Maybe The 99% Are Right

November 30th, 2011   Submitted by Roman Skaskiw

Maybe the “99%” are right. Maybe we should take all the money from the richest 1%.

Perhaps, however, the protesters don’t go far enough. We should then find the most beautiful 1% and scar their faces with box cutters. Then we should find the smartest 1% and damage their brains. We should find the most athletic 1% and break their legs. We should find the healthiest 1% and feed them poison.

Equality for all! Of course, the plan is predicated upon electing a strong, wise politician and investing in him (or her) the absolute power to decide who is and who is not the 1%.

Perhaps I’m exaggerating just a bit. I’ll acknowledge that protesters might not be calling to take all the money from the richest 1%. But the comparison still stands; I’m not calling to take all the beauty from the most beautiful 1%, for example, only some of it — scar their faces just enough to knock them down into that meaty part of the bell curve.

The best aspects of this plan may lie in the fact that the country’s surplus of political talent would not go to waste. What a tragedy, what a waste it would be, if the gears of our wonderful political machines ceased to grind for want of problems to fix! Herein lies the genius of the 99%.

Imagine that we have eliminated the top 1% of riches, health, intelligence, beauty, athletic prowess, and so on. We have only taken one small step on the long road to equality. We quickly come face to face with the mathematical reality that a new top 1% offends our egalitarian sensibilities.

Think of the bell curve. We have not yet flattened it into a beautiful, divine, brilliant vertical line brimming with justice. We have only shaved off its offensive leading protrusion. More work remains for our great leaders. Their talents do not go to waste. They do not go obsolete.

This is, to resurrect an old slogan, “permanent revolution!”

31 Responses to “Maybe The 99% Are Right”

  1. RahvinNo Gravatar says:

    If no one is allowed to get ahead, then no one will be left behind.

  2. John KindleyNo Gravatar says:

    The State doesn’t make the most beautiful 1% the most beautiful 1%, or the smartest 1% the smartest 1%, or the most athletic 1% the most athletic 1%. But it does make the richest 1% the richest 1%, by redistributing to them most of whatever ungodly percentage of the country’s wealth they possess.

    • I suppose the relevant distinction is how one acquired their wealth, and who got it through coercion as opposed to providing an excellent product or service.

      With regards to the state and beauty: Sex and the Social Contract (humor)

      • John KindleyNo Gravatar says:

        I suspect, though, as Warren Buffett has been prone to argue in clamoring for the State to tax him and other billionaires more, that without the infrastructure provided by the State massive concentrations of wealth like his wouldn’t even be possible.

        • The case against Warren Buffet gets much worse than that.

          “Buffett Profits from Taxes He Supports

          Buffett regularly lobbies for higher estate taxes. He also has repeatedly bought up family businesses forced to sell because the heirs’ death-tax bill exceeded the business’s liquid assets. He owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses.

          Buffett Profits from Government Spending.

          Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics.” more

  3. PericlesNo Gravatar says:

    What needs to be done in order to achieve global/universal individual freedom and property rights is to exterminate the bottom 80%.

    Stupid bratty gimme-gimme Democracy Parasites.

    I doubt they can comprehend the difference between a mega-producer and a violent central banker/political-connected money-counterfeiting terrorist.

  4. KontrarianNo Gravatar says:

    Occupy this, percent that… LAME LAME LAME!
    I’m part of the remnant, and understanding the reality of this world, I wouldn’t want it any other way.

  5. Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

    The Occupy crowd does not represent the 99%. They represent about 1% of the 99%. I don’t understand why they want to put the 99% on a pedestal and denigrate the 1%. There are plenty of scumbags in the 99% and plenty of good natured people in the 1%.

    Class warfare is a losing battle. The sooner they learn to judge individuals for their actions and not their wealth the better off we’ll all be. That might be a while, though.

    • assasin7No Gravatar says:

      in order to criticize occupy wall street you must have gone and talked to people, this horrible strawman suggests that you have not, i went and found a large party from the alliance of the libertarian left, and the anarchist federation. i would like to point out that being a statist, is a result of our education, meaning that instead of mocking the occupiers for not holding a belief they have been taught from birth to have, is like mocking a person who was born chile knowing how to hunt camels when your in the desert, fun but its better to teach them.

      • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

        There was nothing mocking the occupiers in my statement above. And yes, I did go to a large occupy event in my hometown of Manchester, NH. Didn’t make it to the Wall Street one, though.

        • assasin7No Gravatar says:

          OK i am going to occupy wall street today, i won’t give my opinion until i get back, i saw one in boston on a boy scout trip (don’t knock it, it teaches many skills useful against the state, my freinds go and i joined when i was a neo liberal)

  6. AndrewNo Gravatar says:

    Roman, thank you for your witty article.

    If the self-appointed spokesmen of the 99% here or abroad were to occupy the Fed, the IRS, the Bank of England, the IMF, the BIS, the WB, or any of the other primary tentacles of the vampire squid on whom governments depend for their bloodmeals, I would them find them more credible.

  7. assasinNo Gravatar says:

    isn’t political power of lobbyists something that anarcho-capitalists hate, its not communism its an end to crony capitalism

    • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

      There are things to like, and things not to like, about the Occupy protests. Very few of them are anarcho-capitalists, so it goes without saying that the general movement is flawed.

      • PericlesNo Gravatar says:

        What would a thinking-man expect from a retarded, lazy, carbohydrate-eating, publik skewled, TV-watching mob? It is easy for a political terrorist like Soros and Obama to push/pull a mob into a direction of their choosing…As long as they offer something-for-nothing to these retarded brats.

        Democracy always leads to human enslavement and death.
        Living among democrats should literally sicken and disgust the free man.

        • assasinNo Gravatar says:

          Have you been to any of the protests? Have you talked to them, or are you just spewing what you think based on your predisposed bias against anything that calls against the “capitalist system” we have now. you do realize that all of the money the 1% has comes from the states monopoly on violence, ergo they have no more right to it than a carjacker has to his car.

            • assasinNo Gravatar says:

              and again the corporations are not private they are public so we have the right to take them over and move them into the free market

              • RichNo Gravatar says:

                assasin is right. Corporations are created by the state to serve a public purpose. The inversion of their purpose and corruption which has become the most common form of the corporation, to shield profit from taxation notwithstanding – it would be lawful to turn them all to public purposes.

                • Where is this anti-corporate rant coming from? Do you think I disagree?

                  Here’s the World’s Easiest Economic Quiz from

                  Yes, I agree that corporations are created, defended, and subsidized by government. I’m sure most of the OWS protesters agree too. The question is, why the hell do they therefore want more government?

                  This picture makes my point concisely.

                  The strongest stance one can take against corporate abuses is advocacy of a free market. Many corporations are terrified of having to compete against small producers on their own merits.

                  Not all, but certainly most of the OWS heroes are exactly what Lenin described as “useful idiots.”

                  If I wanted to open a seed bank or sell raw milk, it is not Monsanto that has the power to kick down my door and take me to jail. It is the government. Short of doing that, they smother me with regulations, tax laws, labor laws, “health” laws, to the point where only a huge corporation and its army of lawyers, accountants and labor experts can compete.

                  All these laws violate my property rights as they stand between my voluntary exchange of goods and services with others.

                  The difference between anarcho communists and anarcho capitalists is recognition of property rights. I’m not sure which side you fall, but I can’t imagine an anarcho-capitalist calling himself “assasin.”

                  • ps – no you don’t have the right to take over any corporation, you psychopath. You have the right to be secure in YOUR property. That’s it.

                    • assasin7No Gravatar says:

                      i called myself assasin because i like Assassin’s Creed, i am a voluntary socialist, i recognize property rights but would set up a community based on my interpretation of socialism, while not forcing it on others.

                      They are our property, the bailout money was our taxes, the laws to protect them were written by lawmakers we paid through taxes, they are are products of the money the government stole from us, we have the right to take them over.

                      this article explains my view

  8. Dan NashNo Gravatar says:

    Have you read Harrison Bergeron, by Kurt Vonnegut? It’s a satirical short story about an America in which equality is mandated through constitutional amendments, and the beauty of the man who breaks free.

    Anthem, by Ayn Rand is another quality work of fiction on the same topic.

    • I read it long ago actually, and again recently when a friend sent it to me in response to this essay. I think the fact that both Vonnegut and Orwell considered themselves socialists demonstrates the intellectual confusion out there.

  9. Great criticism of OWS by Jeffrey Tucker on Radio Free Market.

  10. Last year, Chinese tourists shopping drawback with 3 billion euros in France