Stop the Traffic by AnthonyT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

If I can get away from you, escape you, go around you, and get on with myself to wherever I'm going, I'm happy.

That's been true from post one.

And so that's not where the argument lies.

--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 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I see nothing to dissuade me of the opinion that it is "if your nose is where I want to swing my fist, you're infringing my rights!". What I do see is an awful lot of repetition combined with whole sale ignoring of certain points I and others have brought up.

Until that changes this is all really quite pointless.

QFMFT

In Mike's scenario he says, "They won't leave, won't let YOU leave." And then several posts later moves the goal post thus: "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." Yeah, it's Citizen's fault for taking your word for it, Mike.

What is happening here? Some folks block a road and they're somehow responsible for every terrible thing that might befall you from that point onward. And somehow, if the state sanctioned it, your medical problems or whatever other catastrophic non sequitur you want to insert into the scenario is suddenly nobody's fault.

Folks, the government ain't perfect either. Even if we're all good little protesters and we get our freakin' permit, there are gonna be traffic jams because of it! People don't read signs, not all the necessary signage gets put up before the protest, people don't get the memo. But because of some piece of paper on someone's desk all the chaos is suddenly no big deal to you?

Free speech is a right. Driving is a privilege. It's not imprisonment if you can walk away. It's not detainment if you can walk away. Cars are ginormous, clunky objects and sometimes get stuck places. It's a risk you accept when you get in your vehicle.

No one has demonstrated, or even tried to demonstrate that I can see, that driving unhindered from point 'A' to point 'B' is a basic human right. Folks just keep saying that it is, it is, it is. It is, it is, it is, it is.

All these outrageous analogies only describe your emotional stake in the scenario at hand. I lack your emotional stake so calling a mere protest in the street any kind of "prison" for the unfortunate motorist mired in the ensuing traffic jam is simply not going to convince me that I'm wrong about this. Can y'all just try to reason this out for me? Fight fair and address the issue of free speech rights vs. driving privileges? Tell me how a group of people standing and singing a song in the middle of the street in broad daylight in the middle of downtown Seattle is a violation of your person and intrinsically causes you harm.

The government can make you late for anything at any time, but when a few private citizens make you a little late it's a violation of your human rights? Please, break that down.

The problem with being detained by the police is that they have guns and the entire machinery of the law behind them and if they decide I need to die while in detention, I really wouldn't have much say in the matter. A hundred people singing "kumbaya" in an intersection threatens me not at all.

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:16 AM

KWICKO

"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)

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
What I see is that it's an egregious infringement of your rights to block one street at one time, while banning anyone else from using the street you want to drive down is ok. Some how that's not putting your rights over the rights of others.

I see nothing to dissuade me of the opinion that it is "if your nose is where I want to swing my fist, you're infringing my rights!". What I do see is an awful lot of repetition combined with whole sale ignoring of certain points I and others have brought up.

Until that changes this is all really quite pointless.

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

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.

Cit, what if I and a bunch of my friends want to take our cars, get seven abreast on the 5-lane freeway, and then just park, all together, all at the same time. I've neither trapped nor imprisoned anyone - the surface streets are all still there for safe passage. We just exercised our right to park. Would that be a problem? I've only blocked that one street, so it's not an egregious offense of any kind, right?

"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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:18 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

In Mike's scenario he says, "They won't leave, won't let YOU leave." And then several posts later moves the goal post thus: "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." Yeah, it's Citizen's fault for taking your word for it, Mike.

Yeah, I should have been more clear. They won't let you leave IN YOUR CAR. You're still free to leave on foot, of course.

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, what if I and a bunch of my friends want to take our cars, get seven abreast on the 5-lane freeway, and then just park, all together, all at the same time. I've neither trapped nor imprisoned anyone - the surface streets are all still there for safe passage. We just exercised our right to park. Would that be a problem? I've only blocked that one street, so it's not an egregious offense of any kind, right?

Are you violating anyones rights? No. Are you pissing people off and breaking a few laws? Almost definitely.

I do note that the word rights has come up again. Is there a "right to park"?

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

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 12:05 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Citizen,

I'll try to break it down for you, as I see it. I'll try very hard not to be emotional. I will probably fail, and I am sorry.

Driving is a privilege. That is true. Free speech is a right. So is peaceable assembly. All true.

Now, here I am exercising my privilege of driving, a privilege I have earned by going through the necessary hoops set by my society.

I am driving on a road that I helped to pay for, and which is jointly owned by all the citizens of the city, county, state, or country. It's important to note that while driving is a privilege, the road is something more. It's public property. Mine and yours. And a protester's, too.

I'm enjoying my privilege, and also enjoying OUR road.

Now, you and 1,000 of your allies create a blockage on the road. This blockage is not the result of an accident. It is intentional. It is not a maintenance issue. When I drove down this road, there were no signs saying, "Caution, Protest in progress, Detour to Route 36." My first knowledge of a problem comes when I encounter stopped traffic. There are cars in front of me, possibly for miles. And as soon as I stop, cars begin to pile up behind me. I look to my right and my left. No exit. My car is stuck.

This may be a minor inconvenience. It depends on my circumstances. Nobody knows my circumstances except for me. You and your 1,000 protesters are a mile or more up the road, singing gentle protest songs against whatever ills you wish to speak out against. You are not aware of me as an individual, nor are you aware of my circumstances. I am surrounded by other drivers, each with their own story and set of circumstances. It goes back for quite some distance.

Why are all of our vehicles halted here?

Is it because someone wanted to exercise free speech? No. Free speech was possible without blocking this road that we all own.

Is it because the protesters have a right to the road? No. We all have a right to the road. My right to the road = their right to the road. This is public property, so their rights can't possibly trump mine. We should both be able to use the road. Right now, though, only they are able to use the road.

But there's more. There's more than just a shut-down road.

I can't choose to leave.

Well, I could abandon my car. The appeal of this scenario varies depending on my circumstances. If abandoning my car is not an option for me, then I am stuck. Trapped.

Miles ahead, 1,000 people have stopped traffic on this road without posting detours. Their intention was to trap me here. The idea is to hurt me. Probably they only want to hurt me a little. This is called an inconvenience. But my hurt is impossible for them to determine. Even if they could tell how much or little they are hurting me, they have no authority to judge my circumstances.

I am under the control of 1,000 people singing songs up the road, trying to make a point. These people intend me a little bit of harm, but may cause any amount of harm and be completely unaware of it.

Maybe if I had known about this ahead of time, I might have made other choices. I might have done things differently. But the point of this was not to notify the authorities or me. It was not to arrange ways to minimize inconvenience. To minimize harm. The point was to maximize inconvenience. So... No detours. No special exit for people with special problems. No sharing of a mutual resource, this road. No way to leave the mutual resource without abandoning my vehicle and testing my endurance.

This situation may threaten my Life. It positively threatens my Liberty. None of the protesters can know, and I might not be able to reach them to explain it. And then, if I can make that journey, I am left at their tender mercies... based on their interpretation of my circumstances.

I may not have a right to drive, but do the protesters have a right to keep me from driving? I have upheld the social contract for the privilege of driving. Why are they permitted to deprive me of it?

Do I have a right to my property? Do I have a right to remove my property from Our road? Take it elsewhere? Do they have the right to prevent me from doing so?

I don't believe that trapping people (that IS what we're talking about. No detour, no exit, not until or unless they decide to move) is a right. I consider trapping people to be a form of speech on par with violence.

