Slashdot Mirror
Bikes Against Bush Creator Busted
An anonymous reader writes "Joshua Kinberg, creator of Bikes Against Bush, was arrested in NYC for vandalism while being interviewed by MSNBC. Kinberg's website describes his project as 'using a Wireless Internet-enabled bicycle outfitted with a custom-designed printing device, the Bikes Against Bush bicycle can print text messages sent from web users directly onto the streets of Manhattan in water-soluble chalk". Both Wired and Popular Science have done stories on Kinberg's work." Update: 08/30 01:30 GMT by J : Mr. Kinberg has been released; he describes his arrest and brief stay behind bars on this MSNBC blog.
Even though the chalk is water-soluble, he admitted previously that it takes almost 2 weeks to wash off. I don't have a problem with his political stance - in fact, I agree with him - but the mere fact that his plan revolved around the defacement of public property is enough to warrant an arrest. IANAL, but writing stuff all over the sidewalk (over an extended area) - even in chalk - has to be against some local laws.
A blog like any other.
Was he doing it in Linux? Slashdot humor aside, he was arrested perfectly legally, for vandalism. People here will say "Omg look at them arresting people for not liking bush, blah blah blah!", but guys... what he did was vandalism, whether or not it was about pink elephants, faeries, or a dumbass president.
the message "support our troops" would have gotten him arrested.
I'm laughing at clouds.
Yeah, what passes for protest these days gets sillier and sillier. Everyone wants to enjoy their favorite hobby or passtime while engaging in protest against the evil dark lords. Too many airheads, too much time on their hands. What a horribly oppressed society we live in!
Latte sit-in for partial-birth abortion anyone?
One would hope that this guy has some possibility of defending himself, if the charge is for vandalism. IANAL, but as far as I know a charge of vandalism needs proof of the intent to damage property. By using water-soluable chalk this guy has shown that he's not interested in damaging the property, only in showing his messages.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
I think it's safe to say that if being inconvenient or embarassing to Republicans during the Convention was a crime, that's what his charge would have been. As it is, they'll just have to hold him for a while.
Shameful the level some officials will stoop to silence dissent.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
There is a fine line between protest and vandalism. The stuff comes off with water so I don't see how this is effecting anything.
I also have a different attitude in general towards what other people would call vandalism. I've been through the Bronx which has its fair share of "paintings" on walls (most of which is not environmentally friendly like what the biker is using), and I don't call it vandalism but I call it art. Most of these paintings are not banal expression like "fuck you" but rather creative expression and political/social commentary.... much like what Mr. Kinberg is doing.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
I don't care if you're campaigning for the girlscouts, painting on public property is illegal.
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
That's funny, I plan to cast my vote based on whose policies I think are best for the country, and not because I hate Bush's supporters on cable TV, the religious right, etc., etc. ...
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
But he wasn't vandalising anything. He was demostrating how his device worked. The police busted him and didn't give him a reason ether. Now if they picked him up while rolling around NYC they would have had a case.
The clear reason why they busted him is because the repbulican convention is coming to town and this is one more protester off the street. This guy clearly got the shaft in my option. I don't agree with his politics but I don't agree with locking his ass up because of them.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Shall we then arrest all the local children who draw on the sidewalks in water soluable chalk? After all the kids' messages are non-political and much less deserving of first amendment protection according to the US courts, who have upheld consistently that government criticism deserves the highest protection of free speech?
No, really? We shouldn't arrest the kids? Shouldn't the law apply equally?
This person did no permanent damage to the public environment. He was not trespassing on private property. His message was protected free speech. Weighing all this, he should not have been arrested. I hope he makes a federal case out of the arrest, because even in a pro-Bush climate he'd likely win.
And before anyone asks, I'd have the same opinion if the messages were pro-Bush, pro-Kerry, pro-Nader, or anti-any-of-the-above. Free speech need not be popular to be permitted! In point of opinion, the least popular speech should be afforded the most protection.
