Why? Well, I had a number of reasons. One, I liked the professor. Two, at that time I described myself politically as a right-leaning libertarian (as opposed to a paranoid wingnut), and, hey, Anarchism's only a stone's throw away, right?
Well, no. Not at all.
It seemed to me that all the anarchists of the early 20th century had far-left agendas, like they'd all read Marx and thought he was way cool, man. If anybody can find someone who threw a bomb in the name of free markets, I'd like to know about him. In general, the whole agenda was "abolish the system so everyone does equal work for equal pay." Or something.
We saw a video about the Seattle riots. I can't tell you what the protestors expected to accomplish, given that a) my memory from three years back is tinged with thoughts like "nobody in their right mind is going to vote for a candidate who said there were 57 states" and "wow, this Doctor Who thing is the best television show, ever!" And b) because they were a bunch of whining, smelly hippies whose goals probably varied from person to person. No, scratch that: their goals did vary from person to person. Because there's really only one thing I remember from that video.
Somehow, a reporter got through the throng unmolested and wound up talking to a member of the crowd. When asked about the rioters' political aims, he replied, "I don't know, I'm just here for the riots."
"I'm just here for the riots."
I guarantee you there are members of the so-called 99% that think the exact same thing. Four years of smoking dope - I mean, free college education? Yeah, sure if that's what you want. Me, I'm just here for the riots. Because stuff burns, and fire is pretty.
Way back in the 80s, Monty Python unleashed their final film, The Meaning of Life, on the world. There are approximately two things I remember from that film: Graham Chapman being chased into a grave by a bunch of topless women, and a corporate executive who said that the meaning of life had something to do with the fact that "People are not wearing enough hats."*
Now unless your job involves the words "Team," "Fortress," and "2," chances are people are in fact wearing enough hats. And although Monty Python is a satire, I have no doubt that there are millions if not billions of people out there who think that all the problems of the world could be solved if only we'd just use less fossil fuels/legalize pot/outlaw gay marriage/abolish the death penalty/tax the rich dry/privatize social security/wear more hats.
So naturally, when the Fart Smelling Movement joined Occupy Wall Street, I thought to myself, "People are not wearing enough hats." And when Occupy Wall Street first got off the ground, I thought to myself, "I'm just here for the riots."
And when the hat-wearing lunatics and the riot-loving lunatics show up in sufficient numbers, well, duck and cover.
Now, you might say that the fundamental flaw with Occupy Wall Street is that they're just fundamentally insane, or they don't understand that college education can never be a free ride, or they just need a good shower. Nah, that's not it.
The notion that they call themselves the 99% is the most ridiculous thing about them, at least to me. 99% of the country will never agree on anything, except maybe that the sky is often blue, and even then only if you're not currently on drugs.
As I mentioned in the last post, there is no "General Will." Let me give you an example of what I mean. Let's say that 60% of the country opposes gay marriage, just for the sake of an argument. Now let's also say that 60% of the country feels the death penalty should be abolished. So therefore, there have to be some people (at least 20% of the population, if my math is right) that oppose both gay marriage and the death penalty. (N.B, I've just picked two random issues here and nothing I say should be interpreted as a position on either. I am not and will never equate gay marriage with the death penalty in any meaningful way beyond saying that they're both political issues.)
When everybody votes on both of these issues, neither gay marriage nor capital punishment will be allowed, but only those who opposed both will be 100% satisfied. Is this the general will? Can the opinions on two issues held by 20% of the population really be called the "general will?"
Throw in a third issue, free hats for all. Let's say that, like the other two issues, 60% of the population supports this issue. But nobody who supports free hats wants to outlaw both the death penalty and gay marriage.
So now who's the big authority on the "general will?" Here's a chart to illustrate my point. Let's say that ten people are polled on three different issues. A green box means that the person agrees with the majority on that particular issue. A red box means they don't.
Where's the "general will" in this chart? It's the stuff in green, you say, right? But hang on, everybody's got at least one red box, which means that everyone goes home slightly unhappy. And if you're person number 4 or 7, you go home really unhappy. (You could even add an 11th row of all red, and every vote would still be 6-5 green.)
If there is a "general will," guess what, it's still not going to favor you 100% of the time. If it did, true total democracy would work and we would have no need for representative government.
Now pretend that folks 1-5 live in one state (State One), and folks 6-10 in a different one (State Two). State One is going to vote yes on issue A, no on issue B, and yes on issue C. State Two will vote no on issue A and yes on issues B and C. Suddenly now people 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 are prefectly happy; they get their way on all three issues. And if 5 cares more passionately about B than he does about A, he is well within his rights to change states. Vice-versa for 6. (4 and 7 are still SOL because C has a majority in both states.)
My point is that the more people and the more issues there are, the harder it is to find a consensus or any proof of that elusive "general will." So the 99% might just speak for 99% of all Underwater Basket-Weaving majors; it's possible that they speak for 99% of all college grads who have at least $X of student loan debt. It's possible that they speak for 99% of unemployed people who also meet criteria X, Y and Z.
But they don't speak for 99% of America.
*Sigh, yes, Find the Fish, Mr. Creosote, Live Organ Transplants, the Galaxy Song. Happy now?
No comments:
Post a Comment