I wouldn't condone paparazzi trapping a celebrity on the sidewalk and immobilizing them, either. The only way to escape a ring of people is to go through them, unless they consent to let you escape. Do they have the right to prevent me from leaving by blocking my escape? If I push past them, have I violated their rights? What if I'm in a wheelchair? Do I lose my right to Liberty because I am in a clunky vehicle? At what point of mechanical automation does it become acceptable to prevent me from getting around?

I started this thread by saying that it was good practice for protesters to make sure they weren't preventing folks from getting around.

I learned afterwards that people felt that preventing folks from getting around was The Point of the exercise.

So... Immobilizing me is the Point.

That's why I have trouble not taking it personally. It is personally about me. And it is personally about every other citizen who is trapped in a conveyance at the whim of other citizens.

--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 12:35 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Cit, what if I and a bunch of my friends want to take our cars, get seven abreast on the 5-lane freeway, and then just park, all together, all at the same time. I've neither trapped nor imprisoned anyone - the surface streets are all still there for safe passage. We just exercised our right to park. Would that be a problem? I've only blocked that one street, so it's not an egregious offense of any kind, right?

Are you violating anyones rights? No. Are you pissing people off and breaking a few laws? Almost definitely.

I do note that the word rights has come up again. Is there a "right to park"?

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

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.

Thank you for validating my earlier point: the protesters ARE almost certainly breaking a few laws, and definitely pissing people off.

Do we have a "right" to break laws if we don't feel like obeying them?

I agree we have a "right" to piss people off (there's no guarantee of the right to not be offended listed anywhere in the Constitution).

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:37 PM

Anthony,

Just stopping in to say: I hear you. I completely agree. Thing is, you're talking about a particular situation, and I think others here are picturing something different, maybe something they've experienced personally from the other side. Perhaps they aren't able to disconnect enough to see that you're talking about something very particular. The continual return to the car crash analogy makes me think they just don't get what you're saying.

HK and Niki: love you both. But maybe you're not understanding the limits he's put on the situation? He's not putting down all protesters. He's disagreeing with folks who intentionally disrupt the lives of strangers without any concern or even thought for the possible negative consequences. That's just plain selfish.

Really, not staying to argue. Already had an extended battle today about soccer "golden goals." I'm argued out! Just wanted to give poor frustrated Anthony a boost.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 1:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Thank you for validating my earlier point: the protesters ARE almost certainly breaking a few laws, and definitely pissing people off.

Not really, because you're arguing from specific of a freeway, to the generality of all roads, in all situations.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Do we have a "right" to break laws if we don't feel like obeying them?

I agree we have a "right" to piss people off (there's no guarantee of the right to not be offended listed anywhere in the Constitution).

We were discussing whether there is such a thing as a "right to park". The point is, you are calling many things rights, and they're not rights.

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

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 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am driving on a road that I helped to pay for, and which is jointly owned by all the citizens of the city, county, state, or country. It's important to note that while driving is a privilege, the road is something more. It's public property. Mine and yours. And a protester's, too.

I'm enjoying my privilege, and also enjoying OUR road.

Now, you and 1,000 of your allies create a blockage on the road. This blockage is not the result of an accident. It is intentional. It is not a maintenance issue. When I drove down this road, there were no signs saying, "Caution, Protest in progress, Detour to Route 36." My first knowledge of a problem comes when I encounter stopped traffic. There are cars in front of me, possibly for miles. And as soon as I stop, cars begin to pile up behind me. I look to my right and my left. No exit. My car is stuck.

Yes, you can't access the road by car. You can access the road by foot if you so wished, so all that has been blocked is your privilege of driving. Why is a protesters right to protest on that road, trumped by your privilege to drive on it?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This may be a minor inconvenience. It depends on my circumstances.

Your circumstances are irrelevant on the question of whether or not something is a right, or an infringement of your rights.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it because someone wanted to exercise free speech? No. Free speech was possible without blocking this road that we all own.

By the protesters going else where, yes? Much like your exercise of your privilege to drive is possible on a road not occupied by other protesters. Why is it they they must move for you, but it is an infringement of your rights if you must move for them?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Is it because the protesters have a right to the road? No. We all have a right to the road. My right to the road = their right to the road. This is public property, so their rights can't possibly trump mine. We should both be able to use the road. Right now, though, only they are able to use the road.

If you can walk down the road, you still have access, your rights are not infringed. You're trading off your privilege to take a car down that road as a right, it's not, it's still a privilege. Their rights do, in fact, trump your privileges. You still have access to the road, you choose not exercise that right because you wish to exercise your privilege instead, but that's you choice. Still it is your privilege, and not your rights, being infringed.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I can't choose to leave.

Of course you can. You can decide that leaving is the least desirable option, but to cast that as no choice is nonsense.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Their intention was to trap me here. The idea is to hurt me.

Their intention was to protest.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am under the control of 1,000 people singing songs up the road, trying to make a point. These people intend me a little bit of harm, but may cause any amount of harm and be completely unaware of it.

You are under the control of your decision to drive down that road, and the decisions of the other drivers who decided the same. Things also happened outside of your control, that's life. It's interesting though, that the other drivers are at least as equally complicit in your "imprisonment" as the protesters, yet they're free of all blame, they are also victims, why is that?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Maybe if I had known about this ahead of time, I might have made other choices. I might have done things differently.

Indeed, that is life.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This situation may threaten my Life.

That's hyperbolic. I could just as easily say driving the car threatens your life, and the lives of those around you. If you're so ill your life is threatened, you're the one putting yourself and others in danger by getting behind the wheel of your car.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
It positively threatens my Liberty.

No, it doesn't. You have no right to drive a car, so being prevented to do so isn't a matter of liberty. It certainly threatens your liberty less than saying "you can only protest if it doesn't inconvenience anyone".

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I may not have a right to drive, but do the protesters have a right to keep me from driving?

Sometimes rights come to contention. The lesser right in those circumstances gives way. Consider the normal example: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Or, my right not to get punched in the face supersedes your right to swing your arm.

If we're talking about a privilege vs a right, it's a no-brainer: the right supersedes. You say it's not an either or, but in one important way it is. Either you drive down that road, or they protest on that road. A fact you, at least tacitly, acknowledge yourself: the protesters should go somewhere else, you say. That way you can drive down the road, and they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere. Perhaps in an abandoned quarry, where there's no one to be inconvenienced? You get to drive down the road, they get to voice their grievances to some rocks.

Of course we can turn that logic around. You can exercise your privilege to drive on a different road. That is, you could go elsewhere, rather than expecting the protesters to do so. Your justifications as to why they should move also work equally well in reverse. You don't know why they're protesting there, nor maybe even what they are protesting. You don't know their circumstances. Did you file a journey plan and itinerary with the authorities? How were the protesters supposed to know you were planning on driving down that road?

Since their rights and your privilege are what have come into contention here, the resolution, to me is clear: you get to drive down a different road. If you didn't hear in time, if you didn't listen to the traffic report or the news and you get stuck, well I'm sorry but that's life. Sometimes we don't get everything our own way; nothing about having rights demands or implies that we do.

The question you need to answer, as far as I can see, is this:
Since you accept that you are exercising a privilege, and not a right, since you accept their right to access of the road is equal to yours, why must they relinquish their use for the expression of their rights, so that you may exercise your privilege? Why does your privileges, trump their rights?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't believe that trapping people (that IS what we're talking about. No detour, no exit, not until or unless they decide to move) is a right. I consider trapping people to be a form of speech on par with violence.

