One of these things is more logical than the other, #OccupyWallStreet edition:

Couple days ago, I blogged about this:

In April, the Richmond Tea Party held a Tax Day Rally in Kanawha Plaza. They say before they could use the city venue they were charged nearly $10,000 and had to comply with a series of usage forms and procedures.

Colleen Owens, a spokesperson for the Tea Party, says it’s obvious the Occupy demonstrators are not being held to the same standard. “We followed the rules, we followed the law, we got all the permits, we paid all the fees, we had to jump through all the hoops that they asked us to.”

Owens notes that the Tea Party “didn’t complain about it,” but that now they’re “sitting back and watching these Occupiers in Richmond and they’re basically camped out at Kanawha plaza.”

“And they’re not having to pay for the park, they’re not getting permits, they’re not paying for police, they’re not paying for port-o-potties, they’re not paying for emergency personnel,” Owens says.

It’s odd, isn’t it? The group that wants less government interference in our daily lives was willing to follow the government’s rules, obey the law, respect authority. All while trying to change that authority and hobble that government.

On the other hand, the group that wants more government, more rules, more bureaucratic involvement in our daily lives wasn’t willing to obey existing rules. They disobey the rules, disregard local authorities, and inform us that they’ll do as they please.

To paraphrase Bert and Ernie: one of these things is more logical than the other.

UPDATE – more thinking, I’ve been doing.

It is possible to oppose big government while still understanding that law and order are necessary. To respect authority, even while trying to reduce the reach of that authority.

The other side’s logic is a touch more…challenging. To demand more government power even while thumbing one’s nose at existing government power…

…that’s confusing. It’s almost as if the Occupiers don’t understand what they’re demanding.

Or, maybe, that they aren’t demanding anything, really. They just all want to be James Dean.

Or, maybe, that they do want more rules and a more powerful government, just as long as those rules and that power won’t be applied to them.

We’ve established the proposal as sound in principle, see, and now we’re just haggling over direction. That their government abuses its power in order to prop up financial institutions and other such interests isn’t wrong in principle. It’s just that where’s ours?

We’re just not helping the right people. Spend other people’s money on the banks: bad. But spend it on us: good.

That must be it. It all makes more sense now. Thanks for letting me ramble.