...and yet we let our kids draw on the sidewalks with chalk. They'll use anything to shut the mouths of truth, won't they? Looks like free "speech" is limited to just the act of talking. Its a sad world.
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
\begin{sarcasm} your right...the country is so perfect there really aren't any reasons to dissent. Anyone who does is automatically a silly hippie. That is a well thought out philosohy on your part, congradulations. \end{sarcasm}
but this wasn't paint, it was chalk. Is the city of new york going to arrest a 7 year old for drawing with chalk on the sidewalk? Now logistically, this 7 year old would probably get run over from pedestrians..Is there maybe a law I don't know about that says you can't use nonpermanent chalk on a public sidewalk? I could understand maybe if it was indecent words but having a political opinion IMO, should not be punished.
As for it being vandalism you could call almost anything that has to do with protesting a criminal act. Carry a banner? Unlicensed advertising. Hold a sit in? Traffic disruption maybe even holding the people you are stopping against their will.
Excellent point, just because the law forbids something doesn't mean the law should forbid it. When the Indians protested against the British it was illegal, but nobody would dare claim their cause was unjust. Sometimes the right thing to do is to break the law.
If you don't like either candidate or think they're too close to each other politically, vote for someone you do like. That will send a real message, not some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the fact that--gasp--some people express themselves in ways you don't like.
So unless Teresa Heinz personally gives me a blowjob
Right, everyone else is being immature.
No, you still have the freedom to buy a mexican-made SUV from a US company or a us-made SUV from a japanese company. You can use that choice to vote with your dollar.
That is about (quite possibly exceeding) the idiocy of the "Anyone But Bush" mentality. Here's an idea. Examine their policies and track record, and make an informed decision? Ironically, it is people such as yourself that have poisoned our political process with phony outrage over some perceived (and carefully constructed) cultural divide, and casting your vote as a big 'FUCK YOU' to the other side. Do you think this is original? It's the very heart of conservatism vs. liberalism for most Americans these days. The leadup to this election resembles a mindless sporting event with armchair quarterbacks yelling and screaming about the other teams fouls, accusing the referees of bias, and generally only caring that their side wins. "Bush/Cheny '04" and "LICK BUSH" stickers might as well be fan gear.
Sounds like China. The policeman knew there was
nothing wrong but a higher up party wonk told him
to arrest him anyway.
The democrats didn't decide to rack up histories biggest deficit to bomb some random third party country and get americans killed there instead of spending the resources going after the terrorists who used biological weapons(anthrax) to kill americans.
Pretty big difference.
I'm sure he'll get off for this sooner or later, and that video will surely help. For one thing, I never saw the cops read him his Miranda rights. We'll see if they remember to do so before they start asking him questions. For another, it doesn't help them that they couldn't offer a simple reason for why he was being arrested, although I can see why they wouldn't want to say anything, especially to that crowd.
Neither of those things points to anything but embarrasing media coverage--coupled with the triviality of the actual events, and the fact that he was at an interview talking to Ron Reagan--well, I can't help but think that we'll be hearing more about this. If not, then there probably *is* some sort of 'Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy'. We'll see.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Whoever went NYPD Blue on this guy should have thought a little. I have seen more offensive and more permanent "Public Art" in the City & nothing was done. This could easily blow up in their faces--persecuting someone who was conscientious enough to choose an instantly reomovable media to express tame political views in. They should have at least just let the guy off with a warning.Great--not even a sergeant seems to know the law well enough, but they still arrest him.
This fellow was making a political statement. The courts have held that political statements are the most protected of free-speech rights. The children are creating artistic expression of a unique and persusiave nature and Gulliford v Pierce County held that artistic expression of an individual is also among the free-speech rights, even if expressed in chalk. Commerical entities using chalk are making a non-political, non-individual, non-creative use of speech, and though I might disagree; the courts afford commercial speech less protection.
So there you have it: my unbiassed bias. I believe it should be perfectly legal for this fellow, the children, or even Microsft to use chalk to display speech. The courts, however, do not agree. As I am a creature of law, more than I am a libertarian, I stick by the court - free speech must be protected and some speech more than others. Commercial and functional speech is at the bottom of the heap, but that's not my doing.
