The Ethics of Occupation

I’ve written about the Occupy movement in our regular posts, and I don’t propose to discuss the ethics of their platform itself. If you believe in representative democracy in the first place (and I do) then there’s no question that people should have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and whether you agree with the exact points on the “99% Declaration” or not, we can’t really argue that the protesters have the right to raise those points. What I’m asking in this particular case is whether we can support the actual method of protest they’re using. There’s a great history of sit-ins and public demonstrations, not just in this country, but in the world generally; it’s hard to argue that such tactics have led to actual change in the world. However, as we’ve frequently noted, it’s a new world – and this particular protest has taken on some new twists as well…

Consider, for example, that most of the points the protesters are raising are directed at our Federal government, not at any of the companies or entities they are actually camping out around. City and State governments can’t change whether members of Congress have term limits imposed on them, for example, and no one on Wall Street can overturn the Citizen’s United case (which granted corporations the right to protected speech, including campaign donations) even assuming that it wouldn’t be silly for them to want to do so in the first place. From a purely functional standpoint, it’s difficult to see how shutting down the Port of Oakland or camping in a park at the end of Wall Street will impact the creation of Federal law; such actions may communicate the anger and disgust the protesters are feeling, but the people they’re inconveniencing are mainly longshoremen and street vendors – not exactly members of the 1%. And the Occupy Washington group was initially so small that the right-wing opposition started using those numbers to mock the movement as a whole…

Then there’s the “collateral damage” aspect of these tactics. In Oakland we saw the emergence of disruptive and criminal elements, which turned a peaceful protest into a riot and gave the local authorities the justification they needed for attacking unarmed people with clubs and chemical agents. Things haven’t gone as far into the weeds anywhere else, but most of the Occupy encampments have had problems with thefts, local criminals using them for cover, and some of our more reprehensible law enforcement personnel using the protests as an excuse to beat up innocent people. There have also been reports of the camps themselves (and the police lines around them) interfering with local businesses, which is definitely not impacting any giant corporations, but might be harming local people who are just trying to get to work, do their jobs, or make a living. And while all of these things may ultimately be the fault of corrupt, violent or stupid local officials, there’s not much question that none of it would be happening if the protesters had chosen a different set of tactics…

Members of the movement would probably tell you that if their goals are achieved the result will be a better world for everyone, and that the occasional inconvenience or loss they’re causing will be repaid a thousand times over by a better economy, a better system of government and a better life. And for all you and I know, they might be correct – but that’s still too close to an “ends justify the means” argument for me to be comfortable with it. So I feel compelled to ask: given the obvious difficulties with this method of protest and the possible consequences to people who have nothing to do with the injustices being protested in the first place, is the occupation of Wall Street (or anywhere else) really an ethical response to the situation? Can we really dismiss the concerns of everyone who opposes these protests as merely part of the problem, or should we extend those people the same right to be heard that the protesters are demanding for themselves? And perhaps most important of all, who gets to decide?

It’s worth thinking about…