No, that is the frame you wish to put on what we're talking about. A flatly reject that you are "trapped". At worse you can say your car is trapped.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I wouldn't condone paparazzi trapping a celebrity on the sidewalk and immobilizing them, either. The only way to escape a ring of people is to go through them, unless they consent to let you escape.

Why are you not haranguing the other drivers, since it is the other drivers, and not the protesters who are encircling you?

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So... Immobilizing me is the Point.

At the very worst you can say immobilising your car was the point. You choose to remain with it.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
That's why I have trouble not taking it personally. It is personally about me. And it is personally about every other citizen who is trapped in a conveyance at the whim of other citizens.

Should I be personally insulted when I can't cross a road because people are driving down it then? I am trapped on this side of the road, at the whim of other citizens, after all. I can't get to where I am going! These people could drive elsewhere, then I could cross the road, and they could drive their cars!

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

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 2:57 PM

It comes down to intent.

If you *intentionally* block traffic with the intent to inflict inconvenience on folk, in order to get your message across, then you are responsible for that action and the consequences that flow from it.

And I think no few of you are being intentionally dishonest about it, something I will call you out on, cause I think it's unacceptable.

You stage your protest with clear intent to take something away from me, right, privledge, convenience, don't matter what you call it, your INTENT was to take AWAY from me, while protesting something maybe taken away from you.

And you can not see the hypocrisy of that ?
I call bullshit.

As I pointed out, it's not so bloody easy for me to "get out and walk", and if my destination is 40 miles away it's not exactly reasonable to expect me to hobble that on my cripple sticks, nor abandon my vehicle where it has the potential to continue to present a traffic hazard after you are gone, and is at risk of vandlism or theft, as a natural consequence of actions you chose to deliberately take - in short, my nose getting in the way of YOUR fist, and then you have the bloody nerve to come all hostile at me for having the ill grace to be annoyed about it ?

So I should just sit there and wait ?
Mind you, my car has no heat, nor AC, it's broken, cause I happen to be relatively poor - and you are not paying for my time, or my fuel, resources I wind up expending at your behest whether I chose to or not, because you deliberately decided to take from me on purpose, an act of aggression regardless of the contortions you use to justify it.

Or, lemme spin it to you this way.
How bout I cut power to your block, it's just an inconvience, right ?
There's no constitutional right to electricity, it's a privledge, right ?
Never mind that you paid for that power, never mind the groceries in your fridge, never mind you might have a relative on medical equipment, it's all just an inconvenience, if you really need to communicate, you can write a letter, so you're not harmed, right ?
Besides, you can go somewhere else, right ?

It's the same bloody principle.

And worse, it's intentional, as in you did so on purpose, with what I consider malicious intent aforethought, no matter how gentle your malice is.

You don't take from me on purpose and not run up a tab - whether I bill you for it, well, that's on me, but that moral tab runs up regardless the moment you admit intent.

-Frem

PS. This is also why I don't get on so well with other Anarchists, because of this very kind of hypocrisy and how they cannot see that forcing theirs on others is everything they claim to stand against.

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

And I think no few of you are being intentionally dishonest about it, something I will call you out on, cause I think it's unacceptable.

Yes, more than a few of 'us' perhaps are.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
How bout I cut power to your block, it's just an inconvience, right ?
There's no constitutional right to electricity, it's a privledge, right ?
Never mind that you paid for that power, never mind the groceries in your fridge, never mind you might have a relative on medical equipment, it's all just an inconvenience, if you really need to communicate, you can write a letter, so you're not harmed, right ?
Besides, you can go somewhere else, right ?

It's the same bloody principle.

Indeed, and since, as you note yourself, no rights were infringed, QED.

Of course it's not, actually the "same bloody principle" but whatever.

(Also, unless your phones and phone lines work on a completely different principle to ours, they'll work in a power cut).

You have no right to do as you please whenever you please and expect everyone to get out of your way to do it. Just because you haven't got your own way, doesn't mean that your rights have been infringed.

Perhaps we can forgo you calling me a liar, a fascist and the claims that I'm bogging this down in personal insults this time?

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

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 3:20 PM

Actually, lemme refine that, boil it all down to the simplest component parts.

There's only two ways to deal with your fellow man.
Reason, and force.

Once you have stepped into my path, deliberately and with the intention of blocking me, and refuse to to move...

You are no longer using reason.

And that violates the non aggression principle.

Is THAT simple enough ?

-F

PS. And I note your intentional provocation as a further violation of the NAP - true colors shining through, Citizen ?
You never *did* answer my question, back then, either.

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, lemme refine that, boil it all down to the simplest component parts.

I reject the frame you wish to put on this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citizen:

Perhaps we can forgo you calling me a liar, a fascist and the claims that I'm bogging this down in personal insults this time?

So that's a "no" then:

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

PS. And I note your intentional provocation as a further violation of the NAP - true colors shining through, Citizen ?
You never *did* answer my question, back then, either.

I note, for the record, that I was reacting to your personal statement, the one you prefaced your previous post with. Prefacing your post with a statement that boils down too "people who disagree with me are liars", would seem to be a violation of the "NAP", but perhaps there are different rules for you?

As for questions, since no one, you least of all, has tried to answer any of mine, you would seem to be on very shaky ground when demanding answers. Besides, you ask so many rhetorical trying to trade your opinion as fact, it's hard to tell what is, and what is not an honest question.

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

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 3:46 PM

I stated my *opinion* - you're welcome to disagree, did I, or did I not preface that statement with "I think".

But go on, keep trying to start a fight instead of discussing the topic, if you like, I'm wondering how far you'll take that, and why.

-Frem

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Actually, lemme refine that, boil it all down to the simplest component parts.

There's only two ways to deal with your fellow man.
Reason, and force.

Once you have stepped into my path, deliberately and with the intention of blocking me, and refuse to to move...

You are no longer using reason.

And that violates the non aggression principle.

Is THAT simple enough ?

Holy tap-dancing Christ, are you for real? Civil disobedience, passive resistance, are these not rational methods of political action? In the old story, Christ didn't move out of the way, he turned the other cheek. Was that a use of force on his part and had he abandoned reason at that point?

Someone merely standing, passive, before you is stealing? Someone merely standing, passive, before you is violating you? Amazing.

What I'm "stealing" from you if I stand in your way is not yours. You're arguing like a flippin' right-to-lifer here: "the fetus was gonna become a human baby, so you're murdering a human baby and it's a holocaust!" likewise, you were gonna occupy the space where I'm standing, so if I don't move I'm stealing from you and, Anthony will hasten to add, imprisoning you. You're saying you have a right to actually have what you only desire at the moment. And if I stand in your way, I obviously "intended" to take something of yours from you, which you do not as yet have in your possession. Are you guys okay?

You got nothin' but entitlement on your side of this argument, Frem. You think you have somehow earned the right to the space someone else occupies. By virtue of...being in your personal sanctum sanctorum, the American automobile? Unreal.

Everyone has a right to their body and a right to be. Up until very recently in American history, these rights of black citizens were not recognized and a black woman could violate the "rights" of white citizens by sitting on the wrong seat in a bus, or at the wrong lunch counter. Your mere desire to move in a particular direction cannot trump a person's simple right to exist in space. The space in question is public, it belongs to all of us. How each of us chooses to use that space while we occupy it is our personal business and may come into conflict with the desires of others, hopefully without violence. We're social creatures, so generally we make rules and designate what use to which we would like to put such space. Generally. But there have to be exceptional circumstances, don't there? If we're breaking laws, Johny Law will come and do his business. If you don't like what I'm doing, by all means, take it up with me and I'm sure we can come to a reasonable solution.

