Stop the Traffic by AnthonyT

Me, I'm all for protesters stopping traffic. Seems to be something of the point of such things. God forbid anyone should be inconvenienced!

Seriously, Anthony, are your politics, your support for a given cause, gonna be influenced by whether or not you were held up in traffic today? Even if it were a bunch of "abortion = genocide" folks, which always bothers me no matter where they set up shop, it would serve a purpose and it would remind me that we still live in a free society, etc. Anger is where we get our motivation to get off our butts and do something. I'm all for people getting other people angry without hurting anybody.

I can see the point of notifying the authorities but I can also see how that defeats the purpose--guess it's a matter of just how angry you are, how many folks you wanna piss off with your protest, and how much trouble you mind getting into.

When it comes down to it, philosophically, I don't believe anyone in a democracy is "uninvolved with the protest." There are plenty of countries folks can go should they wish to be unmolested by such.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 9:27 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

WIN!!!

Even tho I think their cause is soooo fucking stupid and spoiled, Im ALL for making as big a splash as possible.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 9:47 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"God forbid anyone should be inconvenienced!"

Hello,

Yes, quite. My skewed Libertarian thinking says that your freedom ought not to infringe on mine.

Hence, if I find myself trapped somewhere, you've done me a disservice. Your right to make a statement does not equate to your right to immobilize me.

By all means, protest, but don't imprison me somewhere in the process. If the point of your protest is to immobilize traffic and rights of way, then the point of it becomes to steal my freedom. At that moment, you're no longer protesting against whatever got you riled up. You are protesting my freedom. Whatever I may feel for the 'cause,' I lose charitable thoughts towards your organization when you target my rights. Ironically, these protests are often about freedom. But if you immobilize me, you really don't care about my freedom. Demonstrably.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 9:54 AM

WHOZIT

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do that, the fuzz have to respond and arest people. That's how they get on the news.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 10:06 AM

DREAMTROVE

The only protest of the last few years I have had respect for was the orange revolution. Oh, and throwing the shoe at bush, because of the reference to Eritrea.

Generally, I favor more results. Whining never gets results. If you want change, you are going to have to take something over. You have to decide going in whether you are Guy Fawkes or the WBC. either you're going to make a stab for it, or you're just here to annoy us.

Per anthonys point, yes, you have the concept of law down, but this is not law, its mayhem disorder and chaos. If they want to peacably assemble, they blew it. If they want to affect change by crossing the line, I think they also blew it. I don't see a lot of point in this sort of thing.

If you're going to have a non aggressive protest, make them bring out the jackboots and the pain Ray and make *them* into the bad guys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"God forbid anyone should be inconvenienced!"

Hello,

Yes, quite. My skewed Libertarian thinking says that your freedom ought not to infringe on mine.

Hence, if I find myself trapped somewhere, you've done me a disservice. Your right to make a statement does not equate to your right to immobilize me.

By all means, protest, but don't imprison me somewhere in the process. If the point of your protest is to immobilize traffic and rights of way, then the point of it becomes to steal my freedom. At that moment, you're no longer protesting against whatever got you riled up. You are protesting my freedom. Whatever I may feel for the 'cause,' I lose charitable thoughts towards your organization when you target my rights. Ironically, these protests are often about freedom. But if you immobilize me, you really don't care about my freedom. Demonstrably.

Gah! Jesus! Um...so your car is immobilized--maybe. Get out of the car? Wait? Your right to "freedom" includes all movement--of any kind--by any means you so choose--AT ALL TIMES? What do you do in a traffic jam? Whom do you blame for that egregious infringement of your rights?

How's about ya park your car where you're stuck, lock it and embrace your freedoms on foot? You're saying you have a right to drive your car in any direction on any road at all times--unless, of course, the government signs off on it and sets up a convenient detour? What?

And hey, the protesters aren't "immobilizing" you--they can't do it alone, they're getting a lot of help form the drivers behind you that have hemmed you in and won't back out of the way--what, are y'all crabs in a cage? Get them to move! I'm flabbergasted that you so vehemently hold to this vehicular mobility as personal freedom and think someone blocking a road infringes on your rights?

You need to drive less, obviously! Ride a bike, take a bus--you are way too attached to that machine!

Hey, I don't drive. So, by the logic of your argument, protesters blocking a street cannot infringe upon my mobility rights. How is it that you have more mobility rights than I do, by virtue of owning a car?

Okay, forget about blocking the road, what about blocking a sidewalk? My right to walk down any particular stretch of sidewalk precludes people from peaceably assembling on the sidewalk?

Are you arguing against anyone getting in anyone's way ever? Sounds like you're justifying free speech zones at the very least, Anthony. What, do government employees have fewer mobility rights than you, or are protests that interfere with political appearances also infringing on someone's rights. What is the legal definition of "mobility"--sounds like you're headed for an even worse legal quagmire than trying to define "speech."

No one has a right to comfort. No one has a right to convenience. When you make this a rights issue, rather than a courtesy issue, you end up legislating privilege, don't you?

Caveat: I said I don't drive, so I may be completely ignorant of current "right of way" laws. I don't think anyone stopping someone else's car by standing in front of it is committing a crime--I don't want that person prosecuted. Sure, the cops have an interest in moving such folk out of the way, but if there are a few hundred of 'em, I personally believe that constitutes a necessary quorum of citizens to rezone that stretch of road for the time being.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Your right to make a statement does not equate to your right to immobilize me.

But your right to drive a car does equate to stopping others from making their point?

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 12:01 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Soultion.

Run over the protesters. You are no longer imobalized, AND make a point.

Or.

The protesters set your car on fire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 12:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"My right to walk down any particular stretch of sidewalk precludes people from peaceably assembling on the sidewalk?"

Hello,

A false choice. Roads are a public right of way. So are sidewalks, for that matter. A walking protest doesn't block the use of a sidewalk because it's moving. You can move right along with it to your destination. Alternatively, the protesters on a sidewalk can be sure that enough room exists for people to pass them by if they choose to do so. That's peacable.

You are advocating that folks should just arbitrarily be able to tell me where I can drive or walk. They can make me abandon my vehicle if I get trapped in their willful (not accidental) traffic jam. And force me to contribute thereby to the congestion problem, and eventually get towed so that I don't block others who want to use the road.