Point is, and your barb doesn't address it. If the highest form of speech is reason for punishment, and the lowest form is reason for punishment (as you cite), then should not the middle protected speech be reason for punishment as well? Should we not therefore arrest those kids? Hopefully, you recognize the difference and your own implied bias or will you just ignore the logic and move on?
So long as the government - in this case, NYC - does not regulate content, it can regulate the time, place, and manner of expression. The case law is well-settled on this, yet every time some radical group "protests" in some unlawful manner (again, T, P, & M) by shutting down a street or trespassing and hanging a banner on some building, they scream "First Amendment."
This is utter nonsense. The funny part is these groups almost always consult with First Amendment attorneys prior to their actions, so they know good and well that their conduct is illegal. Yet they still screech like scalded hogs when they get arrested for breaking the law. I say, great, carry the law breakers away in shackles. Most of the time, that's all part of the act, as in, "Look at me! I am being carted away by The Man for protesting!"
No you aren't idiot, and you know it. But it makes for good political theater.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Try and derail the discussion by using slippery slop logic and exaggerating things to the extreme. Some examples from this story include "OMG they will arrest poor defenseless little girls for drawing in the stree!!!!1111!!" and "ON NOSE, CARRYING A 'BUSH T3H SUXX0RSSS!!!11' BANNER WILL GET ME ARRESTED!!oneOne111!!one!!!"
I am a Democrat and I don't like Bush, but lets look at this form the other end. Would you mind someone spraying in "chalk" that doesn't go away for two whole weeks pro-Bush/anti-Kerry propaganda on your home sidewalk, in front of your business, in the public park, etc? Or do you think that people should have the freedom of speech to print what ever they want on yours or others property as long as it goes away in about two weeks?
Funny how protesting against "liberals" isn't likely to get you arrested.
You may have heard of this document called The Constitution. See, it turns out that it trumps all other laws in the land...
2^5
The concept of civil disobedience isn't to randomly break laws. If you deface someone else's property, you're not just doing something illegal, you're being an asshole. The point of civil disobedience is to change laws that you think are unjust, by disobeying them publicly and making your reasons known. This wasn't intended to break any laws nor to protest any laws, it was simply to spread this guy's opinion. This has nothing to do with civil disobedience at all.
First of all, this guy does no permanent damage to public property.
Secondly, while not all graffiti is equally defensible, I think of it as a valuable form of expression. And the problem is that as with many other free speech issues, you cannot protect the positive uses while penalizing the negative ones. Hear me out, before you jump the gun.
See, there are times when the appropriation of public space is the only way to speak because the state or its corporate allies controls all legal -or the most effective- forms of communication. This isn't as true in the United States, although the large media conglomerates do exercise a great deal of control over what he hear and listen. Thankfully, we have the internet still left.
Yet, as surprising as that may be to some Slashdotters, a piece of wall is an easiser medium to master than a computer and thinking otherwise only shows how out of touch some of you may be with some very poor communities in the United States where internet access does not exist nor do the skills to use a computer are common (I am working on fixing both, by the way).
Moreover, graffiti and leafletting have both played a crucial role in breaking the fear that grips societies in authoritarian regimes. In dictatorships where people often die for less than painting graffiti on the wall, a piece of political graffiti can serve to end the sense of isolation caused by fear that often renders people unable to seek other ways to overthrow the military junta.
If you are interested in history, read about how graffiti was used against the dictatorships of the southern cone in Latin America in the late 1970s and 1980s.
The ethymological origin of the word is also very telling:
Graffiti Graf*fi"ti, n. pl. It., pl. of graffito scratched Inscriptions, figure drawings, etc., found on the walls of ancient sepulchers or ruins, as in the Catacombs, or at Pompeii.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
So he gets arrested right before the "live" event! Considering that he wasn't arrested immediately, but rather a few hours later, one wonders if some higher-up checked his website...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Scarry for someone like me who operates an Anti-Bush site.
