Bloomberg Simultaneously Defends & Defiles "Rights"

"No right is absolute ...." Such were the words uttered by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg upon befittingly reinstating property rights through an NYPD raid on the Occupy Wall Street movement in Zuccotti Park exactly one week ago today. However, it is clear that the mayor does not have a complete understanding of rights (and being that he is an elected official sworn to uphold and protect the rights of the people, this ought to alarm every NYC resident). 

It's important, first, for me to give a simple explanation of what rights are and how they work in a free society. A right is a moral sanction on man to act freely, absent the imposition of coercion and physical interference towards others. It imposes on others only that of a negative obligation, meaning they are simply required to leave you alone and not interfere in your affairs! (For a more concrete explanation of rights, I recommend "Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society," by Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard.)

Contrary to the mayor's seemingly mystical belief that rights are not absolute, THEY ARE! What is meant by the term "absolute" is that so long as one respects the rights of another, there is no moral legitimacy to the violation of one's rights. If "Person A" acts in a way that violates the rights of "Person B," then "Person A" automatically waives the absolution of his rights and the government's role is to step in to administer justice. 

In order to understand how the actions of the OWS protesters are a violation of rights, I once again, turn to the voice of reason, Ayn Rand, who once wrote about actions of civil disobedience such as this:

"The forcible occupation of another man’s property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant a violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a “sit-in” in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."

This is exactly why the raid on OWS was both morally and legally justified, albeit, two months late (another reason to believe Mayor Bloomberg is clueless about rights). It wasn't this false notion that "no right is absolute" which legitimized the mayor's actions, but that rights violations were INITIATED by OWS which waived the absolution of their rights and legitimized forceful RETALIATION by the police. That's a BIG difference, Mr. Mayor.

Objectivism in Practice- JPMC Donates 'Unprecedented' $4.6M to the NYPD; OWS Suggests Nefarious Motive

The "Occupy Wall Street" protest, now in its third week, has recently brought to light (que the sarcasm!) a disgraceful act committed by banking giant J.P. Morgan Chase: Charity! $4.6 million to be exact, donated to New York City’s finest. 

While OWS suggests on its website a causal link between the anti-capitalist uprising and the generosity extended on behalf of JPMC, with one supporter commenting, “wow, good catch. so now we know the cops are literally bought and paid for in this,” it is clear from the facts that this is nothing less than a benevolent act of a successful business self-interestedly investing into the security of our city. Although OWS would like you to believe that JPMC donated those funds as a bribe for protection against demonstrators, with some going so far as to say the banking giant directly funded the arrests of more than 700 on the Brooklyn Bridge, it took no less than 2 seconds worth of research to pull up an article dating back to June 4, 2011 that describes this exact donation in question being made, months prior to the beginning of the protest on Wall Street. According to JPMC’s website:

JPMorgan Chase recently donated an unprecedented $4.6 million to the New York City Police Foundation. The gift was the largest in the history of the foundation and will enable the New York City Police Department to strengthen security in the Big Apple. The money will pay for 1,000 new patrol car laptops, as well as security monitoring software in the NYPD's main data center.

This begs the question, how could JPMC’s intentions have been easily misconstrued to be something more sinister? To understand how a charitable act could be misinterpreted, it’s important to understand the mindset of the statist. Statists believe that people are inherently bad, and thus, must be coerced to do good (if they did not fundamentally believe this, there would be no point to their support for the use of force). Therefore, they believe that an act of charity (possible thanks to Capitalism), as evidenced by OWS and many of their supporters on the blogosphere, must be accompanied by a nefarious agenda. Their solution is State control, as evidenced by the protesters' signs calling for wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor via government force. Ironic, and inconsistent, with other signs amongst the group proclaiming to be in support of “Human Rights.” How can anyone take this group seriously?

It’s simply illogical to believe that JPMC’s donation was a bribe to police for an upcoming protest that was not even being planned or discussed at the time of the donation. Is there a time-machine nobody know’s about? It stands to reason that if JPMC did in fact feel threatened by OWS, they would have hired a private security firm to protect their property (as most businesses do anyway). But what strikes me most is that this accusation is not so much of harm to JPMC as it is to the integrity of the officers that are on the streets protecting the rights of all citizens. This is nothing less than an act of vengeance against an entire department for the potential (pending an investigation) misconduct towards a few demonstrators by a few officers. 

On a final note, the generosity exhibited by JPMC is nothing less than a simple demonstration of objectivism in practice, and goes to show a government solely limited to it's moral role of protecting individual rights could in fact be funded (contrary to the statist’s beliefs) in a non-coercive, voluntary way, especially by the rich and successful. The reality of the situation is, we all benefit from what JPMC has done. The NYPD now has more resources to combat crime and protect all of our rights. This act deserves nothing less than gratitude and commendation. 

(With that said, I want to extend my deepest apologies to the past, the present, and the future generations of this great nation and of this world, on behalf of my generation for its part in the OWS uprising. We, the ‘gimme’ generation who have had it so easy, who have been handed so much, instead of giving thanks, we demand more. We have now grown to be an insatiable parasite. May we one day be forgiven.)