Freedom from occupation

“A democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the earth; no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power.” —Occupy Duke

As the Occupy movement spreads across the country, numbers of Americans have left their schools, jobs and parent’s homes to participate in one of the great U.S. democratic traditions: public demonstration. Whether this movement is merely a flash in the pan or will grow into a political force with which to be reckoned remains to be seen. Currently, the movement lacks a clear focus other than presenting a criticism of capital disparity among the American people. It encompasses a number of movements and organizations, including organized labor, environmental groups and advocates for progressive taxes. Lack of clarity among the protestors’ goals prohibits fruitful discussion about the impact it will have on American politics. If in the future the protesters present a cohesive and organized message, we will be able to better analyze how the movement may impact American politics.

But for the moment I would like to examine Occupy Duke. This past week I had the opportunity to chat with several participants on the main quad, inquire as to their motivation and purpose and listen to their arguments. I found a spirited group of individuals, both approachable and passionate about discussing the reasons behind their cause and willing to make sacrifices to achieve it. We found common ground in issues like controlling excessive lobbying, raising the standard of living and fostering civic responsibility. More often we disagreed on how to solve the problems currently facing the American public than why these problems needed to be solved.

But today I would like to issue the following challenge to the mission statement of the Occupy Duke movement, printed above. Alleging that businesses “extract” wealth without the people’s consent shows a gross misunderstanding of our economic system. Participation in the capitalist system is entirely optional. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a college student forced to buy a MacBook or an iPhone. Every transaction with a small business or corporation is mutually beneficial: the business provides a product that the consumer can purchase if he or she wants to. Capitalism places the power of choice in the hands of the consumer, who collectively choose which companies will succeed.

Undoubtedly the following counterpoint will be raised: “People are so dependent on companies for basic necessities that they have no choice but to participate in the capitalist system.” It is true that the alternative to a market-based economy isn’t pretty; one would practically have to revert to subsistence farming to escape the reach of the marketplace. But, I would remind critics of our economic system that the marketplace emerged as an alternative to the former lifestyle.

It is important to remember that many of today’s economic challenges stem from the uncertainty surrounding sovereign nation’s debt problems. Countries like Greece, Italy and Spain have spent without restraint over the past half-century, accumulating massive amounts of debt. The question whether or not these nations will be able to honor their commitments hangs like a specter over the global marketplace. Until these nations satisfactorily resolve their debt issues and make substantial progress towards paying them down, I suspect the future of the world economy will remain in limbo.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that a “true democracy,” one where every citizen has an equal and distinct right to speak in the general assembly, is impossible in a nation of over 300 million people. The system we have safeguards the rights of the individual while allowing his or her voice to be expressed through his elected official. I would also urge the Occupy Duke movement to moderate their rhetoric and not call for a continuation of the “American Revolution,” as stated on their Facebook page.

Occupy Duke has every right to protest the economic condition of the nation, but I doubt whether their denouncement of the free marketplace will accomplish much. Robbing selected Peter to pay collective Paul is not only morally wrong, but it shifts blame away from the real culprit behind our poor economy: government overspending. Only by addressing fiscal irresponsibility on a national level will we be able to restore the American Dream to its true potential.