Because you have a car, that gives you special rights to access and we all better get out of your way or...what? (You will note that I have not suggested that any of the folk standing in the road position cars so as to block it--I'm just talking about bodies here.)

The protest Anthony started this surreal discussion over was just a hundred or so people who spontaneously moved into an intersection in downtown Seattle, 22 of whom were arrested.

I got no problem with them being arrested, and judging from the article, neither did they. Such is the life of an activist.

To all y'all's presumptive dismay, we are not actually talking about a thousand people on the Interstate hemming you in with a few thousand accomplices in other vehicles intentfully making your life a living nightmare. Traffic in downtown Seattle is absolutely terrible regardless of protests and there are protests in downtown Seattle practically every weekend, and parades and marches and freakin' ball games that hold EVERYONE up. Anyone going downtown expecting to just drive on through has never been downtown before.

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

Saturday, June 26, 2010 11:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I stated my *opinion* - you're welcome to disagree, did I, or did I not preface that statement with "I think".

But go on, keep trying to start a fight instead of discussing the topic, if you like, I'm wondering how far you'll take that, and why.

-Frem

And I *asked* you not to call my a liar, a fascist or blame me for starting a fight. You're welcome to acquiesce, or go ahead and do those anyway. For the record you chose the latter.

I think the level of cognitive dissonance you show when you attack other people for your own behavior is truly astounding.

This is how far I'll take you. If you want to take it further, be my guest.

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

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 11:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Holy tap-dancing Christ, are you for real? Civil disobedience, passive resistance, are these not rational methods of political action? In the old story, Christ didn't move out of the way, he turned the other cheek. Was that a use of force on his part and had he abandoned reason at that point?

Someone merely standing, passive, before you is stealing? Someone merely standing, passive, before you is violating you? Amazing.

Perhaps Ghandi was a violent protester after all?

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 1:28 AM

AGENTROUKA

I don't get it.

Why is no one reacting to the fact that asking people to abandon their cars and walk to destinations that might be dozens of miles away.. is kind of unrealistic and unfair? Why does this keep bei8ng touted as a viable option? What about sick people, infants, the elderly? How are protesters hundred of meters away supposed to "help" them get out of a serious, intentionally created, traffic jam? How are paramedics supposed to get through?

It may not be against the law (or it may, I don't care) but this, to me, has nothing to do with peaceful protest. It's selfish and it's lazy. It's not aimed at trying to educate anyone and it's not hurting those who are protested against. It's only hurting innocent people in an iminaginative attempt to create noise for the sake of noise. It seems like creating inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience, not for the sake of moving something.

Legal or not, it's a bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong.

I'm with Anthony and Frem on this.

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:05 AM

DREAMTROVE

At the risk of being accused of being Niki...

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:21 AM

HKCav - I've done pointed it out a couple times already that it has to do with your intentions.

If your intention wasn't to block traffic, no worries - if you provide me an actual exit path, no worries- if have the courtesy to allow me to pass, no worries - so forth and so on.

But if you deliberately and intentionally set out to impede me for the sake of forcing me to hear or see your message, I consider that unacceptable - sure, you're gonna do it and you may feel you have cause, hell, given how some of the tax money extracted by me via threat of force/incarceration is actually used, and how pissed about that I am, I might actually *agree* with the sentiment of your protest, and as well acknowledge my responsibility for those uses of it in having handed over that money without more of a fight, sure, ain't nobody perfect...

But you do yourself no favors by rationalizing behavior you would not want inflicted upon you, and then trying to pretend that isn't what you're doing here.

You actually said something along those lines which both you and I understand perhaps a little more than most westerners, and imma quote it here.

Quote:
It's deeply, deeply embedded in the Christian consciousness--and reflected in the catastrophically low self-esteem that afflicts people here in the West--that we will never measure up to our ideals. I find this to be a very Western preoccupation. Savages like me and Frem (and Frem may wish to correct me here) don't wrestle with that particular angel (at least not much, or any more). I don't worry about living up to my ideals. I simply do, or know the reason why. And when I make a mistake, I own up to it and correct myself. I don't think this makes me a super hero. I don't think this makes me special. Doesn't mean I'm never deluded or think I'm right when really I'm wrong.

And it's true, no one ever lives up to their ideals 100% of the time, you prolly do a hell of a lot better at it overall than I do, that for damn sure - but one thing I try to at all costs avoid doing, is to avoid rationalizing it, avoid declaring that the ends justify the means, cause that's a trap, you start walkin down that path and it's not only a slope, it'll become the path of least resistance and the next thing you know you're sliding right to the bottom of it - and you know this, every bit as well as I do or better.

So my issue isn't so much with folks doin it, people do things like that, it happens, and sure, many of em think they got cause, or at least good reasons - as I said, I might even agree with em to one degree or another.

My issue is with tryin to pretend you're not steppin on someone, on purpose - cause you are.

Everyone does it, hell it's all but unavoidable and even if it weren't nobody's perfect, but we should have the decency to acknowledge when it happens because refusing to do so means we're no longer treating other people as equals, and that leads down the path of rationalization, dehumanization, and all those things that impact human empathy in a negative way and degrade it.

If you wouldn't want it done to you, you should maybe think twice about doin it to others, especially if it's by intent, and that intent is to affect them in a negative kind of way, at least acknowledge THAT part of your own responsibility once you have made the decision to act in that fashion.

Even if we do wind up in disagreement on this, I at least want you to understand the fundamental basis for my argument, or at this point I really wouldn't have bothered, since it's pretty obvious we're coming to an impasse here.

-Frem

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Legal or not, it's a bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong.

Actually this statement is highly self-surviving, unsupported and completely wrong. What we're talking about is exactly what Ghandi did. His protests were designed around getting in the way, passive resistance.

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:27 AM

NIKI2

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

What would that have to do with me? I'm confused.

I see this hasn't made ONE step forward since I left last night, so I'm glad I left.

I wish someone besides me would try to break this down and see what's at the core. It's definitely not "rights", and I wish we'd take that out of it. It's something more fundamental, but I still can't figure it out.

There's SOMETHING here about how we feel about our cars, not just our freedom. Freedom has been taken out of it; whatever dramatic circumstances you choose to reach out for, they CAN be solved; appealing to a policeman (and there are always those around when a protest of any kind takes place), taking a bus, etc., and the basic fact is DAMNED FEW people who are DELAYED in their cars are harmed in any way. If we could take that out of it, it might help, because it's irrelevant.

But here's something to mull over. We're talking about sanctioned shutting down of roads v. unsanctioned, at the bottom line. That from what those of you who disagree with me have said over and over, right?

Okay, what ABOUT Ghandi? Tienamen Square? What about say Selma, Alabama, or any place THAT WOULD NOT GIVE A PERMIT to a demonstration? That can happen anywhere, for any reason; any city government can decide a protest isn't worth a permit, so I see it just as described, non-violent civil disobedience. It IS precisely what Ghandi did, what Tienamen Square was ABOUT. There is nothing "self-congratulatory" about comparing protesters to the people who were WITH Ghandi; nonviolent civil disobedience is exactly that, and those who partake of it feel strongly enough about some injustice that they are willing to chance jail, physical (and definitely verbal) assault to stand up against that injustice.