It's not like there was a vote to see whether Road 47 would be shut down and I lost. I didn't fall victim to an accident of fate. There wasn't necessary maintenance being conducted on a public thoroughfare, with thoughtful detours provided to help me get around. I've been stopped and trapped by the whims of the minority, forced to abandon my vehicle in a public right of way or remain prisoner inside of it. No one will be compensating me for my spoiled groceries, my lost wages, my stranded kid, etc. Do you think I have the right to wake up one morning and tell you what parts of the city you and your bicycle will have access to? What about me and a gang of friends? How about we let you get half-way to where you are going, and then stop you and your bike. You can leave, but there's not enough room for your bike to get through. Does that work for you, leaving your bike on the road? Or sitting on it for 2 hours until we decide to let you go? Did you have somewhere to go? Some obligation? Gonna get fired if you're late one more time? Tough. My freedom > your freedom.

It is a thin view of freedom that allows you to tell me where I can't go on public lands, or whether I shall have to make the choice to abandon my vehicle on a public road and travel on foot - possibly without the means to go far. It's not legislating privilege. It IS limiting someone's freedom on the auspices of practicing your own. Guess what? Your freedom ends at the tip of your nose and the end of your property line. The roads and sidewalks in my city belong to a million people. Shall a few hundred of them be allowed to shut them down or trap my vehicle upon them, to exercise their rights?

No. There are ways to exercise peacable assembly rights without trapping people or their private property. Saying you should have the right to do so is saying your rights matter and mine don't. It's villainy.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 12:16 PM

TRAVELER

Snarled traffic can cause emergency vehicles from getting to their destinations. Police vehicles. Fire engines. Paramedics. That is why you get a permit to close a street.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 12:32 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"But your right to drive a car does equate to stopping others from making their point?"

Hello,

No. My right to drive my car equates to my right to drive my car. You can make your point AND I can drive my car.

Unless your point is that your rights > my rights.

In order to make that point, yeah, you'd have to tell me what to do and where to go.

The idea that either you can have free speech OR I can have free movement is fellacious. We can both have both of them.

I bring your attention again to the thoughtful 'walking protest' that we had here in Phoenix. No one's freedom was restricted, and hundreds of protesters, possibly thousands, got to make their statement. They could have done just as well even if not walking, just so long as they left room for other people to get by and use the public thoroughfare.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 1:22 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I'm with Anthony on this, and it's yet another reason why I don't get on with other Anarchists.

You can make your point without stomping someone elses right to go about their daily business, and doing that, more or less forcing them to your will - that is behaving in exactly the fashion most Anarchists claim to be against.

To me, that's the acid test - when the rubber meets the road, are you willing to stand up for the rights of EVERYONE, or just your own ?

So hell no, impeding traffic on purpose is offensive to me for every reason Anthony so effectively expounded on - I've actually gotten out of the car and MADE almost this exact argument to a line of eco-protestors before, and they *did* move, since I didn't come all hostile but explained it in logical, reasonable terms.

Think - if you get pissed at being harrassed and detained by one of those cop-shakedown checkpoints, exactly what gives YOU the right to do it to someone else, and at that point, what right have you to bitch ?

So, by all means protest, but have the courtesy to stand aside and respect my rights if you'd like your own respected at all.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 2:05 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I'm with Anthony and Frem. *CAN* you do this? Obviously - it's been done. But you're really not going to make any allies by doing so.

And there ARE laws, HKC - Obstructing Traffic is one of them. Disorderly Conduct is kind of a catch-all that comes in handy. And if you block an ambulance or an official vehicle - even a Post Office delivery vehicle! - then you've created a public nuisance. Those are just off the top of my head, and I'm no lawyer; I'm sure "Hero" can provide a dozen more.

A few years back, we had a bike group stage a big protest in downtown Austin. They snarled traffic for hours in downtown at rush hour, just because they decided they could. I'm a rider, and I've made it a point to never support them, never give them money, and never be around them.

Let's flip this around. Say you were participating in a charity walk, and I didn't like your cause. Am I within my rights to simply gather all my friends and park hundreds of cars in your way, blocking the route for your walk? What if you're running a marathon? Or riding in the Tour de France? Do your rights supersede my rights to protest your event?

Snarling traffic as your means of protest just seems intentionally assholish, and to my mind, it does more harm to your cause than good.

"I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."

On this matter, make no mistake. I want you to go fuck yourself long and hard, as well as anyone who agrees with you. I got no use for you. --Auraptor

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 4:31 PM

DREAMTROVE

Yes, Anthony nailed the law. The right to swing your arms ends where his nose begins. But in a protest, you can break the law if you need tl, but then you have to ask yourself what law your breaking and why, and if its effecting people you want.

For instance, here are some times when a protest might want to impede traffic,

Traffic of people who are headed to round up mexican Arabs or whatever the Jew of the week is

Trucks bout to log the redwood forest

Cars headed to fill up at BP

Provided it's relative to your protest, and that you know your breaking the law and that you are aiming to misbehave.

There's on kind of anarchy that is very targeted. It attacks its enemies and disrupts their systems. Like the orange revolution.

There's another that attacks it's neighbors and disrupts everyones business. Like the green revolution.

Then there is peaceably assembling a protest. That's not monarchy, and it's not illegal. Yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 5:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
So hell no, impeding traffic on purpose is offensive to me for every reason Anthony so effectively expounded on - I've actually gotten out of the car and MADE almost this exact argument to a line of eco-protestors before, and they *did* move, since I didn't come all hostile but explained it in logical, reasonable terms.

This.

I don't know what y'all's problem is. Why isn't this enough? You can get out your car and tell the protesters that you're going to pick up your kid/your boss is gonna fire you/you just need to get through and y'all can hash it out there--like individual human beings. Is that too damn much for you people? You need the, pardon the expression, jackboots coming down on these protesters so you can have an uneventful trip from point 'A' to point 'B'?

Quote:
Think - if you get pissed at being harrassed and detained by one of those cop-shakedown checkpoints, exactly what gives YOU the right to do it to someone else, and at that point, what right have you to bitch ?

Maybe I needa take a serious break from this board while y'all calm the heck down. This is specious and you don't make specious arguments, Frem! It is to be assumed that protesters standing in the road are specifically NOT harrassing you or shaking you down and YOU CAN FREAKIN' GO AROUND IF YOU'RE IN SUCH AN ALL-POWERFUL HURRY. Specifically NOT what happens in the cop-shakedown scenario you're talking about. Oy.

Why don't I feel my rights are being violated here? Why don't I feel I have more right to use the road for my purposes than these people do for theirs?

Is it the idea of these folks as protesters that's got under your skin? Say it was some kind of outrageous, amazing wedding celebration that just got way too big and spilled out on the street and people were holding up traffic out of sheer high spirits, would that be A VICIOUS VIOLATION OF YOUR RIGHTS??? This is beyond entitlement.

