Posted 4 years ago on Oct. 11, 2011, 12:31 a.m. EST by cives
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If I understand correctly, Occupy Wall Street has, at least as part of its purpose, the idea of protesting corporate influence in our government.
I'm just starting to read Rousseau's "The Social Contract". One thing that he states is that "the social pact...substitutes...a moral and lawful equality for whatever physical inequality that nature may have imposed...so that however unequal in strength and intelligence, men become equal by covenant and right. Under a bad government, this equality is only an appearance and an illusion; it serves to keep the poor in their wretchedness and sustain the rich in their usurpation. In truth, laws are always useful to those with possessions and harmful to those who have nothing; from which it follows that the social state is advantageous to men only when all possess something and none too much" (Book 1, Ch 9).
The resources of corporations and the singularity of their purpose far outweigh the resources of the people and their diverse interests, thus leaving our system in a social state where the few (corporations) possess what can only be stated as too much.
Certainly when regulatory agencies that are supposed to protect the welfare of the citizens instead protect the interests of corporations, the system has gone awry. Rousseau also claims that the end to which a state has been established is expressly that of the common good (Book 2, Ch 1). When a government caters to the interests of corporations at the expense of the interests of its citizenry, it is a bad government.
If people in the movement "Occupy Wall Street" can articulate this purpose in a coherent manner, I think the vast majority of the populous would be in agreement and find some way to show solidarity with the movement.