What was I saying about the “new Vandals?”
Conn Carroll of The Washington Examiner today presents video of Occupy Oakland “staff” trying to stop others from trashing a local Whole Foods store. But, as Carroll points out, the presence of Occupy Oakland “officials” tells us they had some idea trouble would break out, yet went ahead with the march, anyway, thus making them responsible.
Why? Because the central idea of Occupy is the seizure of control of another’s property. His final paragraph lays bare the violent logic at the core of the movement:
…When you assert control over something that someone else owns (Brookfield Properties, the taxpayers, etc), there is eventually going to be a physical confrontation when that owner tries to reassert control. That is what we are seeing in police/occupier clashes across the country.
Again, this is no longer an issue of freedom of speech; no one is advocating that free political speech be repressed — as long as the rights of others are respected. But these people have crossed a line by trampling on the property rights of others (1) and threatening their livelihoods and even their safety. It is time for city mayors to do the jobs for which they are being paid and order the mobs to disperse — and to send in the police to enforce the order, if need be.
(1) And I don’t just mean who physically owns the ground; companies of all sizes have shareholders, and those shareholders, whether individual investors or big investment houses (who in turn serve individual investors) have a property interest in their shares in those businesses and in their future profits. Same with sole owners of small businesses, whether it’s a hot dog cart on a corner near Zuccotti Park or a crafts store in Oakland. When Occupy “does its thing,” it harms the very people it claims to be fighting for. What about their rights?
(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)