So let's examine some of these actual grievances that the Occupy Wall Street movement has insisted be brought to our attention.  We already know that "they" are the Evil Forces of Capitalism but what is it that "they" have so sinisterly done?

"They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."

An interesting statement.  If education itself is a human right, why should anyone be forced to pay for it?  I imagine that's their point but then this rasises an important question:  who's going to pay the teachers?  Education does not spring up out of the ground spontaneously, it must be created by the labor not only of teachers but of those who produce the resources required to allow teachers to teach.  The money that many of these hostages owe is mostly owed to the banks now but at some point, it paid for certain instruments of education such as books, computers, chalk boards and teachers. 

You will notice that this statement does not allege that the hostages did not receive an education, only that they do not want to pay for it.  When these hostages are through throwing their legos across the room in anger, the cost of expending these resources will remain.  In the end, whom do you think they will expect to pay for it?  Remember this when the traditional Deomcratic lament once again arises "We need more money for education!"  The recipients themselves contemptuously dismiss the idea of paying for their benefit and even consider the idea that they might be responsible for the cost of their own education akin to being held hostage. 

"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."

After basically demanding another bailout from taxpayers, they turn their attention to complaining about bailouts.  This blog was against TARP and the bailouts that Congress passed in the midst of the 2008 financial crisis and the author of this blog does not feel any more generous towards those bailouts today.  Nevertheless, "they" did not take bailouts.  Rather, an elected Congress and President agreed upon and passed legislation that produced the bailouts.  The people were free to vote the perpetrators of the bailouts out of office, and many have in fact done precisely that.  So it is hugely false to say that this money was "taken" from people who had no power of corrective action at their disposal.

As for executive bonuses, what's the solution?  How should government step in and determine the salaries of private citizens?  How many dollars make up an exorbitant?  Which people will we define as "executives" and which will be allowed to make whatever money they earn?   Who's going to calculate and enforce all of this arbitrary morality?  This particular "fact" raises many more questions than answers and it implies that government could somehow distribute the money more fairly than private enterprise.  Since government already has an abyssmal track record of doing just that, why would we think this time will be any different?

"They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."

And yet the press has published their statement, covered their protests, interviewed their ranks and the police have permitted them to remain on private property even over the increasing objections of many of the local owners and even despite much of the abominable behavior described in the article above.  Where are military forces shutting down freedom of the press in America?  If you want to know what it looks like when the military and police prevent freedom of the press, ask an Iranian or a Syrian citizen about it.

"They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil."

Who exactly is blocking alternate forms of energy?  Where is the evidence for this?  Over the past 20 years the federal government has invested literally billions of dollars in "alternative engergy" initiatives - including President Obama's 2009 stimulus package which featured a very large investment in the now bankrupt Solyndra solar power company.  Nobody is keeping us dependent on oil.  We simply haven't discovered a better and cheaper way to fuel society.   

Lest you think the idea of high gas prices is just some random notion, think again.  Many progressives want gas prices to be high.  The theory goes that high gas prices will stop greedy consumers from driving so much and doing what in their view are so many reckless things and maybe, very expensive alternative energy sources suddenly won't seem so expensive.  Unfortunately, high oil and gas prices and barriers to cheaper and easier fuel production only translates into less wealth.  Since wealth is a bad word to these people, let's break that down:  less income for taxes, less money for government, less money for teachers, firefighters and blue collar laborers, less jobs for people who need them, less products for people who can't afford to pay for them and less freedom for people who can no longer afford to travel.  It is the most regressive kind of tax one can imagine and it is an idea that injures the poor far more thoroughly than anything evil rich bankers could concoct from their Hall of Doom.

The great irony of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it's a movement that is fundamentally hostile towards wealth and the accumulation of wealth.  They hate money, they hate the rich, they hate greed.  And yet, why else are they out there if it is not money that they seek?  The problem is not that they don't know what they want.  Rather, it's that they refuse to admit the untenable position that they find themselves in:  money is the root of all evil so please, give us more of it.