"But what about the protesters, aren't they acting just as entitled????"

Sure, yes, I'd say yeah, they are being rude, inconsiderate even. It boggles my mind that you want to call this a rights issue.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 5:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No. There are ways to exercise peacable assembly rights without trapping people or their private property. Saying you should have the right to do so is saying your rights matter and mine don't. It's villainy.

What's got you so riled up, T?

I'm not one of the protesters, Anthony. I just don't think the inconvenience caused by protesters blocking a road is a violation of my rights. And I don't think your car moving in a given direction = your nose free of getting punched. It strains credulity that you would make such an equation.

I was being facetious about getting out of your car, but damn, it's your choice to stay there with the car and protect the vehicle and it's your choice not to abandon the vehicle out of respect for other motorists--or you can get out of the car and give the protesters a piece of your mind. They're only human beings, presumably, unarmed. It's just not a rights issue, as far as I'm concerned.

I have no greater right to public space than any other individual in that space. If I decide to move into public space, I may find my way blocked or my progress impeded due to my choices.

And then you go and make the protesters accountable for your obligations. What the eff? You blame the protesters for your having a boss who's so irrational that she'd fire you because you were held up by a protest? Sounds like you have some serious problems, real tyranny breathing down your neck and you wanna blame it all on some protester in the street???

And, hey, DT, what about organizing a sit-in on every major highway in this country (except for the carpool/bus lanes, of course) to raise awareness about our need to get off of oil? Would that not be entirely appropriate right about now?

It is no mere coincidence that you guys are gettin' so up in arms about your vehicular rights in the middle of this crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, is it?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 6:37 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Cavalier,

It's not about a car, specifically, although that's the mode I usually travel. It can happen when you're walking, too. Heck, I could be on a Surrey four wheel quadcycle. It doesn't matter. That's not the point.

It is a rights issue and it is a freedom issue. I'm sorry if it's a right and a freedom you don't care about or don't enjoy. I do care about it, I do enjoy it, and I don't like other people deciding which of my freedoms are worthwhile. You are talking about re-designating my public thoroughfare, so that only you get to use it.

Obviously if these people are willing to move, then they will, and no one will get arrested for blocking a thoroughfare, will they? If I'm in the front of the line, I'll be happy to ask them to move, and I hope they will. But if not? Well then, I'm stuck.

Let me put it to you another way. It's no different than me walking into a public park at 1AM, barring all the entrances, and then saying to people in the morning, "All right, all of you. STAY OUT! This is my park now. Just for me! You don't get to use it while I'm here! GO!"

Now obviously, I could enjoy the park, and you can enjoy it too, and the park was meant for all of us to enjoy it together. But no, sir, I'm keeping you out of the park, and it's your park as much as it is mine. That IS a rights and freedom issue.

It so happens that roads are more important to my livelihood than parks, but the principle is the same. It belongs to all of us, but you're stealing it for just yourself, and no one else can use it until you say so.

Sorry. What's got me so riled up? That you don't care about my rights if you're not using them. That's a dangerous attitude.

I want the protesters to be able to protest. And I want the travellers to be able to use the roads. And they can both do it. That's freedom, and that's right.

Anything else just isn't peaceable. When you stop being peaceable, then it stops being about rights and freedom. It starts being about who can bully who to get their way. The biggest mob wins. I really don't get where you're coming from, but that's where you're headed.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 10:13 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, you mighta noticed I didn't whatever bring the law into it, HKCav - but that's not at all a specious argument, mind you.

If they're in my path, blockin it on purpose, they're shovin their message at me in a seriously offensive way, and if by virtue of their action I am trapped in place by traffic behind me it constitutes being held as a captive audience to their message and intentions whether I will it or not.

That's prettymuch the same thing as a seatbelt checkpoint, from my point of view - if I can go around em that's a different story, but when I am stuck there with a backup of traffic jammed behind me, with no safe exit path and my ice cream starting to melt, imma be annoyed.

Impedin me a bit, I can let that go, it's not like other drivers who can't make up their minds, can't figure out green means go, and whatnot don't impede me on a regular basis - but if someone parked their car sideways across the entire street, and I could not even back up for the traffic piled up behind me, it'd amount to the same thing, there's a big difference between impeding, and outright blocking, and it's the latter that will set me off.

As for the enviro folks I explained this to, in much the same terms, had they not moved I would indeed have begun to aggressively assert my right to travel through that bit of public space they were standin on, by putting my car in neutral and physically pushing it through their line so no one could assume me of intent to harm, and the instant they laid hand to me or my wheels, escalating that assertion as necessary.

I wouldn't *want* it to come to that, and would spare a bit of effort and negotiation to avoid it, but when it comes down to someone else stepping on me in that way, I will shove back, and I can get pretty harsh about it.

Lemme put it this way - would you be so tolerant of someone using their right to free speech to stand out in front of your home at 3am when you're trying to sleep, with a bullhorn shouting their message all night ?

There's a place for a little mutual respect in there, for some common sense, and stepping on other people on purpose is no way to encourage them to think well of you or your message.

Oh, and specifically for me, vehicular rights are damn important, remember, I *can't* get out and walk, my leg doesn't work for driving, so all I got are the cripple-sticks, cause the wheelchair won't fit in the car, and those stupid sticks take up both hands and make it all but impossible to do or carry anything, besides which if I happen to be having a bad day I ain't gonna make it far enough to matter.

Anyhows, I cannot agree with you on this one, steppin on someones rights in exercising your own is morally unacceptable to me, unless you are intentionally doing it as a deliberate act of aggression towards an individual, with appropriate cause.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 10:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I really don't get where you're coming from, but that's where you're headed.

No, you really don't know where I'm coming from, which strikes me as bizarre. I presume that I in turn don't know where you're coming from as well. I certainly hope so!

Look, when I said I didn't drive, I was pointing out my probable lack of knowledge about the rules of the road. Not that I don't use roads. I use them. I carpool and I take buses and I walk everywhere.

To me your analogy of the park is simply hyperbolic and therefore serves your argument not at all. To me, it's not as if you barred all the gates to the park, to my mind you've just barred one gate. You laid claim to one entrance/exit to the park, so folks who come by (some, of course, intending to enter the park at the entrance you've taken over--but there are other entrances!) will see your protest.

ALL political protest is obstruction of one kind or another, right? Otherwise it would be no different from politely and discreetly expressing one's opinion.

