The protests of the groups named 99% seem to continue igniting fury all over the world since they occupied Wall Street at Liberty Square in Manhattan’s financial district. By now, they claim at OccupywallSt.org that the protests are being held in more than 1500 cities around the world (virtual map). In all those cities the protests have taken different shapes and discourses. They seem to cry for different things. Their leaders emphasize their own agendas and it has been hard for me to identify a common single demand.

Curiously, most of these protesters most surely do not recall that on a day like today more than 200 years ago a public meeting similar to theirs was first organized.  It was in October 16, 1773 that the First public meeting of protest against the Tea Act took place in Philadelphia.  These protesters demanded from their rulers (The British Parliament) a respect of their rights to property and individual rights.  They asked for the Parliament to respect their right to elect their own Representatives and to be taxed by those representatives only.

Three years later, after their demands were not listened by the British government the United States Declaration of Independence was signed by the representatives of thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain. It was the first Declaration ever written in history that considered as its core that all men had unalienable Rights and that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Since then, these rights were slowly forgotten and captured by government. Slowly, the sons and daughters of these revolutionary protesters forgot the reasons that created such a wonderful Declaration.  Now, the protests of the Occupy movements face a similar contradiction.  As The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights argued in their article What the Tea Party Movement Must Stand For, it is necessary for them to organize against one single claim: They should demand for a Moral Revolution in which their government returns to them their rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It is until now Ayn Rand the only philosopher who has provided a moral defense for these revolutionaries.  As she wrote in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal,

“The world crisis of today is a moral crisis–and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution. . . . [YOU] must fight for capitalism, not as a “practical’ issue, not as an economic issue, but, with the most righteous pride, as a moral issue. That is what capitalism deserves, and nothing less will save it.”

About Guillermo Pineda

Soy un defensor de la libertad individual, el libre mercado racional y la búsqueda de crear un estado de derecho en el que todos podamos desarrollarnos en igualdad, paz, fraternidad y comunidad. Creo que el trabajo duro en equipo, la autoestima y el amor por nuestra familia son la energía primaria para la generación de riqueza en nuestras comunidades. Busco la la objetividad y la razón en la epistemología y considero que el valor supremo por el que se deben medir los juicios de valor éticos es el valor de la vida humana. Considero la vida el más alto valor; pero no cualquier tipo de vida, sino la vida que se vive buscando la felicidad en ausencia de coerción o privilegios. Creo que no hay humanos, razas, culturas o pensamientos mejores o superiores. Sin embargo, sí creo que hay argumentos erróneos e irracionales que deben ser combatidos en el campo de las ideas. Así, también creo que enseñar y practicar una vida sin argumentos místicos y contradicciones filosóficas es una herramienta imprescindible para demostrar que la búsqueda de la felicidad sí es posible y no es una utopía. Creo que los fundamentos del capitalismo laissez-faire proveen de las herramientas necesarias para crear un mejor futuro. Pero también acepto que los privilegios heredados y existentes, las injusticias cometidas en el pasado, las guerras y la actual moral contradictoria e irracional de las elites son el principal enemigo para que este sistema funcione. Por eso, considero que es necesario y FUNDAMENTAL estudiar la historia de manera objetiva, global, consistente y que luego, se realicen las reparaciones necesarias y posibles con aquellas naciones, pueblos, grupos y personas que han sido afectados. Creo que solo empezando con una consciencia limpia se puede empezar a construir un futuro limpio. Finalmente, creo que solo cuando logremos hacer una revolución moral que nos enseñe las herramientas para buscar la felicidad podremos vivir en paz respetando los principios éticos y jurídicos, la libre autodeterminación de los pueblos, la verdad y la justicia, y la tolerancia cultural de un planeta con infinitas y variadas costumbres y tradiciones. Por lo tanto defiendo que: El hombre es un fin en sí mismo y que la realidad es una verdad absoluta compuesta por hechos independientes de los sentimientos humanos. Creo en la razón como el medio más importante para percibir la realidad y además creo en la razón como la fuente más valiosa del conocimiento y guía de acción para la búsqueda de la felicidad individual, de nuestras familias, de nuestras comunidades y de toda la especie humana. Creo fehacientemente en que el hombre es un fin en sí mismo y no el medio para los fines de otros. Rechazo el sacrificio de uno o de un grupo para el beneficio de otro u otros grupos. Pero afirmo la responsabilidad y necesidad de reparar y reivindicar los crímenes cometidos por la humanidad a lo largo de la historia. Me propongo buscar mi satisfaccion racional y busco alcanzar la felicidad como el valor moral más alto de mi vida. No simpatizo con los defensores del colectivismo, del altruismo irracional y de los polilogismos de raza, clase, status o cultura. Tampoco simpatizo con los defensores del gobierno benefactor que buscando políticas altruistas o colectivistas esté dispuesto a sacrificar la vida de los humanos y sus derechos individuales sin su previo consentimiento en las urnas. Reconozco la moralidad del altruismo irracional como uno de los mayores enemigos del ser humano pues el mismo establece que el hombre no tiene ningún derecho a vivir par sí mismo, sino, para la colectividad. El altruismo no es más que la proclamación del sacrificio por otros como el mayor deber moral del hombre y es una amenaza a la razón y libertad individual. Declaro ser un defensor de las ideas que defienden el derecho de los individuos a buscar su felicidad racional y pacífica. Bragging rights Soy un individualista que ama a su comunidad de la misma manera en que quiere ser amado por ella.

