I drew the line above at inciting violence. Offensive words are just that, words no more and no less. But violence is something else and either inciting it or conspiring to have it is something I agree with being a crime. Sticks and stones.
I'm seeing a distinction without much of a difference. Rand's got the right of it, I think, if I block the road that leads to the hospital, is that much different from blocking the hospital's entrance?
We absolutely should be willing to tolerate the risks freedom pose as a society, and you're right that allowing firearm ownership with very few restrictions carries inherent dangers. However, we are also willing to punish those who act dangerously or negligently with their freedoms. I can own a firearm, but I can't discharge it within city limits.
I should also note that while I am certainly no expert on the matter, I would hazard that much of the utility of these kinds of protests during the civil rights movement came not from the actions themselves, but rather the state's reaction to them. Crossing a bridge in Selma had a very limited, localized impact. The televised videos and published images of the aftermath is what started changing hearts and minds.
This libertarian is performing a Gedankenexperiment to find out what you think, and why you think it. I haven't voiced a position on this matter because I haven't really spent the necessary time to analyze the matter and develop a coherent position. Which is why I was asking how you think we should deal with that situation.Also odd that a libertarian would be looking for ways to strengthen the government's hand at the expense of those trying to challenge said government.
I see a distinction between protesting and civil disobedience, and I'm uncertain that the goals of either are necessarily the same.
The illiberals here really need to read up on the Civil Rights Movement. It was far, far more disruptive than anything we're seeing in the US.
http://www.theroot.com/mlk-would-nev...ths-1790856033
Hope is the denial of reality
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
This is true, and a fair point, however roads that have been blocked with city permission are known, can be planned for, and able to be routed around, especially by emergency responders. Roads that have been been blocked without warning could pose a far more serious problem for people who are in serious medical need.
I suppose what I'm asking is, what is the recourse for a family who has lost a family member because they were unable to get medical attention due to an obstructed road that has been willfully blocked by an act of civil disobedience? Is the penumbra of civil disobedience a blank check for avoiding the consequences of our actions? I am guessing that few would support that, but where and how that line gets drawn is what interests me. Especially in cases where those consequences could fairly easily be foreseen. If I wanted to protest the laws prohibiting the discharge of a firearm within city limits by firing into the air, (maybe this would not be classified strictly as civil disobedience, but I digress) should I not be responsible if that bullet then kills or injures someone because I was protesting?
What is the recourse for a family who lost a family member due to gun violence? The state legally allowed someone to possess a weapon that makes murder incredibly simple. Guns kill thousands, the current protests have yet to kill one. Your logic makes no sense from a libertarian perspective.
Hope is the denial of reality
How is it absolute nonsense? I'm really curious as to why you think in a completely non-partisan way you can be in favor of protesting one group of people but not another from a legal standpoint. Either the action is legal or it is not. You can't make a rule for protesting Republicans if you don't apply it to protesting Democrats. You can't make one rule for X and another for Y based on what you think is worth being protested.
Exercising a protected right doesn't give you any more ability to break laws not directly related to that right. Just because you add 'protest' to something doesn't mean you get to break other laws. That's an absurd and stupid belief, furthermore what you would define as a 'reasonable accommodation' is likely very different than someone else would.
In regards to the Civil Rights Movement - Yes, absolutely they shouldn't have been blocking traffic. Protesting something awful doesn't give people the right to disobey other laws. From a moral standpoint - I respect civil disobedience in the essence of where someone may do something they know is illegal but desires to be imprisoned to try to call attention to it. This should be non-violent and they should not resist arrest. Those people are courageous and should be honored by society, even as they go to prison. This is a far cry from today's cry baby left.
Which is why spontaneously barricading roads trapping people who could be in a life or death situation as far as you know is a dreadful idea yes. That's why protest marches normally traditionally require planning so that life or death situations and others can be diverted rather than trapped by someone who doesn't know and doesn't care how they're affecting others.
Nothing in that links says that roads were spontaneously barricaded trapping people without the police trying to clear the roads. I have little doubt that had MLK shut down a freeway then the Police would have got involved to reopen it. The Selma marches were planned and well publicised in advance.
Incidentally "overflowing the jails" rather implies that not only was such civil disobedience not given a free pass to break as many laws as they wanted but that they were sent to jail for doing so. The idea that protestor must be allowed to break any laws they want and get away with it without the police getting involved is specious.
That is pretty vague and depends highly on what you consider inciting violence though. If you're not explicitly calling for violence but implicitly doing so in a way your audience understands for example.