In other words: civil disobedience, without the disobedience, is just civility.

You think you have a right to drive down the road unobstructed. I can't imagine that as a "right." I have that "right" violated every day by countless people. Even in this case, you're okay with folk getting a permit from the city to hold their protest. When was the last time you were fine with someone taking away your rights just because they got a permit to do so from the city??? How can you care so deeply about a right that you so willingly part with just 'cause someone got permission? That's a pretty darn alienable right ya got there.

Quote:
You are talking about re-designating my public thoroughfare, so that only you get to use it.

Why are you making this so personal? You're hammering at me, you know that? You're repeating yourself, stating and restating your opinion as fact, you're not answering my questions, or entertaining my perspective, there's no discussion, you're hammering me. This isn't like you, Anthony.

I'm not the protester, my way is being obstructed every bit as much as yours. How big is this protest you're imagining? I'm imagining less than a block, but you talk as if they're shutting down all of downtown.

Quote:
What's got me so riled up? That you don't care about my rights if you're not using them. That's a dangerous attitude.

Okay, see, this is where you seem to have given up on dialogue entirely. All of a sudden I'm dangerous. What happened over on your end, T? I thought we were having a disagreement about what constitutes a right. I challenged your assertion that driving unobstructed on any given street at will is a right of yours, or anyone's. If I understood this as a right I would certainly care about it, even if I wasn't using it. I just don't live in a world where I have a right to never have anyone get in my way. Shit happens, people are pushy, people take up space, people have values that are in conflict and so we work it out.

Quote:
I want the protesters to be able to protest. And I want the travellers to be able to use the roads. And they can both do it. That's freedom, and that's right.

Anything else just isn't peaceable. When you stop being peaceable, then it stops being about rights and freedom. It starts being about who can bully who to get their way. The biggest mob wins.

Why do you keep importing violence into this discussion? I'm talking about civil disobedience, Anthony. What are you talking about? Is there no distinction in your mind between unarmed protesters standing in your way, and an angry mob exerting tyranny? Again, how is it that a simple permit issued by the state can turn this terrible and violent overthrow of your freedoms into a non-issue? The end result is the same, you have to go around.

I keep thinking I just live in a far more chaotic world than the rest of you. I don't take the roads, a car, a paycheck for granted. I might lose access to any or all of these things for a given period of time depending on circumstance. Sure, someone flat out refuses to pay me what I've earned, I'll fight 'em. But if they just can't pay me on schedule, I'll take it a day late.

I can't help feeling that you folks live in a world without wiggle room. Where every minute counts and life is just an onerous, constant press forward.

Seems to me that you are still defining someone merely getting in your way as an act of violence against you, implying that all disobedience to the law is disruptive to peace and a violation of your freedoms.

Please, explain this to me, Anthony: how it is that me simply standing in your way--simply requiring you to go around me if you intend to go further in the direction you're going--how that is an infringement on your rights and freedoms? And please explain to me who gave you that right, which supersedes my right to stand where I wish.

To me, my nose is standing there, and you getting the government to remove me is the swinging arm.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 25, 2010 10:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
No. My right to drive my car equates to my right to drive my car. You can make your point AND I can drive my car.

Driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege that you have to prove you're responsible enough to enjoy before you're allowed out on public roads. Also your right to use a public road is not greater than their right to do so, even if their use does inconvenience you. Your argument is that, since you want to use the public road, and their use inconveniences you, they need to give up that use. Or in other words "your rights > their rights". I really don't think that's an unfair statement to make about your position. Your assumption would seem to be that they have less right to use the public road than you do.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Unless your point is that your rights > my rights.

No, maybe others rights > your privileges. Driving a car is a privilege, freedom of speech is a right, so you're damn right freedom of speech supersedes your use of a car on a public access way.

You have no right to drive down any particular road at all times whenever you please. Your "rights" to use certainly don't supersede others rights to use, even if their use inconveniences you. You make it sound like you'd consider pedestrian crossings stopping traffic for a few minutes, an egregious infringements of your rights. If there's a traffic jam because of too much traffic, do you get to say all those other drivers are impacting your rights by exercising theirs? Or is it a case of Car Drivers Rights > Protester/Pedestrian Rights?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
In order to make that point, yeah, you'd have to tell me what to do and where to go.

To make your point, you are telling them what to do and where to go...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
The idea that either you can have free speech OR I can have free movement is fellacious. We can both have both of them.

And the idea that protesters being on one road destroys freedom of movement is fallacious.

You can walk, you can take an alternate route, you're casting your privilege to drive a car, and your right to use a particular road, as higher than their rights to freedom of speech and their rights to use a particular road. A traffic jam is not an infringement on any of your rights, regardless of the cause. And to my mind there's nothing different, rights-wise, between protesters using a road, and car drivers using a road.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 2:43 AM

Generally speaking, in legalese, if you want to peaceably assemble and have a protest, and if you want to close a street, or a block or two, aren't you required to get a permit to do so? I know here in Austin it's that way - and apparently it's not all that hard to do, either; the bridge across Lady Bird Lake (formerly Town Lake, but recently renamed in honor of Lady Bird Johnson) is closed this morning, for a "Keep Austin Weird Fest" breakfast and 5K walk. This is perfectly legal; they got a permit, planned in advance, hired off-duty police to re-route traffic, made plenty of advance announcements on public media, and have put up detour signs. This kind of thing goes on just about every weekend somewhere here in town.

There are even street closings for protests, some by immigration reform groups in support of Hispanic causes, so nobody can claim that THESE protesters would never have been given such a permit. They didn't try, far as I can see.

HKC, how would you feel if the police came out in full riot gear and opened fire with tear gas on this unruly mob? Would you support the police? After all, from all I can see, this mob WAS breaking more than a couple laws, and thus were behaving in a criminal manner (in other words, this technically WAS a riot).

Cit's got the grasp of the legalities of the road, though - your "right" to drive isn't an ironclad right; it's a privilege. You CAN walk on a road, that's true. But you CAN also be charged with impeding traffic. Try walking down the middle lane of the freeway sometime; I dare ya. And you CAN hold a protest in the middle of a road, and close it down; just get a permit first. Hell, get a permit, and I'll join you, because I broadly believe in your cause, but I won't support these methods of spreading your word.

Seems the Beatles still have it right...

Quote:
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're all doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:18 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Why do you keep importing violence into this discussion? I'm talking about civil disobedience, Anthony. What are you talking about? Is there no distinction in your mind between unarmed protesters standing in your way, and an angry mob exerting tyranny? Again, how is it that a simple permit issued by the state can turn this terrible and violent overthrow of your freedoms into a non-issue? The end result is the same, you have to go around."

