OWS’s Lack of Focus - Tibor Machan

I've tried to inject some sense through the #ows twitter channel, to expose some of the illegitimacy of the "99%" meme they push. There are a number of legitimate means of using the system to address their grievances, if they truly represent 99% of the country. For example, 99% could vote out every politician and replace them with those they agree with. They could easily file a class action suit, if a bank did in deed injure them or defrauded them. And finally, if they are 99%, they could focus on a corporate target, buy up all the stock, and take over the board and leadership of the company.

The fact they haven't done any of these things shows they do not represent 99%. So, what does that mean, well, they could do the above with much less than 99%, heck, a class action suit could be had with 2% or less, but still they don't. So what does that all mean? Well, it means they represent a very tiny fraction of Americans, they can't win through a vote, they have no specific injury to take to court, so they just want to protest and 'Occupy' to enforce a 'tyranny of the minority', to have their will implemented and forced upon the majority.

While hanging out in the #ows twit stream, I heard them calling to sing a petition of 100K people to support their movement. That was a big deal to them at the time, and they were putting that call out nationally. Well, 100,000 people supporting them means they have about .0003% of the country's support. Not very close to 99% is it? And if they are that massively incorrect in their 99% claim, how many other issues are they lying or misinformed about?

The below article about the lack of focus of OWS is by Tibor Machan, Ph. D. A distinguished professor working with Auburn, Chapman, the Hoover Institute at Stanford, and the Cato Institute.

Column on OWS’s Lack of Focus � A Passion for Liberty

When someone, some organization or an institution is charged with corruption, this is a serious matter. It is comparable to accusing some people of malpractice in medicine, education, engineering or the like. And such a charge requires specific proof in order to make it credible. Otherwise is it irresponsible.

All the while OWS has been afoot, however, no specific accusations have been laid out by the participants or leaders or supporters. It is all vague and unfocused. It is much more like scapegoating those on Wall Street, given that the group doesn’t bother to be specific and fails, moreover, to go after the main culprits, for example those in Washington who urged the banks to make borrowing easy. In 1992 Bill Clinton’s administration did, in fact, implore banks to do just that, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for example. So why are these not the targets of OWS?