Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Last night I watched this movie entitled In Time starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried; directed and written by one Andrew Niccol.
In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage – a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system.
Time, digitally engraved on their forearm, is literally money in their world. And money is power incarnate just like in real life. There are few with over 100 years, and many with mere days. The wealthiest are millionaires. Most die around the age of 26 in the ghetto. I immediately drew the political connection to real life as it was quite obvious, much like the message about middle eastern oil in Syriana.
So I googled it. And guess what I came up with. The Occupy Wall Street Movement as Marxism mostly, with this movie as their rallying cry. “We are the 99%.” I’ve heard it takes an income of 600k per year to be placed in the top 1% of the wealthiest folks in our nation. Of course 1% is around 300,000 people and there’s a few billionaires and a bunch of millionaires in there.
The OWS protests are against social and economic inequality, greed, corruption and the undue influence of corporations on government – particularly from the financial services sector.
Does not capitalism in its essence guarantee inequality? You reap what you sow. All men are not created equal in any case. Some are born into wealthy families. Others are born in the slums of Midgar. One is born with a natural talent in one area while another is born with a natural talent in another area. Some are born deformed or with complete lack of talent. All else aside, nobody is equal and the 1% are the only people who seem to realize this. It’s all about family and money. Verily, there exist gods among men who are indeed above the common laws of man.
As John Locke, a highly influential philosopher in terms of the U.S. Constitution, writes, the rulers of individual nations are in a state of nature with respect to eachother, while all of their governed subjects are equal yet burdened by a social contract which alienates at least some of their natural rights – rights which the rulers may enjoy.
Are we just now realizing how similar to an oligarchy the U.S. has turned out to become since its days of bondage to Britain? Doubtful. I’m sure there has always been a sharp distinction between rich and poor in every society (Plato wrote about it 2,400 years ago).
Is the OWS movement ideologically similar to Marxism? The media certainly seems to be portraying them in such a manner. I don’t think the fact of financial inequality should be the main focus of OWS though. If anything, it should be the vast influence that the (wealthy) private sector has on political matters.
In light of globalization and wars in the name of democracy, national security and freedom, which is indeed an impious lie, is a revolution on the horizon? Doubtful. People are either too afraid or too lazy or too contentedly ignorant.
I, for one, can assure you that if I were part of the 1%, I would never allow it. As I am not, I can either choose to settle with what I have and what is possible for a commoner to obtain or I can fight. But then again, there are countries much worse off than the U.S. Yet the U.S. is where I was born and live and where my conscience leads me is yet to be determined.
What would you do if you made 600k+ per year?
When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.