3 responses »

  1. “They seem to cry for different things. Their leaders emphasize their own agendas and it has been hard for me to identify a common single demand.”

    You are not hearing a single, unified demand because it is a true majority of a true cross-section of the population. The only single, unified demand you will hear is for fairness. I am curious what “leaders” you heard “emphasizing their own agendas” and what those agendas were?

    The reason there is no particular leader is that this is a mass rejection of the corrupt game that has been played in America. Part of that rejection is the game itself — one leader steps forward with an agenda, battle lines are drawn, one wins, one loses. Which blade of grass is the grass leader, and what is his agenda? We’re not playing your divisive game anymore.

    I know this must be a terrible thing for a Randian. Rand hated nothing more than human beings, and human beings working together for the good of all really horrified her.

    Ayn Rand, who railed against “collectivism” and mindless following, had her own cult of mindless followers. The inside group was called “the collective.” No joke! She told her followers what books to read, who to be romantically involved with, even what music and food they should choose.

    There is a reason academics don’t study Rand’s “philosophy.” One of her inner circle “collective members,” Alan Greenspan, admitted under oath at a congressional hearing that Rand’s philosophy was a disaster and did not work. Her “philosophy” is so inconsistent, so full of holes, that it can be debunked in minutes by anyone of moderate intelligence who is not lured in by the lie that selfishness is virtue.

    Rand insisted that her cultists smoke cigarettes, then contracted lung cancer. Her book money had run out, and she lived on Social Security during her illness.

    She was a horrible bitch, who died without a single friend in the world, attended only by a caretaker paid by Medicare.

    Because it makes no sense. You’re a young man, don’t ruin your life with this idiotic woman’s ramblings.

    • condottiero says:

      Xavier, thanks for visiting. You raised lots of points that are important. I agree with you that the difference of people’s judgements of values is veeeery different from the US to London and to Tokyo. However, my point is similar to yours in regard to “fairness”. The first question that someone would rise here is: Of fairness to whom? and by which standard are we to measure it? This brings (I think) you and me into a very similar discussion. That of discussing in regard to values and morality; to seek for a universal measure of what is fair and that could be applied without it being affected by cultural differences. My proposal is that the universal measure should be the following:

      That Fair is that which allows all of us to pursue our Happiness without anyone (privileged groups of rich men) or anything (governments and groups of pressure) interfering in our projects.

      What do you think of considering this as a common cry for Fairness? Would this unite us and help us identify that right now we are targeting just a small group (the corrupt Corps) and that we need to expand this into a more (epistemological) wider fight?

      In regard to your comments to Ayn Rand; I don’t agree with them but you are in your right to think as you do. I just recommend you to read her again because I don’t see anything of what you have commented in her writings nor in her personal life.

      Best regards,

  2. […] Globalization & Capitalism es el nombre del nuevo blog de Guillermo Pineda, con títulares como Making a Moral Revolution. From 1773 to 2011; Occupying Wall Street for the wrong reasons; y Syria on the road […]

Join the conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s