Hello,

If I can get around you, to my destination, then this is a non-issue. This is why the simple permit is so important if you want to shut down the road. It's not about a permit to alienate me of my rights. It's about making arrangements so that my rights are NOT violated at all. The simple permit does two things.

1) It lets the public know that from X to Y, road Z will be impassable.

2) The municipality makes alternative routes available and labeled for transit.

When these two things are not done, I can indeed find myself trapped on a public thoroughfare with no easy escape, no easy alternate, and with possible consequences to my imprisonment at your hands. I know it's inconceivable that trapping someone somewhere, or even trapping their vehicle somewhere, can have extremely negative consequences. But it can. It's HURTING me.

The road is space belonging to all of us for all of our use. We can all use it peaceably.

It IS violence to trap me. It's NOT peaceful. And it IS a violation of my rights. I am forgiving if the entrapment is done by accident. A traffic snarl caused by a car crash, for instance. No one planned it, and we all have to muddle through. But when you plan, in advance, to trap me... well, it's violence without the knuckles.

Why is this personal to me? Because anytime anyone says that folks should have a right to form gangs and take my freedom, it's personal. It's a mindset that says I don't matter. It needs to be spoken against with all strength.

I may not be able to move you on this. It's sad to me. I guess I must seem sad to you.

Just know that in my version of a right world, we all get to use public space. We all get to have what we want, as long as we don't impinge on others.

In your version, you can surround me and prevent me from moving. You can block me in. You CAN take over that park, presumably, because when there's 100 cars in front of me, 100 cars behind me, and no turn-off? There's no alternative park entrance for me to use, is there?

I get to sit, trapped and suffering, because you said so. Your freedom > my freedom. Thanks.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:27 AM

Anthony, on the other hand, I'm curious about something, and it pertains to your public park analogy. The really big park in central Austin is Zilker Park, open to all - except for the long weekend of the Austin City Limits Music Festival (ACLFest), when you can't even go THROUGH the park, much less enter it, without your $130 wristband. So on those days, the park ISN'T public; not even close. Although they DID get permits and pay for the use of the park (allegedly, anyway).

I'm just curious what the consensus would be on this kind of closing of a public venue. Or if there IS a consensus...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:37 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If you're going to have a non aggressive protest, make them bring out the jackboots and the pain Ray and make *them* into the bad guys.

But only if you bring your own video-cams and web access, because if it's an anti-corporate message it will NEVER get on the MSM. For example, news of the anti_CAFTA protest in Florida - which involved mace and billy clubs and hundreds of victims - was effectively squelched by the MSM. We cover protests in Iran better than we cover protests right here at home because protests in Iran don't threaten TPTB.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
it's violence without the knuckles

The so-called Patriot Act considers economic damage to be a form of terrorism. That could include a boycott, for example, or blocking access to a bank or an international free-trade conference, or sit-in strike.

Does that apply to the flip side? What about the economic damage/ inconvenience the financial sector caused, or the BP oil spill? Also not terrorism?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:53 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Anthony, on the other hand, I'm curious about something, and it pertains to your public park analogy. The really big park in central Austin is Zilker Park, open to all - except for the long weekend of the Austin City Limits Music Festival (ACLFest), when you can't even go THROUGH the park, much less enter it, without your $130 wristband. So on those days, the park ISN'T public; not even close. Although they DID get permits and pay for the use of the park (allegedly, anyway).

I'm just curious what the consensus would be on this kind of closing of a public venue. Or if there IS a consensus..."

Hello,

This is tetchy.

It always burns me when folks get charged to enter a public park. However, the fact that it's announced and avoidable makes me feel better. If this music festival is for-profit (and it sounds like it is) then I'd want to know that the public share of the profits would go to the park budget to make it a better park for everyone the rest of the year. I can take that up with the politicians, I guess, since they represent me.

Anyhow, I can plan around it, and I'm not trapped, so that's a whole different world to me. I'd also like to point out that if protesters were to shut down a road without a permit, but were kind enough to post detours and make sure there were avenues of escape, that wouldn't bother me much, either. Because then they're making sure I'm not trapped, and can still escape the scope of their influence. If I'm not stuck, then I still have my freedom.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 4:57 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
it's violence without the knuckles
The so-called Patriot Act considers economic damage to be a form of terrorism. That could include a boycott, for example, or blocking access to a bank or an international free-trade conference, or sit-in strike.

Does that apply to the flip side? What about the economic damage/ inconvenience the financial sector caused, or the BP oil spill? Also not terrorism?

Hello,

Blocking access is blocking freedom. Boycotting a business is exercising freedom.

That's my view on it.

As a for-instance... When Union laborers go on strike, I'm for it.

When they prevent people who want to work from reaching the workplace, I'm against it.

--Anthony

P.S. If the oil spill was intentional, it could very well be terrorism.

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:06 AM

This logic sounds rather like "If your nose is where I want to swing my fist, you're infringing my right to swing my fist."

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:13 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If that's what it sounds like to you, Citizen, then there are some essential disconnects between us that I can not seem to bridge.

Three people linking arms can trap you indefinitely wherever and whenever they like, for as long as they like, and you don't feel like you have any right to get out of it.

People can surround your house, keeping you from getting inside, and you don't feel like you have any right to get in there.

You think your right to move freely = Punching someone in the nose.

I think trapping me somewhere = Punching me in the nose.

It's especially worrisome and troublesome for someone like me, who is likely to suffer for a long time before punching back.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I got about halfway into this before I saw where it was going and which side I was going to come down on...or rather, already AM on.

To put it concisely, I'm with Cavalier. Caveat right off: I've never participated in a protest that wasn't sanctioned, but I've got nothing against one that wasn't.

This "freedom" stuff is bullshit. I make one argument and one argument only, and it's been made before:

WHO do you bitch and moan at if there's a traffic jam, or if there's an accident up ahead on the freeway and you're stuck for hours as it's cleared? Both impinge on your "freedom". In the former, you'd just have to say it's the other motorists, too many people doing the one-person-per-car thing--which is accurate but irrelevant. In the latter, you can say it's an emergency, because you can't blame the people who had the accident...but if one of them was driving recklessly, or deliberately racing in traffic, then what?

We have "Critical Mass" one Friday a month (which others call "critical mess"), when bicyclists mass in the financial district and snarl traffic during evening commute. I've heard all the comments here repeated there. I'm with them.

