I was aghast to read the article on the Occupy foreclosures movement in the Dec. 8 issue of the Marquette Tribune. Ms. Meyer (a spokesperson for the Occupy foreclosure movement) is quoted as saying: “there is a paradigm in society that tells people they should be ashamed if they can’t pay their mortgage or live in poverty based on money values … Someone being foreclosed upon shouldn’t feel ashamed.  They should be mad because … housing is a human right.  People should have shelter, but the forces that be work adversely … it’s the fault of the system and the 1 percent.”

Aside from the grammatical errors in this statement, there are many errors in logic. The most erroneous idea is housing is a human right; it isn’t. The United Nations may consider it so, but its moral authority must be questioned when they disregard actual violations of human rights.

Ms. Meyer’s stale and maladroit conviction that there should be no shame in being unable to meet one’s financial responsibilities is also flawed. Anyone in foreclosure isn’t a bad person; however, they have made poor choices, and should be embarrassed of their behavior. If someone has lost a job due to external forces, that is unfortunate, but that is not the fault of the mortgage company. If the mortgage company is not willing to renegotiate the terms of the mortgage, then one must make hard decisions about finances rather than blaming a vague enemy.

Ms. Meyer then argues that a “system” has done evil to these people. Is that system capitalism? Well, in capitalism, no one is coerced to sign a fiscal agreement; capitalism is based on voluntary entrance into financial deals that benefit both parties. If one party isn’t able to pay, it is that party’s fault – not the 1 percent or anyone else.

Ms. Meyer then harps on about the 1 percent, but what does the 1 percent have to do with someone’s foreclosure? The 1 percent of wealthiest individuals did not force anyone into buying property, nor should they be responsible for housing others if they cannot house themselves. This lazy, pseudo-intellectualism is so vapid it does not require refuting, as it is so insulting to the intellect.

Ms. Meyer speaks of “values;” I don’t know what value-based system she aspires to because she finds currency abhorrent, owing to her lack of knowledge of how the modern economy functions. Her group shows a drought of understanding in basic economic cause and effect. The ever-so-frequent reference to the 1 percent and big business, are exactly what I would expect from any banal socialist who hasn’t read a book other than Marx. She represents the lack of critical thinking that runs rampant throughout the Occupy movement. What could have become a powerful and legitimate movement about crony capitalism and a starting point to changing the size and purpose of government has become a farce, a parody of itself.

Capitalism has vices, but the system allows the greatest amount of freedom and opportunity so far created by our small mammalian brains.

-Richard Klug

Senior, College of Arts & Sciences