Here comes the logic.
I can't stand everyone who is 'anti-Bush'. Why don't you devote your efforts to being pro-Kerry? I ask you, who do you think should be president, and you say, "Not Bush!". Well, Jerry Falwell is not Bush. Saddam Hussein is not Bush. Hell, I am not Bush, but I'll take the job, and I guarantee if you don't like Bush, you definitely won't like me.
This is the problem with simple negation. Sorry it had to come down on you, but there it is.
I don't care if you get blowjobs in the oval office and lie about it (clinton), or if you're a rich french-looking frankenstein-faced war hero (kerry) with a prettyboy sidekick, or if you were a drunk with DUIs (bush), or if you're a "gay american" who cheats on his wife (mcgreevy). What does that have to do with their politics? Nothing... except in Bush's case, both the politics and the politician suck-- he's a bible-thumping speech-impaired idiot who lied about way more than a victimless blowjob, and that's way more dangerous than your average "character flaw").
--
Power to the Peaceful
Were you also mad at Bush for being "anti - Saddam"?
Sorry, but maybe the people who are anti-Bush are not necessarily pro-Kerry. Maybe the issue is the terrorism inflicted by the Bush administration, and the fear that many Americans have of what Bush could do with "four more years".
Yeah, I've notice that too. Any time you don't agree with some liberal person you'll ostracized as "stupid" or a "sheep".
First they came for the Democrats, and I did not complain because I was not a Democrat.
You should know the rest.
Give me a break. This is freedom of speech we're talking about here. And freedom of speech isn't about being able to write a nice, polite opinion piece that's "slightly" against the government stance. They could do that even in the worst times in the USSR. Freedom of speech is about protecting the worst kind of speech - the kind that is flagrantly opposed to the government order, Michael Moore type stuff. Freedom of speech should be restricted only very carefully - "clear and present danger" and all that. It's not "clear and present annoyance". Part of the cost of living in a free society is putting up with people who don't share your views.
If you can only protest "politely", it isn't America anymore. All activists have a right to have their case heard, because one of these years, people like them are going to be right.
Three points for you:
1. liberalism has been declared unconstitutional
2. fucks like me have been put into jail
3. your pride comes through load and clear Mr. AC
S-145.30: it was public property so this statute doesn't apply. read it again. 10-117: fine, got him. but the language of this is so broad that it does, in fact, apply to children drawing hopscotch squares on the street, and it isn't apples and oranges, at least in the eyes of this statute. your beef at the end seems to be with the method of delivery, but these statutes say nothing about that... so it sounds like you want to legislate on the fly, based on a perceived but non-codified distinction. that's not right. S 145.60: he used water soluble chalk, an indication that he was making an effort to do no damage whatsoever, and as such, this does not apply.
I would. And I'm not standing up for his right to vandalize, as I said, I'm glad he got arrested and I think it was correct to arrest him. I also think what he did was morally correct.
Now, would it be within his rights to vandalize if he was saying "Heil Hitler?" No. Should he be arrested in either case? Yes. Is it moral (regardless of whether it is legal or within your rights) to spread a message of "Heil Hitler?" No, it is not. This is why it is important to separate what is moral from what is legal. It is immoral to spread an immoral message. However, it is vital that we not allow the government to determine what a "moral message" is.
I would support his right to spread a message of "Heil Hitler" by legal means, even though I disagree with that message and think it would be wrong to spread it. I also support the morality of this guy spreading his morally correct message by illegal means, even though I don't think he does or should have a legal right to do so.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Not only are you lying, but you didn't RTFA. It all happened in front of a news TV crew, amd he reporter stated how controlled and polite he was. Plus, there were no "cohorts".
You're not only a troll, but a stupid troll. And whoever modded you interesting has no business being a moderator.
(Oh, sure, the reporter lied too, because big media is so antiBush. Spare me).
Actually he wins and so does anyone else who recognizes comparing Bush/Ashcroft to Hitler/Himmler is a complete load of rubbish.
