Initially, I was opposed to it as well, but a few things changed my mind.
- I realized I'm not a statist/corporatist prick
- I realized I'm not a vulgar libertarian prick
- I read more Kevin Carson
- I saw the Occupy Oakland police beating
Just because the state monopolizes certain industries, and those industries develop products, doesn't mean that OTHER industries wouldn't have developed them independently if we had a free market. From people who are supposed to be against favoritism, privilege, and corporatism, this is a total double standard.
Or people who say, "I can't believe these guys want more government regulations! Can't they see the government police beating them up?"
Uh, yeah, it must've totally skipped their mind when they were being bludgeoned to death that these guys work for the government. That's their whole point; that government is giving special privilege to corporations and letting them pass on things that they shouldn't be doing.
Some arguments go as far as accusing protesters of being kids throwing tantrums because they want free stuff. Because, of course, kids are willing to put up with police beatings, pepper spray, and arrests because they want free stuff. Of course, this is just a flat-out strawman. They're not opposed to rich people, but to privilege. Corporations got rich because of state protection of various industries, and because they're able to externalize nearly every single cost to the taxpayers, rather than taking responsibility and eating them themselves.
And people make these mistakes because they have no idea how to interpret or look at this movement. What libertarians need to remember is that, regardless of the individual opinions of any occupier, they're protesting against the effects of statism, whether they know it or not.
They may not have the intelletual depth that we'd like, but what this proves is that the current power structure is both unsustainable, and un-populous. Compare it to the protests in Libya, Egypt, Iran, London, Greece, etc. all of which were started for economic reasons. This is much more comparable to that than anything the tea party has ever done. It's not because the Tea Party was "gun-totin' " conservatives that they were left alone. It's because they're not a threat and because they didn't agitate for any real change. They're arguing that Obama is an ideological Marxist, and that they oppose Obamacare, and higher taxes. All of them are reform proposals, coming from relatively privileged people, without any chance or danger to the status quo. Tea partiers are not anywhere near as willing to abolish anything.
Also, the "Occupy X" movement is not a centralized movement with a particular ideology anyways. Occupy Wall Street has some liberal/social democratic/regulatory state tendencies, but Occupy Oakland had a bunch of Anarcho-Syndicalists, and some places are filled with left-libertarians, and some even have Ron Paul "End the Fed" types.
But the most important reason for this movement is that it shows solidarity, especially solidarity among people who may not necessarily agree on everything philosophically. It proves that there is a resistance to the status quo, and that the ruling class has something to look out for in the future.
As far as the violence aspects go, like bricks going through banks... I mean, boohoo. You lost a window. It pales in comparison to the number of people's lives who were ruined because they had their money stolen from them in taxes, to bail out big banks, so that they could ask the government to protect property titles in houses that poor people were using and occupying, without ever actually producing a real title to the property. They were all sliced/diced and sold into giant hedgefunds, that they were able to make huge profits out of because of inflationary speculation bubble fuled by the fed! They ruin literally every aspect of our lives, and cry when somebody breaks a window?
Or the speculative education bubble, which is fueled by government subsidy, which allows educators to raise the price of tuition by externalizing the cost to taxpayers, or government subsidized student loans, which enslave students to abnormally high, inflated rates for education by also externalizing the costs to taxpayers.
All in all, what we see is a true popular movement, and the only objections are those that defend the status quo, from people who are usually arguing against it. Unless this double-standard is abolished, and libertarianism sees itself as a left-wing movement, our dream of a free society will never be realized.
