These protests raise an interesting philosophical puzzle, identified by my friend and co-author Guido Pincione of the University of Arizona. If someone asks me if I support the protesters (assuming they are peaceful), I’d have to say yes. I am against crony capitalism, bailouts, rent-seeking, regulators turned into lobbyists, and the protection of inefficient industries.  However, suppose the protesters take all these positions, not because they think that free-market competition is better than crony capitalism, but because they support socialist control of the economy. Then I’m not sure I support them, even if I endorse that part of the message that criticizes cronyism. The propositional content of their position is different from the propositional content of my position. Theirs is “all capitalism is corrupt cronyism, that’s where free market leads us; therefore we need socialism.” Mine is “cronyism is a betrayal of free-market principles; therefore we need to restore those principles.”  Ergo, I cannot support them, because what we support is different, even if our positions partly overlap. (Now I have no idea what the protesters believe; I pose the question as a genuine philosophical question about the meaning of public positions in politics.)