Well, no, because he wasn't actually comparing Bush/Ashcroft to Hitler/Himmler. He was pointing out flaws in the root poster's argument by using the same reasoning to defend the undefendable. "Reductio ad absurdum", I think it's called.
Man, your argument sounded like logic, and looked like logic, but it broke down under the slightest strain. If that is the kind of support Bush gets, no wonder he is destroying the world.
"I'm quite sure that four more years of Bush would suck. But what I'm not sure of is that four years of Kerry wouldn't suck more."
I guess that depends upon your personal goals and values. 4 years of Bush has been very good if you happen to benefit from his tax breaks and such.
If Kerry rolls back the tax cuts on the wealthiest, then 4 years of Kerry would be "worse" for them then 4 more years of Bush.
It isn't like Kerry's voting record is not publicly available.
"Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him."
Let me explain something to you.
Democracy only works when the voters EDUCATE THEMSELVES about the issues.
You want someone to convince you to vote for Kerry. Well, that's very nice for you. But how do you know that what that person tells you is factual?
Unless someone is willing to at least do some minimal pro-Kerry arguing (i.e. "he's mediocre at worst"), then there's really no reason to vote for him.
Well, I'm not pro-Kerry... and, I'm not anti-Bush.
But, I'd vote for anyone but Bush. (Including Saddam if you really want to froth at the mouth... he'd be better for America than Bush, IMHO.)
Why?
Simple.
To restore the checks and balances in the constitution.
Having all of the branches following the same music director has proven to be a very bad idea... it needs to stop.
So, I expect that the republicans will hold the congress... and I'll vote for not-republican in the White House.
And, if someone really bad... like Saddam... was in there, then I believe congress would effectively nuter him... as the president should be.
Actually, if the president veto'd every bill passed by congress...they'd basically have to compromise and pass with a veto proof margin... and congress blocked everything the president did (again by compromising and getting together in a veto proof manner)... we'd probably have the absolute best four years ever.
So... in a way... someone really nasty, like Saddam... would probably give us the best four years of gov't ever. By stalling everything!
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the government from abridging the freedom of speech or the right of peaceable assembly. It does not require either the government or the people to provide a free (as in beer) forum for the exercise of those rights.
the legal definition of "corporation" is given here. it says nothing about a corporation's right to levy taxes or to pass legally binding ordinances. while a city shares many traits of a corporation, it is not a corporation proper, but is a "municipal corporation," and its status under the law is much different than that of other corporations. i'm sure there is a law in place to address what this guy did (in fact, you found it, it's the next in your list!), but this one ain't it. i said nothing about it being okay because it was public property, i just said this particular law doesn't apply.
as for my house and what gets chalked on it, therein lies the distinction. it's MY house. this man did what he did in public space. also, you bring up the definition of damage, so let's run with that: 1.loss of value? nope. it's just chalk, and it washes away. 2.impairment of usefulness? nope, unless it's some crazy kind of chalk i've never seen, you can still walk on it.
as for your point that this is an issue of enforcement, not necessarily letter of the law legality, makes me have two thoughts: first, why have such poorly written laws that their applicability is up to the personal judgement of the guy with the gun? isn't that what codified law is intended to avoid? and second, if a child playing hopscotch outside their home is given wide leeway, why isn't political speech outside of a political convention? it seems to me that this, of all places, is where if it were going to happen, it should happen.
He's a whiner who ducked out of the war early so he could come back and complain about it.
Ducked? How many purple hearts do you have jerkoff? Don't go spewing any of that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth crap either, as most of that has been exposed as politically motivated lies.
And if you'll notice, the vast majority of the country was complaining about the war, so it's not like Kerry is part of some freakish minority.
145.30 applies to advertisements, which are (less-protected) commercial speech.
10-117, as the section title indicates, applies to paint, markers, and etching acid, all *permanent* forms of graffiti.
This is not a commercial advertisement and moreover, it doesn't deface or damage anything. Neither Kinsberg or the hopscotch kids are in violation (technically or otherwise) of the law.