I think I’m getting a handle on part of it. You won’t agree, but I think it has something to do with our relationship to our automobiles, our sense of them being our “castles”, which I’ve read about. It’s not only that, but the emotion this has brought to the surface says it’s SOMETHING beyond a mere debate on an issue. Notice that it’s caused, as best I can tell, only those of you defending your “right” not to be impeded who’ve gotten the most visceral, the most dramatic in your points, the most personal. There’s something there.

I was told my view lacked empathy. But which lacks empathy; recognizing both sides have things on their side, or flatly refusing to acknowledge any positive intentions, at least as long as the gathering isn’t sanctioned by the government? That’s kind of a narrow view, if you think about it.

I have no stake in either side, but I can recognize that there HAVE been times when non-violent civil disobedience was valid, and there have many times been governments which would NOT sanction such, leaving no option but to shut up or protest via “civil disobedience” to the laws.

Two things: I for one am not lying, I’m stating what I’ve experienced and what I firmly believe. I’ve said clearly that I would be pissed off, inconvenienced and frustrated by such a situation, but I would recognize it was MY feelings, and not the right or wrong of a situation. My opinion—just mine—is that some people on the other side are not lying, but rationalizing to back up their point, and doing so by creating dramatic examples which have little or nothing to do with the simple situation.

Second, you can view it as selfishness if you wish. I do not...the times I have demonstrated, nobody was “taking” anything away from me; they were issues I believed the public should be educated about and helped to notice. I’ve demonstrated against the Vietnam War, nuclear energy, People’s Park, the Iraq War; where did that involve taking anything “away” from me? And tho’ certainly it’s not selfless, I don’t think walking a long ways, in the hot sun a couple of those times, pushing a wheelchair another time because the person I was with was unable to walk, weren’t something I did for pleasure.

I did ask Choey. She didn’t surprise me. She’s very pragmatic. Her response was “I wouldn’t like it, but I wouldn’t deny them the right to demonstrate”. That’s how I feel.

By the way, nobody has brought up the “flash” instances, where the majority of the crowd starts dancing unannounced. Everyone seems to love those. There is no question that they have inconvenienced some people, and they weren’t sanctioned. Some missed trains by struggling through the crowd of onlookers; if someone had been elderly or had a heart attack, it would have endangered them.. But everyone loves those.

So what is it about unsanctioned demonstrations which causes people who might be delayed in their cars to have such strong emotional feelings about it? I see one thing; Citizen, who is British and their attitude toward cars is differnt than ours, feels less emotional about it.

I see something going on here besides a simple “If an UNSANCTIONED protest were held and it delayed me, it’s imprisoning me, endangering me, impinging on my rights, etc.” I’d love to figure out the rest of it, but so far I haven't managed to.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 7:54 AM

Niki, as I understand, no one here is denying anyone else's right to protest. And this is not about cars.

This is about two people who leave the house in morning wanting to do something. Say it's me and you. Say you want to protest a grocery store's treatment of its employees and I want to buy milk. We can both do this A-OK. Unless you decide that I shall not pass you and go into the store until I am forced to stand and listen to your spiel for half an hour.

You have no right to hold me up, even if the grocery store truly is evil and deserving of your protest. And if you want to talk at me while I pass by, or hold out a pamphlet for me, go right ahead. Who knows - if you've got a strong point I am likely listen to you and go to a different store. Good protest. Job well done.

But if I choose not to believe you, or not to care, you have no right to physically restrict my freedom to shop where I choose. You have no right to physically barricade the store and stop me from going in. If you do, it's no longer a protest, but something else.

This is one particular analogy, please don't get caught up in the specifics. Neither should you over-apply this. Anthony (I'm pretty sure) is not talking about something as extreme as Tienanmen Square or the Rodney King riots, just your average run-of-the-mill Sunday afternoon political action.

Right Anthony?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:59 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Indeed. Very well put.

It's not about cars. Or bikes. Or any conveyance.

It's about you deciding I can't get in here, or I can't leave there. It's about you choosing for me against my will.

That's not a peaceable anything. And I question counting something as speech when it takes away my ability to travel, move, or escape.

Furthermore, if we jointly own a property, and we have a joint agreement on its use (this is a road, folks, and a sidewalk, and all public property) and if you violate that agreement, you are violating my property rights.

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:15 AM

Sometimes rights come to contention. The lesser right in those circumstances gives way. Consider the normal example: Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Or, my right not to get punched in the face supersedes your right to swing your arm.

If we're talking about a privilege vs a right, it's a no-brainer: the right supersedes. You say it's not an either or, but in one important way it is. Either you drive down that road, or they protest on that road. A fact you, at least tacitly, acknowledge yourself: the protesters should go somewhere else, you say. That way you can drive down the road, and they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere. Perhaps in an abandoned quarry, where there's no one to be inconvenienced? You get to drive down the road, they get to voice their grievances to some rocks.

Of course we can turn that logic around. You can exercise your privilege to drive on a different road. That is, you could go elsewhere, rather than expecting the protesters to do so. Your justifications as to why they should move also work equally well in reverse. You don't know why they're protesting there, nor maybe even what they are protesting. You don't know their circumstances. Did you file a journey plan and itinerary with the authorities? How were the protesters supposed to know you were planning on driving down that road?

Since their rights and your privilege are what have come into contention here, the resolution, to me is clear: you get to drive down a different road. If you didn't hear in time, if you didn't listen to the traffic report or the news and you get stuck, well I'm sorry but that's life. Sometimes we don't get everything our own way; nothing about having rights demands or implies that we do.

The question you need to answer, as far as I can see, is this:
Since you accept that you are exercising a privilege, and not a right, since you accept their right to access of the road is equal to yours, why must they relinquish their use for the expression of their rights, so that you may exercise your privilege? Why does your privileges, trump their rights?

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I framed this as a property rights issue due to your unwillingness to see it from any other angle.

If we jointly own a property, and we have a joint agreement on its use (this is a road, folks, and a sidewalk, and all public property) and if you violate that agreement, you are violating my property rights."

Is that 'rights' enough for you? Did I miss something?

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"the protesters should go somewhere else, you say. That way you can drive down the road, and they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere"

Hello,

By the way, no one said this. Certainly not I.

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I framed this as a property rights issue due to your unwillingness to see it from any other angle.

Nice attempt at pushing your unwillingness to engage on to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
If we jointly own a property, and we have a joint agreement on its use (this is a road, folks, and a sidewalk, and all public property) and if you violate that agreement, you are violating my property rights."

Is that 'rights' enough for you? Did I miss something?

Yep, so again, your right to use overrides their right to use because...

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

By the way, no one said this. Certainly not I.

Actually it's an extremely reasonable extrapolation of what you've said, for instance:

Quote:

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

How can you have both of them, unless the protesters are somewhere other than where you want to drive exactly?

Both the above leads to one conclusion:

Their use and your use of the same facility is incompatible. They can't use it if you do, you can't use it if they do. Why is it that your use supersedes theirs?

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"the protesters should go somewhere else, you say. That way you can drive down the road, and they can have their freedom of speech, just elsewhere"

Hello,

By the way, no one said this. Certainly not I.

Didn't you, in fact, make the point that if protesters allow another way around, and make some effort to get the word out, it's not a big deal?

Anthony, I get the feeling folks are too busy arguing against what you're NOT saying to see what you are saying. But I guess that's just the internets for you.

Citizen, I'm not certain about your whole "privilege" versus "right" argument. We all have the right of pursuing happiness in our own way, and in this case both pursuits can happen together. The fist has no reason to meet the nose, as it were, if just a little effort and forethought is put into it.