Critical Mass is not a police-sponsored or "official event", but it's never been stopped. It HAS, however, led to changes.

Quote:
Urban bicyclist Jennifer Worley says she was once screamed at by an angry motorist waving an ax.
That's one reason Worley, a college English professor, joins thousands of fellow cyclists who take to San Francisco's downtown streets in a monthly group ride called Critical Mass.

The first ride of what was to become Critical Mass occurred in 1992 and drew 48 cyclists to Market Street.

Now they number as many as 3,000 each month, with the biggets ever being 5,000.

Quote:
In the past 15 years, the city has added bicycle lanes and bike racks on buses. Some say bullying of cyclists has declined. Many participants and bike advocates credit the changes to the monthly event.

Another result is that, after all these years of it, people TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION on Critical Mass days. I think it's been effective. And it's definitely a political statement:

Quote:
``I thought it would be a great political statement,'' said Joel Pomerantz, one of the first participants.

Motivations of the riders vary widely: Many view it as a protest of overdependence on automobiles or the unsafe conditions cyclists face daily. Some bikes were decorated with political banners, including: ``Bicycling: A quiet statement against oil wars,'' and ``bikes rock, cars suck.''

San Francisco Police Department officers ride along with the participants each month, trying to keep skirmishes and traffic delays limited.

Yes, as one guy said, "I think it's one of those only-in-San Francisco quirky kind of things that people understand and tolerate, for the most part." There has been violence, but not serious. They now number around 3,000, with a high of 5,000 once.

There are myriad things in everyday life that impinge on our "freedoms". If you demand complete freedom, you don't live in the real world. How about the person who doesn't believe in credit cards and stands in front of you in line counting out their change to pay for their groceries? That's a political statement in some cases--it was in mine until they gave ATM cards the ability to "charge". You can think of many if you want to.

Protests which snarl traffic are rare in comparison, but because they ARE a political statement, people view them the way Anthony does. I disagree. I think breaking the law, as long as nobody is hurt, is what we HAVE to do to make our voices heard in an attempt to implement change. It inconveniences people when they close down a street to hold a protest, too, you know, so you can take it to either extreme if you want to.

These things embody America; they wouldn't be tolerated elsewhere--remember Tienamen Square? It's my belief we should be grateful people can do this, rather than focusing on how our own individual "freedom" is hampered. Like I said, our freedom to do what we want is hampered every day in myriad ways, including by the law itself.

In my opinion, demanding personal freedom can go too far; we are too spoiled as a society and in too much of a hurry; and it beats the hell out of insurrection, which some here would prefer.

So maybe we two stand alone, but I believe as Cavalier does, it's an inherent right of Americans to stand up and make their voices heard, and as long as that causes nobody any physical harm, I'm all for it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:40 AM

DREAMTROVE

Just a technical point, we were granted no freedom to drive at any point, or freedom to travel that I recall. It would be a good right, but not one we are guaranteed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 5:52 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, fascinating how heavy this got, and how it's being made all about "rights". It's surprising to me to see Anthony get so head up about it and be so insistent that it's his right to go where he wants and protestors are infringing on his rights.

I'm glad to see DT and Citizen come in with some really good points; I'm sad to see they were either not understood or not heard. It truly isn't about rights; as has been said, driving is not a "right", nor is driving without hindrance a right, but free speech IS.

This has been very illuminating discussion. It leads me to think some of us see as "rights" any infringement on personal choice, and are quite willing to deprive others of their right to make a statemen when it impinges on someone else's freedom to do what is convenience. There's a larger statement in here about how Americans think, but I can't quite grasp it. I do believe it's telling, tho'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think breaking the law, as long as nobody is hurt, is what we HAVE to do to make our voices heard in an attempt to implement change."

Hello,

If you were God, and could ensure that no one was hurt, I'd agree with you. There are, incidentally, many ways for people to come to harm. It's a willful lack of imagination to suggest that stopping traffic on a road will harm none.

"WHO do you bitch and moan at if there's a traffic jam, or if there's an accident up ahead on the freeway and you're stuck for hours as it's cleared?"

God, the Universe, and Bad Drivers. I suppose when someone bumps into you, it's the same as when they intentionally tackle you. I don't view them the same way. I do make allowances for people who accidentally and unintentionally impinge on my freedoms. It's the difference between getting stuck in an elevator because it broke, or having someone cut the power to purposefully trap me there.

Perhaps you have determined that your X freedom is worth more than my Y freedom. I'm sorry you think you can just arbitrarily deselect my freedoms because you want to make a point. I'm sorry you think you can trap me somewhere because you think it's the best way to send a message.

If I ever steal your freedoms, Niki, it will be for one reason and one reason only: Bullets were next. The only legitimate reason I see to intentionally trap someone is because the alternative is bloodshed. That's how serious someone's freedom is to me.

But... Maybe no one has ever trapped you anywhere. Maybe no one has ever stood between you and the exit.

I'm sorry I haven't been able to move you. You, and others like you, WILL be able to trap me. It makes me angry, and sad, and afraid. Whatever else you claim to fight for, you are also fighting against something. Somebody. Me.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:03 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

These Operatives must be stripped of their citizenship then deported to Gitmo and tortured to death, along with all who want amnesty for 100-million illegal aliens.

Genocidal Al Qaeda Dictator Saddam Hussein Obama Bin Laden Soetoro does that to 1,000s of people every day in Iraqville and Afghanistanshire.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Just a technical point, we were granted no freedom to drive at any point, or freedom to travel that I recall. It would be a good right, but not one we are guaranteed.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel
.html

This tackles the rather thorny issue of the right to travel, and it seems to be rather explicitly IMPLIED in the Constitution, even if the word 'travel' itself isn't mentioned. There ARE numerous mentions of rights and privileges extending from states to residents of other states who are visiting. One has to assume they have a right to travel, lest they couldn't be there in the first place.

It's certainly implied more explicitly than the Air Force, radio, TV, and the internet...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:05 AM

Also, let's change the context a bit. Let's say these folks decided to hold their protest on your street. At 3 in the morning. At the end of your driveway. They won't leave, won't let YOU leave. Are they breaking any law?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:07 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Just a technical point, we were granted no freedom to drive at any point, or freedom to travel that I recall. It would be a good right, but not one we are guaranteed.

http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/96-right-to-travel
.html

This tackles the rather thorny issue of the right to travel, and it seems to be rather explicitly IMPLIED in the Constitution, even if the word 'travel' itself isn't mentioned. There ARE numerous mentions of rights and privileges extending from states to residents of other states who are visiting. One has to assume they have a right to travel, lest they couldn't be there in the first place.

