry and Asymmetry in Government")4

But they hope to resolve this by replacing one set of politicians with another. Giving the power currently wielded by rich constituents with power wielded by "commissars" or their modern equivalents. And that is simply wrong. it is just replacing one "99%" with another⁵. And, as I argued in "Transparency, Corruption and Reform", whenever the government has power that can be used tot he advantage of some individual, it will be abused.  If we deny access based on wealth, it will be access based on family ties, or sexual favors, or personal friendships or political affiliation, or ability to bring in votes, or something else. In the end, so long as a politician can grant favors, someone will find a way to gain those favors.

And that is where "Occupy Wall Street" is wrong. Had they simply protested bailouts and other attempts at "fixing" the economy, I might have even supported them. But they did not. Instead, they complain about undue influence exercised by "the rich", but propose as a solution nothing more than changing who has access to those government favors. And that is absurd. The solution is not to change who holds the reins of power, but to eliminate that power. Once the state cannot "bail out", cannot hand out economic favors, throw around massive sums of cash, and otherwise do things that people are willing to buy with cash or favors or votes or anything else, as soon as we eliminate all forms of government favors, then we will see an end to most corruption⁶.

That should be the goal of "Occupy Wall Street", ending the influence of that "other 99%", rather than simply beating up on "the rich". But, sadly, caught up in their left wing rhetoric, they cannot conceive of a state as anything other than a tool of class warfare. And so we get "solutions" which just create other problems. ( "The Inherent Disappointment of Authoritarianism")

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. I admit to having a personal animosity toward the Diggers, Ranters, Levelers and the rest of the minor factions of the English Civil War for the simple reason that their doctrines all seemed largely identical, yet in class after class I had exam questions asking me to distinguish them, and, thanks to the brief way in which our texts covered each, I found it almost impossible. Since then, thanks to a continuing fascination with the period, I have discovered quite  a bit of difference between the groups, and even within each group, but the texts we used never managed to make those differences clear. (In case I never mentioned it, the reason I answered these same questions so many times was that my undergraduate education was in history, but focused mainly on English legal history prior to the Restoration.)

2. This reminds me of election time when both parties claim to represent the "middle class", conservatives because they are not beholden to "special interests" and welfare recipients, the liberals because they are opposed to special privileges for "the rich". I wrote before that I detest such claims, as the government should not favor the "middle class" (however defined) any more than it should favor the rich or poor ("What About Everyone Else?", "Obama's Economic Plans Revisited", "Some Questions from the Obama Speech", "Beware Populist Deception"). Still, such absurd claims persist ad it seems at election time both parties strive mightily to be the most middle of middle class they can possibly be. (A similar absurdity is the fixation on "small business", but I dealt with that in "Small Business Fetish" and "The Little Guy Can't Compete".)

3. In some ways, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd is committing the ordinary liberal mistake of confusing economic "power" with political power. ("Economic and Political Power Revisited", "Power - Political and Economic") It is an absurd mistake, made possible only by the use of the abstract term "power". If we dealt in concrete terms, it would never exist, as no one would mistake your "power" to buy a car with the power to jail a dissident, or your "power" to hire a worker with your power to shoot someone with impunity. But it is a mistake which is depressingly common. ( Even among conservatives -- "Et Tu, Town Hall?") Sometimes the argument is muddied a bit by confusing the use of money to influence those holding real political power, but that is bribery and a completely different issue. Economic and political "power" are two different species entirely, and the fact that some politicians are susceptible to bribes does not make economic "power" identical to political, any more than the licentiousness of some politicians makes sexual "power" identical to political power.

4. The rich will always have access to goods and services unavailable to the res of us, but that is a good thing, as such purchases actually drive progress. See "Luxury and Necessity", "Bad Economics Part 18" and "The Benefits of Inequalities of Wealth".

5. I do not agree that all political influence is currently held by "the rich" as they seem to claim. In fact, much power is held by those far from rich. (Until they use that power to become rich.) But I am granting this absurd assumption for the sake of argument.

6. Even a minimal government allows for some types of corruption, such as bribing police officers to ignore crimes, but for the most part it avoids acceptable, large scale corruption such as lobbying and other types of influence peddling and the sale of favors.