Of course, that would require that both parties have some awareness and respect for the other's freedoms.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 9:52 AM

NIKI2

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

There IS more to this than what's been said, or it wouldn't have gone on this long and been this heated. I just can't figure out what it is.

Essentially, my argument now is: How can people who are so vociferous about the government limiting their rights nonetheless be so complacent about it doing so in this respect, and so emotional about it if it's not allowed by the government?

As I tried to say: You have no problem with SANCTIONED protest, where the city/county/state/federal government says "You can hold a demonstration here. You can deny people the right to drive through this street. We sanction it".

Exactly the opposite when it's not SANCTIONED. That's part of what fascinates me. People here are generally anti-government; some even want to rebel against the government with guns. But it really riles them up when individuals have a peaceful protest that keeps them from going where they want, when they want, at the speed they want. If the government says it's OKAY to constrict your freedom, that's fine; if the government DOESN'T say it's okay, you're quite emotional about the issue.

The other part of it is that people here generally feel good about what Ghandi did, and the effort in Tienamen Square. But both were unsanctioned. Ghandi and his followers were PROTESTING something; they'd never have been given a permit. There are places in America, like during Civil Rights era (ooops, I forgot that one, I protested that too...but here in SF it was sanctioned), where demonstrations protesting were NOT ALLOWED. The demonstrations were illegal. You apparently would feel as emotional about those people demonstrating and blocking traffic without sanctions as anyone else, from the way you talk?

This is futile; it's hung up on something which seems to go around and around and get nowhere. My mind will not be changed, nor will anyone else's, so I hereby agree to disagree. End of story, for me at least.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
signing off

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Citizen, I'm not certain about your whole "privilege" versus "right" argument. We all have the right of pursuing happiness in our own way, and in this case both pursuits can happen together. The fist has no reason to meet the nose, as it were, if just a little effort and forethought is put into it.

EDITED:

Yes, by the protesters protesting somewhere else, or you driving somewhere else, I've noted this several times. I'm now trying to get an answer to a simple question:
Why should they go anywhere else? What makes your use of that single resource, more important?

Actually there's another question. Where should they move too. Since we have to ensure they can't inconvenience anyone, where do you suggest? Bottom of a mine shaft? Abandoned Quarry?

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:18 AM

You're making assumptions Citizen. The only one wanting to move or cancel the protest is you. I mean, if you're set on having a conflict, you surely will have one, but a little creativity goes a long way.

For example:

A small protest can stay on the sidewalk and cross the roads with the lights. This is exactly what I did on the screenwriter's guild picket line in front of an LA studio (the same day I got the picture of Nathan playing Alan's guitar.

)

A larger protest can block off one lane. They plan ahead and bring something to block the lane, and when the authorities show up, being non-evil authorities, they can take over directing traffic through the partial closure. (Strict authorities who would move the protest certainly exist, but that's a different discussion.)

A still larger protest should have organizers with their shit together. An hour or two before the protest they can let the police know: "We expect 1000 picketers who will block the two blocks on Main Street in front of city hall. Protesters will not block [ETA: pedestrian] access to businesses, and we suggest the following plan for diverting traffic..."

See? Protest goes on where it's planned, traffic still flows, the word is out. Fist does not meet face.

It's really not hard.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're making assumptions Citizen. The only one wanting to move or cancel the protest is you. I mean, if you're set on having a conflict, you surely will have one, but a little creativity goes a long way.

Actually I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, what I'm doing is not ignoring consequences of your position.

Even your own example, though you slide right past the fact, suggests the protesters move:

Quote:
A small protest can stay on the sidewalk and cross the roads with the lights.

I.e. They MOVE off the road and keep to the Sidewalk!

Quote:
A larger protest can block off one lane.

What if it's even larger? What if it's so large for every protester to be accommodated, they'd have to take up both sidewalks and the entire road? What then?

Both you and they want to use the road. Your uses are incompatible. Who should yield and why?

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Exactly the opposite when it's not SANCTIONED. That's part of what fascinates me. People here are generally anti-government; some even want to rebel against the government with guns. But it really riles them up when individuals have a peaceful protest that keeps them from going where they want, when they want, at the speed they want. If the government says it's OKAY to constrict your freedom, that's fine; if the government DOESN'T say it's okay, you're quite emotional about the issue.

No Niki, that's not it. When the government constricts my freedom, I'm annoyed. When a non government group constricts my freedom, I'm annoyed. See the commonality?

*Anyone* constricts my freedom, I'm annoyed. You have no more right to do it than the government.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You're making assumptions Citizen. The only one wanting to move or cancel the protest is you. I mean, if you're set on having a conflict, you surely will have one, but a little creativity goes a long way.

Actually I'm making no assumptions whatsoever, what I'm doing is not ignoring consequences of your position.

Even your own example, though you slide right past the fact, suggests the protesters move:
Quote:
A small protest can stay on the sidewalk and cross the roads with the lights.

I.e. They MOVE off the road and keep to the Sidewalk!
Quote:
A larger protest can block off one lane.

What if it's even larger? What if it's so large for every protester to be accommodated, they'd have to take up both sidewalks and the entire road? What then?

Both you and they want to use the road. Your uses are incompatible. Who should yield and why?

*sigh*

Please read my entire post. The third example I listed was for protesters using the roadway.

My first example is a simple accommodation: walking people can use the sidewalks, cars can't. It's not unreasonable that if a picketing group can fit on the sidewalk, they should. *IF* they are interested in peaceful co-existence.

If they aren't... well, that proves Anthony's point. If protesters purposely go out of their way to make a conflict where one isn't necessary, they are putting themselves first, and imposing their interests over someone else's freedoms.

As I said, if you're out for a fight, you certainly can find one. Seems like you're doing your best get on one going Cit. Have fun with that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

*sigh*

Please read my entire post. The third example I listed was for protesters using the roadway.

I did read your entire post, clearly you didn't read mine, and chose to ignore the bits you find difficult to answer.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

As I said, if you're out for a fight, you certainly can find one. Seems like you're doing your best get on one going Cit. Have fun with that.

And instead of answering a single point you take Frem's lead in blaming me and accusing me of trying to start a fight. It does seem you're desperate to shift your sides lack of desire to engage on to me, to get personal and get a fight going while simultaneously blaming me for your actions. I presume you are having fun with that, for my own part I don't find your scapegoating enjoyable at all.

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

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 1:39 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Exactly the opposite when it's not SANCTIONED."

Hello,

It has nothing to do with sanctioning.

Government exists to protect everyone's freedoms. It only needs to step in when freedoms start interfering with one another.

I do not care if it is the protesters or the government who posts signs, creates detours, and allows exit. This is the only goal of 'sanctioning' which is that the government provides these things. If your protesters are going to provide these things, then freedom is not limited. Not theirs, and not mine.

We do have an agreement on how to use the road. A social contract. If you break it, you ARE violating my property rights. Rights, not privileges.

Driving a car is a privilege. However, once I have earned that privilege, driving my car on a road in accordance with our social contract for our road is my right. So is walking on the sidewalk, using a bike path, unicycle, quadricycle, etc.

But we are not talking about you and me sharing a road according to our agreement. We are not talking about your right to use the road or my right to use the road. Once again, we can both use the roads, all of them. At the same time, even. And if you need exclusive use of stretch A for a time, you can have it, but you can't trap me on stretch A by not providing me exits and alternates. That's how we use our property and share our rights to that property.

