The incident that occurred in New York including a family in a Range Rover versus a mass of bikers (NOT a biker gang, as explained in the article) is very interesting to me because I do not know how I feel, nor do I know how I should feel about the situation. In my eyes, the altercation can be described as a series of blame shifts from one party to the other, broken down like so:
- Initially, the bikers are to blame due to their disobedience of road laws, performing stunts and traveling at illegal speeds, as well as their plain lack of respect for other users of the road, gathering in masses that leave little to no room for other drivers.
- Next, the driver takes the blame when he bumps into the back of a motorcyclist.
- Then, the bikers regain blame when they surround the car, and intimidate the driver, who then is allowed to flee, since he feels threatened.
- After this, the driver takes back the blame in dramatic fashion, running over a biker who was helping the initially injured motorcyclist, and then speeding off.
- Finally, the bikers steal the blame back once and for all by chasing the man down, and, eventually, beating him up.
The second article was somewhat confusing to me. It seems as if the NYPD officer they are speaking of, may have been involved with the biker group and contributed to the beating of the man. I am not 100% if that is correct though, possibly he was investigating the situation crookedly? I am not sure, as the article spoke more of his ties to infiltration of the Occupy Wall Street movement by the NYPD and his specific involvement.
Occupy Wall Street is an interesting topic in itself. Described as an anti-capitalist movement, I am definitely far away from them ideologically, however, I can relate with their anger at the power and special treatments given to big corporations by government. In my opinion, this is what occurs when the establishment types in Washington are continued to be elected to their seats for so long, that they forget who they are actually there for, and begin to work for special interests, rather than the general public, as Adam Smith may say. This causes "Wall Street Giants" who are often kept afloat by government bailouts, and are not allowed to fail when practicing poor business techniques, as any small business would. This interferes with the "invisible hand", and does not allow the economy to regulate itself. The way I see it, this is a very crooked form of capitalism (if capitalism at all) and not a true free market economy.
Very nice analysis of the situation. It is interesting to think of this issue in terms of "shifting the blame" back and forth. One of the things that makes this a complicated affair is that it confuses our intuitive moral processing of situations, much of which keys off our ability to assign fault quickly. Of course, this is very difficult to use as a basis in legal situations, in which we may sometimes want not to prosecute people who seem morally guilty and vice-versa. One of the reasons this episode feels unsatisfying is that there is no way to declare that one person behaved better than the other. Any proper response requires holding both accountable, which may feel necessary, perhaps just, but not really morally satisfying.
ReplyDeleteSomething similar takes place in the case of the issues organized around Occupy Wall Street. There is a lot of ire directed at Wall Street on all sides of the political spectrum, and the inability to translate our feeling of being wronged into legal action is frustrating to many. Occupy Wall Street is, as you note, mostly a leftwing movement, it is probably mostly anti-capitalist, and many participants espouse a type of socialism. But it seems to also cut across political lines at times because it hits upon this shared sense of outrage.