By now, we’ve all heard of Occupy Wall Street. It is a series of protests revolving around the social inequalities between the wealthiest 1% and the other 99% of the population. Originally, the protesting began in New York City, on Wall Street. However, the protests have spread across the nation – even to Ann Arbor.
Although I agree with some of the protestor’s points, I don’t understand their real purpose. I agree that the economic inequality between the top 1% and the other 99% is far too large and has only grown bigger in the past few decades. Some people argue that the disparity creates incentive for the other 99% and that the top 1% needs this money to create even more jobs, but I don’t really agree with these arguments.
Is the purpose of Occupy Wall Street to just bring the social inequalities on the forefront of people’s minds? Or is it to actually enact change itself? The protestors are merely campaigning against the social inequalities, but they don’t offer a sense of direction on what needs to be done. How will Occupy Wall Street Protestors realize when they have actually met their goals without this sense of purpose?
I feel that almost all other movements in the past have had a sense of direction, which has given them a sense of purpose. Occupy Wall Street is often compared to the Tea Party movement, but they offer a direction of lower taxes and other conservative agenda. Civil rights movements in the past have all had an agenda of inequality and have offered an approach of how to tackle the racial differences.
What are your thoughts on Occupy Wall Street, and what do you think their purpose is, if they have one? Do you think political philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, would agree with the protestors and take their side?