I'm kindof tired of being lumped in with the "anybody but Bush" crowd.
More correctly I'm with the "anybody but a poli-fucking-tician" crowd.
Untrustworthy, lying, scheming, self-agrandizing SOB's the lot of them.
I mean really, my choices are a "c" student and someone who can't be bothered to show up to work?
Cripes! This is supposed to be the greatest country on earth and THIS?!!? is the best we can come up with??? I'd rather vote for the guy who runs the corner store.
Of all of the freedoms that people in the United States of America enjoy, perhaps the freedom of speech is the most important. Of all forms of speech, perhaps the most important is "political speech."
Why? Because if we can't speak out against our government, we can't effect change. We end up with an oppressive government. If there is one right that sets a free country apart it is our right to agree or disagree with those in power. While there are obvious limits to other kinds of speech (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) there really can't be the same kinds of limits to political speech in our free society (with perhaps the exception of slander/libel).
This freedom extends to such unpopular organizations as the KKK - and is what gives them the right to speak their unpopular brand of politics. It extends to every man, woman, and child regardless of their political persuasion and it trumps the rights of others who may disagree (ie the NAACP can not stop the KKK from disseminating their hate, nor can the KKK quell the NAACP from their rights to speak against the KKK).
As I've just demonstrated, the right to political speech can sometimes be uncomfortable but it is the right of every citizen of the United States.
Still, if it can be proven that using degradable, water soluble, organic chalk is a form of vandalism then perhaps the police had a right to detain and confiscate but according to the article that is not what has happened. Right now it seems like the NYC Police are acting as agents for the RNC and simply limiting this man's right to free speech.
That is un-American and unconstitutional! Not to mention unconscionable.
Doesn't compare to Iraq.
Dozens of Americans were killed in Bosnia, and what do we have to show for it? The Europeon countries for whom we took this action -- shed this blood, sacrificed a Cabinet Secretary -- have proven they will not reciprocate. We cannot build or use military facilities in Bosnia.
We have nothing to show for our work in Bosnia. We are left with the conclusion that President Clinton's actions were simply to distract from his dishonorable domestic conduct. Readers are encouraged to rent and view this documentary.
On the other hand, for the cost of a thousand American soldiers (and a hundred billion Iraqi babies!!!), have created an ally in the middle of the Middle East. We have a great big unsinkable aircraft carrier. We have a California-size staging area for further pacifications.
In other words, we have a whole new country to show for our work. Pretty damn impressive!
And the only pinheads who think it was a "distraction" from the War on Terror have not heard of the Abu Nidal Organization or the Salman Pak training camp.
Of the socialist ANO, the Federation of American Scientists says, "Has received considerable support, including safehaven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations." (emphasis added to make it perfectly clear that Iraq supported terrorists) Of special relevance is Libya -- whose capitulation in the War on Terror was a direct result of the action in Iraq.
Like the song says,
If you want a President who kicks ass, vote Republican.
If you want a President who kisses ass, vote Democrat.
If you want a President who is an ass, vote Green.
If you want a President who will let you buy ass, vote Libertarian.
The "news cycle" makes it difficult to get any attention unless you do something novel and/or dangerous. Greenpeace is well known precisely because they are grandstanding nutjobs.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
Yes he is smart. Don't you think this is the best publicity you can get? MSNBC wants to talk to him and wham he's arrested. You can't buy publicity like that. He'll be getting phone calls for weeks and months after this!
Even the arresting officer agreed that this wasn't defacement.
Quote from the article:
"When Kinberg showed the police sergeant how the bicycle used a non-permanent spray chalk, the sergeant seemed to agree that it wasn't defacement, at which point Kinberg asked, "am I free to go?" After conferring about it, officers decided to call superiors, then came back moments later to place Kinberg under arrest and confiscate the bicycle."