We are talking about you specifically planning a 'protest' in such a way as to take my rights to my property in violation of our agreement. Further, we are talking about doing it specifically to also limit my ability to move around or exit the area.

The protesters don't need to go anywhere else. We can all use our resource. We just have to make sure we all get to enjoy our rights to that resource.

The 'right' to intentionally immobilize or trap me, either directly or by creating a situation where I am trapped with my property, on my property, and unable to move or leave, does not exist. It is not speech and it is not peaceable. It is rather the intentional infliction of pain on me to get your way.

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 2:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I did read your entire post, clearly you didn't read mine, and chose to ignore the bits you find difficult to answer.

*sigh* Again.

Difficult to answer? I know you're not stupid Cit. Seriously, you're not. Perhaps a little more effort would help you not look like you might be.

To be helpful, here: you said,

"What if it's even larger? What if it's so large for every protester to be accommodated, they'd have to take up both sidewalks and the entire road? What then?"

Maybe you should notice that I had already posted this:

"A still larger protest should have organizers with their shit together. An hour or two before the protest they can let the police know: "We expect 1000 picketers who will block the TWO blocks on Main Street in front of city hall. Protesters will not block [ETA: pedestrian] access to businesses, and we suggest the following plan for diverting traffic..." "

Try this Cit: replace the TWO with FOUR. Or go with SIX. TEN. Choose your protest size and make it work. Add an extra block just to make sure those sidewalks can be clear.

See? Still not hard.

*looooong sigh*

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I don't get it.

Why is no one reacting to the fact that asking people to abandon their cars and walk to destinations that might be dozens of miles away.. is kind of unrealistic and unfair? Why does this keep bei8ng touted as a viable option? What about sick people, infants, the elderly? How are protesters hundred of meters away supposed to "help" them get out of a serious, intentionally created, traffic jam? How are paramedics supposed to get through?

It may not be against the law (or it may, I don't care) but this, to me, has nothing to do with peaceful protest. It's selfish and it's lazy. It's not aimed at trying to educate anyone and it's not hurting those who are protested against. It's only hurting innocent people in an iminaginative attempt to create noise for the sake of noise. It seems like creating inconvenience for the sake of inconvenience, not for the sake of moving something.

Legal or not, it's a bullshit approach and comparing it to Ghandi is highly self-congratulatory and wrong.

I'm with Anthony and Frem on this.

Good morning Agent Rouka. I'm glad you could make it. We've been waiting for you. Have a seat.

I wanna thank everyone here for continuing this astoundingly vexatious conversation this long. It's afforded me an opportunity to clarify one of my core political beliefs.

Here it is (and I'll need to explain myself at length, of course, so bear with): the right to opt out.

We live in a highly complex world of our own making. We've created countless interconnecting cooperative systems to get where we are today. We create such systems with at least the implicit intention that they become unconscious givens in our lives. At this point in human history these systems tend to involve complex technology (computers, automobiles, telecommunications), but, I would argue, the systems themselves, our laws and rules, are a kind of technology as well, and it is easy to become perilously dependent upon such technology, such rules, and we can feel profoundly victimized when the system breaks down, or someone opts out.

I'm not talking about breaking the rules of the game here--cheating--I'm talking about not playing the game at all. But here's the big, big problem we face nowadays:

There's a point when these systems, these rules, these games, become so integral to our lives--becoming, in essence, a life-support system--that governments/communities make rules against not playing the game.

At which point, not playing simply isn't an option for a citizen in good standing--not playing will be seen, and felt (and prosecuted!) as an attack on all the other players.

But the name of that game is: Police State.

(cf. Another opting out with dire consequences for all concerned, but which I nonetheless hold to be a right, is when a mother opts out of bringing her baby to term.)

With respect, I don't think Anthony is seeing the big picture, that laws and technology are just part of the game we play to make our lives run smoothly. He's in too deep. He doesn't acknowledge my right to opt out, truly opt out, in the midst of what has become for him a compulsory game.

One of the big, big reasons TPTB can have so many of us li'l folk over a barrel so much of the time is that we are psychologically codependent--that is, we blame ourselves for the flaws of the system when the system breaks down. By that point, we've lost track of real responsibility, real choice, real limits and replaced them with comfort, predictability and self-gratification.

This is why the psychopath can tell you, "Do what I say or your whole family dies!" and you will feel responsible for their lives. You will feel a sense of obligation to comply with the psychopath because the psychopath has control of your family. But of course, phenomenologically, it's a scam, for exactly that reason: the psychopath has control of your family, not you. He just lets you think you're deciding their fate, and you let him let you think that, because the truth is too painful: the psychopath lets your family live or die regardless of your actions--you are powerless.

When we become dependent on the systems we have created, then the system gains control of us, like the psychopath in my example. And we blame the opters out for the system's inability to function without them.

At the same time, opting out lies at the core of non-violent, "passive" political demonstration--it is the primordial political statement, the child individuating, learning to say "no."

(Modern society could learn a lot from that child.)

When we opt out, when we passively resist the system, we assert that this portion of the cooperative base of the system hereby relinquishes our consent, partially shutting down the system, in order to bring the system as a whole to an awareness of our needs, and to apply pressure to the whole to change.

And that's a good thing: the more interdependent our system, the more power every individual link in that system has to determine policy!

To then make the leap that each individual is responsible for the far reaching repercussions of opting out is to shut down all real change in favor of the status quo: comfort, predictability and self-gratification.

And unfortunately, many people utterly dependent on the system--trapped, imprisoned, thoroughly controlled by the system--will see such action as the source of their troubles.

But, I'm sorry folks, that isn't sane (if sane is too loaded, let's say "productive").

Blame, for this reason, isn't sane (if sane is too loaded, let's say "healthy").

For example, blaming BP for the oil spill doesn't change our dependency on the system, on oil, on government regulation, on the profit motive, etc., etc., etc.--on all the consensual games we're playing to keep the system in place, all the games we're into that keep a BP doing what a BP does. That system will never change until we opt out, one way or another.

It's not nice when people opt out. People who have become dependent on the cooperative system may indeed suffer, and suffer tremendously, but largely to the extent that they've allowed themselves to become dependent. Please note: the suffering is not the fault of the non-participants, the suffering is caused by the dependency.

Traffic laws, our rules of the road, are an example of such a cooperative system. Without the systems we have in place around traffic, many lives would be endangered, and no doubt many lives lost in the chaos, but only because we've consciously or unconsciously accepted the responsibility that pushing a couple tons of metal around the map at high speeds lays upon us. You don't want to face the dangers and responsibilities of driving a car in an uncertain world, don't get in a car.

Anthony may argue, "Fine, opt out, leave, but let me drive in peace!" But that's not what I'm talking about. We can all leave, become invisible, go underground, but none of that is socially significant, none of that is assertion of right, it is an abdication. It's not saying "no" it's saying, "I don't care." It's avoiding conflict, of course, but it is not resolving it. People are saying that Citizen is picking a fight in this thread, but I see someone simply (though, caustically and sardonically to be sure, this is Citizen we're talking about

) saying "no" and folk blaming him for simply acknowledging a conflict that already exists and standing up for himself. He's simply claiming space. And it's because he cares enough to do it.

So, I say that some folks walking out into a downtown intersection are acting on their rights to opt out of the game. They are not themselves hurting anyone. The action is itself innocent in its universality--anyone who has the function of their own two legs can do it. Of course, they may be (and I hope for all our sakes they are) sophisticated enough to know what effect such non-compliance will have on the system, and that people--innocent, unknowing people--may suffer, but here's the bottom line:

If we blame ourselves for all the possible repercussions of a system breaking down when we opt out of that system, we will never opt out of that system and the system will be effectively unassailable and immortal.