It's certainly implied more explicitly than the Air Force, radio, TV, and the internet...

The right to travel only applies to citizens, and includes the right to drive without a license nor traffic tickets, without the current "requirement" to obey the Communist Manifesto.

Funny how these Operative "protestors" never protest for rights by CITIZENS.

http://piratenews-tv.blogspot.com/2009/03/constitutional-right-to-trav
el-without.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,

If that's what it sounds like to you, Citizen, then there are some essential disconnects between us that I can not seem to bridge.

I think there's two disconnects.

One:

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Three people linking arms can trap you indefinitely wherever and whenever they like, for as long as they like, and you don't feel like you have any right to get out of it.

People can surround your house, keeping you from getting inside, and you don't feel like you have any right to get in there.

I don't buy this is what's happening with a protest. You're presenting it as being trapped, imprisoned, but to my mind you're merely being inconvenienced. The protesters aren't imprisoning you, they're standing in a particular spot that you wish to pass through or occupy. I think there's a big difference between being imprisoned and having to take a detour.

Two:

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

You think your right to move freely = Punching someone in the nose.

I think trapping me somewhere = Punching me in the nose.

I'm not talking about anyone getting punched on the nose. If your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, then if my nose is where you want to swing your fist, you don't get to exercise your right to swing it. You focus on my nose preventing you from swinging your fist there, so infringing your right to swing your fist. I say you can swing your fist if you want, I'm not stopping you. It's just my nose has as much right to be here as your fist, and when rights come into contention we have to accept some rights supersede others. Not some peoples rights, some rights regardless of who is trying to exercise them.

The right to protest (especially in a democracy) supersedes the right to drive a car down a given road.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Also, let's change the context a bit. Let's say these folks decided to hold their protest on your street. At 3 in the morning. At the end of your driveway. They won't leave, won't let YOU leave. Are they breaking any law?

That's not so much shifting the context, as it is forming a strawman. I can begin by pointing out that there's a big difference between making someone take a detour, and imprisoning them.

Ones wrongful imprisonment, the other is inconvenient.

Lets shift the context again, what if someone has to dig up the road in an emergency, perhaps a gas main has ruptured. They are both stopping you driving down the road, giving you little to no warning and they meant to block access to the road.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:18 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This has gotten so heated over a relatively minor issue, I WISH I could get my hands around what's at the base of this and understand it.

In other countries, and here, the government can decide to impinge on your rights, and nobody seems to have a problem with that. Here, they close down part of Golden Gate Park every Sunday from cars, so bicyclists, skaters, runners, walkers can have the entire road. The government decided to do that; ergo, it's sanctioned; ergo, it's accepted by all. But a group of INDIVIDUALS deciding to block a street is viewed completely differently.

What's weirdest of all to me is that you and Frem, Anthony, officially call yourselves anarchists. Yet I've seen you both get more head up about this issue than many others. Why?

I just asked Jim, by the way, and he comes down on your side. He's older than me by ten years, but more than that I think, I grew up in the Bay Area and he in Idaho. I believe in protests and I"m grateful I live where we're allowed to, whether sanctioned or not. That, to me, is a far more important right than the "right" (which it is not) to drive unimpeded and at the speed one wants.

So no, neither side will ever convince the other on this issue, I suspect. I'm a law-abiding citizen, yet believe one way. You call yourselves anarchists yet believe the other way. I can't get my head around it, but I KNOW there is something more here, I just know it.

One minor point I"m sure you'll disagree with; in a sanctioned protest, most everyone knows it's coming and can avoid the area. Ergo, for the most part the protesters are "preaching to the choir"; unless the media covers it, nobody has to hear anything of their message. They are contained, permitted, and to me it's only slightly less than "locking" them in. I know it impinges on someone's ability to travel a street at normal spleed (I'll leave out "rights", because they aren't, unless you consider that the government has GIVEN you the right to travel here or there AT THE SPEED you are allowed by them). But I find a certain validity in an unplanned protest which puts the issue in the public's face, as it were, where they can't pretend it doesn't exist.

I freely admit I would be pissed to be stuck in the middle of the situation discussed here. The difference is, I would recognize that I'm pissed because that's about ME, not about the bigger picture. My belief in the bigger picture means sometimes I'm gonna be pissed, but I think this is important.

By the way, the violence issue is another matter, to me; its taking place is usually only by a few, and I think it is BECAUSE most Americans recognize freedom of speech and respect it, even when it inconveniences them or pisses them off. There is little, if any, violence at Critical Mass; there was little, if any, at the People's Park demonstrations...and what there was (or rather, what threat there was of violence) was brought about because the National Guard was sent in...specifically to stop people from protesting.

Somehow we're stuck on what each of us considers our "rights". Fact is people "impinge" on one another's rights every day, in many ways. But this one way is unacceptable--virulently unacceptable from what this discussion shows. I wish I could figure it out. Something about tolerance and what rights exactly override what other rights. I can't put my finger on it, tho'.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I think there's a big difference between being imprisoned and having to take a detour."

Hello,

IS there a detour? Great. Then there's no discussion. Did the protesters arrange an exit for me? How thoughtful. Then my freedom isn't impinged.

However, when you stop traffic, there isn't always a detour or an escape. You can just be stuck. For hours. That's imprisonment. If it's willful imprisonment, it's very wrong. Some folks did this to an interstate exit in Florida, once. Miles of cars halted, with no escape. Miles of people with miles of stories and miles of reasons why they might need to escape. Can they just be dismissed out of hand?

Barring the only avenue to a destination can be as wrong as trapping someone. If you keep me from getting to my doctor, my house, my family, or my job, then it's a big problem.

In short, people should not be trapped and they should not be barred from accessing their livelihood. If this isn't self-evident, then we just aren't living in the same reality.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:38 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"What's weirdest of all to me is that you and Frem, Anthony, officially call yourselves anarchists. Yet I've seen you both get more head up about this issue than many others. Why?"

Hello Niki,

I'm not an anarchist. I'd be hard-pressed to even define what an anarchist is.

My ideal philosophy is simple. Your freedom means as much to me as my own. Your pain means as much to me as my own. Your life means as much to me as my own. I can never reach this ideal, of course. My son and wife will always mean more to me than you do, Niki. I won't bankrupt my family to save another. I'm not a Saint. But I get as close as I can within my frail, selfish, and vain human limits.