And from bikesagainstbush.com:
"Bikes Against Bush will utilize a water-soluble chalk mixture. It is the same material used for marking athletic fields. It is environmentally safe and removes easily with water, or naturally biodegrades within 15-30 days. Thus, while the messages may have the appearance of graffiti, this is certainly not an attempt to damage or deface property."
perl -le 's;;uoli;;$a=length;y;g-w;e-u;;$a--;s;j;$a;;print'
OK, this is quite an interesting subject, and deserves a lot more answer than I have time to give here. As I said, our society is a long way from being ready to do without the concept of private property. Right now, private property is the only way someone can benefit from their labor, and as such it is a necessary part of our society. The thing is, private property is not the only way it is possible, in theory, for a person to benefit from their own labor, that's just the way we do it.
If we were properly organized, that is, if we were organized in small egalitarian groups with strong social bonds (tribes), everyone would benefit from their own labor because everyone's labor would benefit the group, and the good of the group would benefit the individual. There would be no need for private ownership, everyone in the group could collectively "own" and use the resources created by the group.
However, without this kind of organization, in the kind of dog-eat-dog system we have now, private property is essential. So I think we, as a culture, have a lot of growing up to do before we're ready for a non-propertarian system.
However, as to corporate property, I think we could take steps to abolish this now without radically changing our culture. Corporations have only existed for a relatively short time. It would take a lot of work to dismantle them, but I think it's something we can work toward without doing all the hard work of reorganizing our culture that would be necessary to abolish private property completely.
If I create something is it not mine?
Ah, but under the current system, most of the things people create are not theirs, they belong to their employers from the moment of their creation. Indeed, the current system does enormous violence to this basic idea of private property.
But I would put it differently. I would say, "if I make something, should I not benefit in proportion to the value of what I have created?" Absolutely. One of the biggest problems with the current system is that it does not promote that, but instead usually rewards the people who make things far less than the value of what they create, in order to line the pockets of people who didn't create anything. The thing is, I don't think private property is the only way to accomplish this, as I've outlined above.
as a concequence, there may be damage to the reputation of the ideal that any protester wishes to advance, if they use such tactics.
You are quite right, and you have convinced me that spray-painting Starbucks would be a bad idea, not on moral grounds but on tactical ones. It is very important that any act of expression be designed not to offend the majority of the population, otherwise it will have the opposite effect of the one intended. In this light, what this guy did with his chalk is perfect, as most people would not consider that vandalism, and it got him enormous publicity and probably a lot of popular sympathy and support.
Sure they should, there should just NEVER to a seperation of the corporation from the people who own or run said corporation.
But that is equivalent to abolishing corporate property. What you would have is not corporate property, it would be personal property owned jointly by the owners of the corporation. I agree completely that this is the immediate goal we should be working toward. After that, we can go further if possible, but right now, corporations need to be held accountable in a real way for their actions, otherwise we're in big trouble.
we are not a true democracy
Yes, yes, I know, we are technically defined as "a republic with a strong democratic tradition" according to the CIA. However, that strong democratic tradition necessitates having an egalitarian view, rather than an elitist one. I'm just urging you to have more respect for the opinions of others, that's all.
What is jeapordizing our freedoms...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"A child molester lives here" is libel. Try again with something that would violate only the law you're trying to talk about.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
No I mean seriously?
That's the exact fucking quote ya moron
Yes, it's the exact fucking quote, but it is not the complete exact fucking quote. The meaning is significantly changed if you include that snippet in the context of his speech. Heck, you didn't even include his whole sentence!
I'll put the quote here, but it won't do any good, because I suspect you're more interested in hating Bush than in correcting yourself. The quote uttered in Lancaster to a group of Amish was "I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job." Regardless of your opinions on that quote, if you're intellectually honest you have to admit that it implies something very different from your out-of-context snippet.
The quote tells me that Bush believes in God, gains moral strength from believing in God, and trust that he is following Gods will. He most certainly is not claiming to hear voices in his head, as you claim. Instead he's say8ing pretty much what most many Christians do. If your argument against Bush is that he's a Christian, then be honest with yourself and say so. Don't hide being misleading out-of-context quotes.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!