And that is why I respect the protesters and do not blame them for Anthony's suffering.

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 3:56 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"And that is why I respect the protesters and do not blame them for Anthony's suffering."

Hello,

I understand your political position.

It says you can shut down power to a city and not be responsible for the consequences, because people have become too dependent on electricity. It is their dependence, and not your action, that is to blame for their suffering.

In essence, you claim the right not merely to control your actions, but to control my access to 'dependencies' and to cause me pain or suffering until or unless I do what you want.

It's not peaceable, and it's not a right, but it is something you can do. Everyone has the power to hurt other people.

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:02 PM

Dang it, Anthony,

There's a HUGE difference between standing, passively, in a road and shutting down a power grid. Will you EVER, in this thread, allow me the context I'm speaking from??? I'm talking about passive resistance/civil disobedience.

You're a freakin' freight train in this thread. Just slow down and think about what a person's saying, will ya?

Thanks for reading.

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:39 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Passively and gently shutting down a road without letting people out and around is not peaceable. It's not speech. It IS violating me. It IS causing me pain. It IS to get your way.

Do you think that hurting me by trapping me is different than hurting me by taking a swing at me?

You can opt out without opting me out. When you opt me out, it's not peace. Its stealing my choice and my freedom. That you are not interested in the ways to exercise speech or a demonstration without trapping people on a stretch of asphalt explains to me that you are not peaceful.

You want to hurt me. And you want to absolve yourself of responsibility for hurting me by saying if I wasn't dependent on anything, I wouldn't be hurting right now.

--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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 4:52 PM

DREAMTROVE

Niki

Sorry, that was supposed to be a GIF that you originally posted, but I see it was blocked by a hotlink server.

The general sentiment was this one, should this happen to work :

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 8:02 PM

Finally...

Quote:
Of course, they may be (and I hope for all our sakes they are) sophisticated enough to know what effect such non-compliance will have on the system, and that people--innocent, unknowing people--may suffer

That is the acknowledgement I meant - admission and acceptance of the consequences thereof - however...

Quote:
If we blame ourselves for all the possible repercussions of a system breaking down when we opt out of that system, we will never opt out of that system and the system will be effectively unassailable and immortal.

All repercussions ? no.
But those directly related to your action, yes.

That's how it's goin here.

Look, if you feel a cause is important enough to warrant steppin on folk, trying to shove it into their attention, fine, dandy, you're welcome to that belief, and you're welcome to try - depending on the cause (and ironically our entitlement attitude towards petroleum and gas guzzlin SUVs is one of em) I might even be inclined to sympathize.

But never for a moment should you pretend you're not steppin on someone, on purpose, to do it - s'why I deliberately draw some lines when discussing some of the ugly stuff I deal with, cause I don't feel I gotta right to go inflicting that upon someone elses consciousness without their express permission, and for a fact, you cannot *make* someone agree with you, you cannot *force* them to your will, without engaging in some level of hypocrisy, which everyone does to a degree large or small, let's not kid ourselves, but it's still in a smaller kinda way the very thing you're claiming to stand against and just so, it demeans your own message by just that much.

If it's something important enough that you feel you gotta go that far, fine - but you *do* lose the right to be outraged when folk push back, as you mentioned in the initial example, the protestors did have some expectation of being arrested, sure - but that's different from the "how dare you resist!" attitude I've been seeing in this thread.

When you put your boot on my neck, no matter how gentle you are about it, no matter that you feel it's important enough to go that far...

It's still your boot, on my neck...
And may very likely, if someone takes issue with it, result in "Step offa me" with threat of violence behind that request, intent to enforce it.

And that is what Anthony is trying to express to you, I think.
Ain't a matter of laws or rights or even right and wrong so much, as the issue of personal boundries.

All that said, folks will do what they'll do, that's fine, but brushing off the consequences, brushing off personal responsibility for ones own actions, acting like they got some kind of divine freaking right to do unto others and not run up that moral tab cause it's "For your own good..."

I don't think I gotta reiterate what my opinion of that kinda thing is here, cause you of all folk would know it, HKCav.

-Frem

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

Sunday, June 27, 2010 10:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
*sigh* Again.

Sigh indeed. You seem to be an expert in distracting attention away from the fact you've not answered the question, by waving your hands around, claiming you have and focusing on anything and everything that isn't what you've been asked.

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Maybe you should notice that I had already posted this:

And maybe you should notice that I had posted this:

Quote:
Their use and your use of the same facility is incompatible. They can't use it if you do, you can't use it if they do. Why is it that your use supersedes theirs?

Or:

Quote:
Both you and they want to use the road. Your uses are incompatible. Who should yield and why?

Answer still not forth coming.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 12:05 AM

AGENTROUKA

Citizen,

how about that posting warnings well ahead and providing alternative routes thing? The thing that prevents the traffic jam entrappment that Anthony specifically referred to?

After all, it removes the whole point of contention: the intentional entrapment of those who can not use the road rather than the mere blocking of it.

In terms of rights I view serious inconvenience to the point of endangerment as similar to the yelling fire in a crowded theater concept. No one is saying don't protest or block the street, it's the disregard to the potential victims that is being rightfully questions and criticized.

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 2:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Citizen,

how about that posting warnings well ahead and providing alternative routes thing? The thing that prevents the traffic jam entrappment that Anthony specifically referred to?

Well I've insinuated earlier that the word of the protest is going to be out regardless. News channels and Traffic Reports are surely going to have the information, because that's their job. If you don't check the traffic reports for your journey, and get caught in a jam regardless of the cause, isn't that your fault as much as anyone else's?

Either way though I'm fairly sure Anthony has also cast doubt on that. Correct me if I'm wrong but it does seem that if access to the detour isn't assured, again protesters are imprisoning people. I.E. if the extra volume of traffic causes delays on the detour: imprisonment. If a car driver didn't avail themselves of the required information, heed whatever signs, and finds themselves in a jam at the blocked road, and unable to escape: again imprisonment. The feeling I get is that although people are saying that a detour is acceptable, it comes with major caveats. I'll also note that if they're really willing to accept a detour, then why didn't they just answer the question I've been asking? Because obviously a detour is the car driver driving elsewhere...

Since people have been arguing against me, quite voraciously, when I say "either the protesters move, or the car drivers do" I'm really not sure what to think on that score.

In fact the main point I'm trying to put across is that this isn't simply a matter of "my rights my rights my rights", it's a matter of the rights of two separate groups coming into contention. I further don't accept that just because you can't drive your car somewhere, your right travel has been completely infringed, driving a car is a privilege, not a right.

I find many of the counter-points highly suspect and hyperbolic. I noticed someone mentioned that the protest will stop ambulances, well I work in London and have seen many protests, and been in many traffic jams, and Ambulances have no problem getting through either here. We get spontaneous protests all the time too (despite the governments attempt to curb them by enforcing permits, a far more grievous threat to freedom or liberty than anyone getting stuck in any traffic jam for any period, frankly); the Police seem to have no problem responding and redirecting traffic without advance warning. If American Police are so incompetent that it's inconceivable that they could do the same, Americans should be out protesting the Police force, not casting aspersions on to protesters. I mean civil order is supposed to be their job, not just tasering dangerous bed ridden Grannies.

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

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

Monday, June 28, 2010 3:41 AM