Occupy Fishbowl:

 I would love to preface this piece by extending my sincerest thanks and appraisals to Father McFarland for his modest aura, his charisma, and ultimately for being an exemplary human being—embodying the values upon which we, the crusaders, take pride in.

   Last Thursday, I walked my way into the Rehm library with the expectation of being wowed by the intellect of the faculty members who were scheduled to share their views on the Occupy Wall Street movement. And wowed I was.  I absorbed quite a bit of knowledge and wisdom from these brilliant minds. The faculty members were: Prof. Joseph Lawrence (PHIL), Prof. David Schaefer (POLS), Prof. Mary Hogbood (RELS), and Prof. Justin Svec (ECON). It does not even matter where you stand on the political spectrum, but you must have the decorum to admit that they each presented arguments that are quite cogent. In fact, if you did not have a "wow" moment or two, either you have heard it all already or you were too busy being lethargic. However, for the sake of this piece, I will reflect on some of the most poignant arguments/ideas that Prof. Lawrence and Prof. Schaefer shared.

   Must you really attend this baseball game? What if you did what is economically responsible and stayed at home to watch your favorite team on your TV screen in the comfort of your couch with some popcorns (or beers if you are of age)? The millions of tickets being sold to the people have much to do with any sports players succeeding in finding their way into the ever so famous 1%. Consider that we all start off having exactly five dollars, but one of us just happened to be quite talented and is willing to use a talent to generate money. We [with no coercion whatsoever] decide to pay to see the talent in display, and as a result, an economic inequality is created between the talented and the rest of us. In that previous scenario, who are we, exactly, to blame for not only the now present economic inequality, but also the subsequent results of said inequality? If there is a just transfer, meaning the exchange that created the economic inequality was voluntary and non-coercive, everything should be cool, right? Well, this basically sounds like the political philosopher Robert Nozick, and  seems to be along the same lines of what our brilliant Prof. Schaefer said, too (I really hope I am right in assuming this).

   I have a penchant for the latter argument because…well, it makes a lot of sense, first of all. Why does it make sense? OK, fine, I will explain. Common sense has it that normally when you and I have to make exchanges, as long as neither of us is using extortion, deception or brute force, the transaction is just – regardless of what happens beyond the point of the transaction (exceptional cases may apply). I do not mindlessly venture outside of my budget to get Gucci items because I cannot afford to make Gucci richer – to, you know, give them more push into the 1%. I do not own the many fancy mundane items that I shamelessly like because I would feel a little less entitled to complain about the riches of their sellers, and ultimately dreading about my empty pockets. I do, however, have my weakness; I invest in certain materials (clothing) that I do not always  need, so I do take personal responsibility for that offense. I needed the nice shirt, and the seller needed the money - that's a just transfer and a win-win, although in reality I may have underwent more of a loss. Ultimately, in some respect, our system and the people in it created the 1%, right?   In other words, let's say we all stop buying Louis Vuitton items, can you guess what happens?  What is usually bound to happen when a business has no clientele? Do you, the people, the customers, now see how powerful you are?

   But not so fast, it would seem. The "just transfer" argument is not perfect because it loses its ground once you delve into the epistemic quagmire and semantics of "coercion." What does it mean, exactly, to coerce? What happens when you take a deeper look? Moreover, that argument can be attacked through historical accounts. I am limited to how many sentences I can fit into an article, so I will not provide a full discernment of the matter. Nonetheless, it is quite a persuasive move on the part of anyone who ascribes to such a philosophy, and I have an affinity for it. Also, please notice that nowhere along these lines do I state that the poor should not be helped. Do not ever assume that you have a monopoly on charity and compassion, I implore you.

   Ultimately, I ask, why not?  Prof. Lawrence vibrated the Rehm library with a series of "why-not's" towards the end of the discussion. I paraphrase: Why not pursue the good in values and principles, rather than the good in oh-the-old-ever-so-lovely-but-not-really money? I could not agree more with Prof. Lawrence's philosophy. What has happened to us? Why are we now confined within that flat green rectangular cage called money? Was the "American dream" a precursor to an "American greed"? Furthermore, I sometimes find myself feeling less than sympathetic for certain people who complain about the "greedy rich people" because ironically enough, they themselves sometimes openly admit that they will do whatever it takes to, like these "greedy rich people," become rich. I do not quite grasp the logic of fervently fighting against the very people you aspire to emulate. I know you have heard it ad nauseam, but there is more than just one way to define success in this life – money is not the sole attestation of success.

   Supposedly, one of the things that the OWS movement fight is greed, but I would love it if they not only took care of the current greed, but also the emerging one—I am referring to the greed being passed onto us young ones in this society. Materialism, or consumerism, not necessarily capitalism, is where a fair deal of the problem finds its niche. The Spanish saying goes "dead the dog, and gone the rabies;" eradicate this mindset of money-hungry-material-seeking altogether and we will go forward from there. And as the Haitian Creole saying goes, "It is at the roots that you must fix the tree that is growing at a bad angle" – the earlier you straighten up the tree, the better. Indeed, if it benefits us all, WHY NOT?! If our lives become more bearable, WHY NOT?! If there is one less evil about which we have to worry, WHY NOT?!