That depends highly on what road you are blocking and I realise that this is a tradeoff between the right to protest and keeping civil order. I realise this is not black and white which may make it hard to understand for some here, but no, I do not think hospitals should be blocked AND i don't support banning any protest that may block some street. I think the local government should make that call and protesters may challenge that in court, leaving it up to the judge to do that balance.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I think the burden should be very high to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a deliberate incitement to violence. If its grey then err on the side of free speech. Innocent until proven guilty.
Any road could be used to get to a hospital. Some may be more obvious than other, but you don't know why anyone is in their vehicle - for all you know there could be a pregnant woman with a breeched baby or premature labour etc trying to get to the hospital.That depends highly on what road you are blocking and I realise that this is a tradeoff between the right to protest and keeping civil order.
Well I agree with that, there is a method to organise a protest and get a permit to close streets to use for protests, as happened in the past with many famous marches. I don't think anyone in this thread has objected to that. What we are objecting to is spontaneous blockades that trap people where they are and trap them from going any further regardless of how critical their journey may be or where they are going to.I realise this is not black and white which may make it hard to understand for some here, but no, I do not think hospitals should be blocked AND i don't support banning any protest that may block some street. I think the local government should make that call and protesters may challenge that in court, leaving it up to the judge to do that balance.
I'm going to say something which will probably be unpopular. It depends what is being protested. Protests aren't limited to attempts at self-expression or demonstrating numbers in a governmental system which is very concerned with populr numbers. Protests are historically a method of resistance. Labor strikes and picket lines are a form of protest and a demonstration of resistance. The historical civil rights protests are another. People are SUPPOSED to be discommoded by them. They are an attempt at persuasion and coercion to the protestor's position. You're here objecting to the idea that blocking a road could put someone's life at risk. That's regrettable but you know what? Black lives matter too. It is just as or more regrettable that we keep seeing these overzealous to outright unlawful shootings by police of black people, a number of whom shouldn't have ever had the police's attention at all. If someone else's life being at risk is what it takes to make an impact, to help put a stop to this behavior, than you know maybe that IS acceptable. Cold hard utilitarian functionalism. Those lives you're championing aren't worth any more than the ones which have already been lost and which protesting is trying to get stopped. And the ability to get somewhere on time and without inconvenience is certainly worth far less.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Just to clarify my position, the questions I am posing aren't intended as rhetorical pedagogical devices designed to lead someone to my point of view. I am trying to suss out exactly what my position is, as this is a subject which I am internally conflicted about. In this instance I am searching out a broader perspective than my own. I do see value in protests and civil disobedience, and I'm inclined to agree with you that the impetus behind the protest may play a role in what we as a society should be willing to accept. The needless and often unjustified killing of unarmed black men is a problem. It is worth talking about, protesting, and acts of civil disobedience, but what I am left wondering is can there be a place for protests, civil disobedience, as well as accountability? Is there a societal nexus of these conflicting interests that can allow for injured parties who have suffered more than a minor inconvenience to also be heard?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 03-08-2017 at 04:46 PM.
Is it so bad to have arrests for blocking traffic, without the violence Lewk was celebrating in previous threads? Thats what protesters want, the media coverage of the heavy handed tactics the police use. Thats why the civil rights movement ended up being so effective.
I understand the need/desire to protest. I also understand that people have shit to do and places to be. Police need better training to deescalate situations instead of feeding the media the violence everyone is expecting.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
The thing with civil disobedience is that there is a cost for everyone, the protestors of the past didn't just inconvenience others but took (and were prepared to take) consequences for themselves. The idea of civil disobedience is not to do whatever you want and everyone to give you a free pass for it.
EDIT: OG is quite right.
FYI, I think this law is stupid. Just like I think punishing Muslims for their speech is stupid. Yet you and Lewk clearly don't agree with the latter. The very accusation of bad behavior for a Muslim is sufficient to discredit them in your eyes.
Hope is the denial of reality
Hope is the denial of reality
Evidence being: is Lewk Muslim, right?
Hope is the denial of reality
That may be a bit of a stretch. Christian dogma teaches that everyone is deserving of death, and that it is only by accepting Christ that the penalty of sin is removed. You know this. A Christian telling other Christians that a sinner is worthy of death carries an entirely different context than you seem intent on making it out to be. Is it hypocritical to say that about gays and lesbians and not other 'sinners,' sure. Is it a threat? Hardly.