When you say that you have the right to trap me or keep me from getting somewhere, you are saying that your freedom means more than mine. Your pain means more than mine. Your life means more than mine.

When I send a message, or I engage in a protest, I always try to be thoughtful and considerate of everyone, because they are as important as I am. If I ever intentionally steal your freedom, it will be because I literally saw no other avenue before me, other than bloodshed. Is that anarchy?

I think it's just the correct way to behave, and really the only way to behave that is fair to all.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I think there's a big difference between being imprisoned and having to take a detour."

Hello,

IS there a detour? Great. Then there's no discussion. Did the protesters arrange an exit for me? How thoughtful. Then my freedom isn't impinged.

However, when you stop traffic, there isn't always a detour or an escape. You can just be stuck. For hours. That's imprisonment. If it's willful imprisonment, it's very wrong. Some folks did this to an interstate exit in Florida, once. Miles of cars halted, with no escape. Miles of people with miles of stories and miles of reasons why they might need to escape. Can they just be dismissed out of hand?

Barring the only avenue to a destination can be as wrong as trapping someone. If you keep me from getting to my doctor, my house, my family, or my job, then it's a big problem.

In short, people should not be trapped and they should not be barred from accessing their livelihood. If this isn't self-evident, then we just aren't living in the same reality.

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Right. In the protesting in front of your house scenario, I laid out that the protesters are at the end of your driveway, and filling the street. Nobody was "imprisoned" in that scenario, although Citizen claimed it was so. You could easily walk out of your house, walk down the sidewalk, cut through the yards of your neighbors, or go out the back door and through the alley. Hence, no infringement of rights, no "strawman" - same situation: street's blocked, you can't access it via your car. You aren't getting to work or the hospital, or anywhere you can't walk. But you ARE free to leave your house; you're not imprisoned.

But as I suspected, people tend to take quite a different view of such behavior if it is on THEIR doorstep.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 7:54 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
you have the right to trap me or keep me from getting somewhere

I never said any such thing; that's an example of how this thread has gotten more and more visceral. You VIEW it as "trapping", but it' not. As Mike said: You can wait a bit, go around it, or use your feet. "Trapping" means keeping one from leaving a place; what you are referencing is "delaying". Maybe if we could get back to the reality of the situation, we could discuss it.

I doubt it tho'; I'm reading some really cemented mindsets and, again, I wish I could figure out what's behind them. Not important, of course, but fascinating to me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:01 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You aren't getting to work or the hospital, or anywhere you can't walk."

Hello,

If I need medicine, money, or access to my family, and they're preventing it, that's a problem.

And they really can't know what my needs are. They're assuming I don't have any. That it will only be an 'inconvenience' and not a serious problem that might hurt me. They're assuming my needs are irrelevant, based on nothing.

It's boggling, just boggling, that someone would take that attitude. I really can't wrap my head around that kind of disregard. Whenever I see that kind of attitude, I really can't grasp it.

You know why I wouldn't stop traffic during a protest? Because I am not an omniscient divinity, and I don't know the needs of everyone trapped (even trapped in their homes is trapped) by my actions. Better to respect their needs and let them pass, than risk causing harm and pain to them.

Speaking only for myself, if you blockaded me in my home and I could only get out on foot, I might die. No shit. Die. Like murder, man.

Whose right is that?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:06 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

The same holds true for a traffic accident, or any number of other scenarios. If a driver were in serious difficulty, I have no doubt they would be allowed through, just as they would in a traffic accident or other things. I've actually never heard of anyone suffering more than an inconvenience from being blocked by a protest. Again, your stance and others take this issue to extremes, and I feel bring up arguments which do not pertain to the REALITY of the situation.

We'll just have to agree to disagree at this point; we can't see your point of view, and you can't see mine. So be it.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:12 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You can wait a bit, go around it, or use your feet. "Trapping" means keeping one from leaving a place; what you are referencing is "delaying". "

Hello,

Hello,

How odd.

If I can get out, I'm not trapped. But if I can't get out, I am. Delayed? Heh.

I have been 'Delayed' on a stretch of road with no exit for hours by the willful act of others. I had the choice to sit, or to take a miles-long hike and abandon my vehicle. Interesting 'Delay.'

Your unwillingness to see harm in this seems like a startling lack of imagination and empathy, which is something I don't normally associate with you.

If you try, can you imagine a situation where 'Delaying' me in traffic for hours might harm me? I'm not talking about me being forced to use 49th street instead of 48th. I'm talking about being stuck on 48th street for an hour or two. I'm talking about hundreds of me being stuck on 48th street for an hour or two. I can't get to what I need, I can't get to who I need, and whoever I need can't get to me.

Is it really beyond your comprehension that this could pose a problem?

--Anthony

Due to the use of Naomi 3.3.2 Beta web filtering, the following people may need to private-message me if they wish to contact me: Auraptor, Kaneman, Piratenews, Wulfenstar. I apologize for the inconvenience.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:26 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Not beyond my comprehension at all. As it happens, I've been stuck in just that situation, for more than a couple of hours, NUMEROUS TIMES just by traffic jams, and a couple of times by accidents ahead. Like I said,

a) I've never heard of many people being more than inconvenienced in such situations, and

b) I'm empathizing with BOTH SIDES, is what you don't get. I've been in many protests regarding things which are extremely vital to our nation, such as the Vietnam War. It required MANY miles of walking, a couple of times in extreme heat and discomfort, but I did it because I thought it was very important and our voices needed to be heard.

I find that equal to sitting in a car being inconvenienced, and since I have done so for what was not of my choosing but unimportant in the greater scheme of things, I not only empathize, I have LIVED both sides of the coin.

I also repeat: If anyone were in serious physical difficulties from being delayed, I'm pretty sure that would be dealt with. But I've never seen it nor heard of it. Nonetheless, I have no doubt whatsoever that the protesters had no desire to cause physical harm and would have even HELPED to free the person if they were in actual distress.

I gotta get out of this thread; like I said, you can't see my position, and tho' I can see your position, I don't see the drama in it that you do and I see what I believe is a bigger picture, so it's useless for us to continue.

Essentially: You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine. I don't think you are a lesser person for having your views, I'm sorry you think I'm the lesser for mine. Your opinion that I"m unwilling to see harm, lacking in imagination, empathy and comprehension speaks clearly. Just as you're bothered by my view, I'm saddened at your devolving into personal disparagment, which isn't like YOU, either.

That said, it's 11:30, I've been on here too long (as usual!) and I"m going to go have breakfast.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 26, 2010 8:38 AM