Ah. You make some good points. However, I think we're coming at this from very different perspectives. I view the law of this country as morally illigimate, because I do not believe it was enacted by the people or in their interest. Thus I don't grant the law in and of itself any moral force one way or the other. So if it serves a good purpose to break the law, I say break it.
the desired outcome of protesting is increased public awareness, not cessation of the activity being protested
In this case, you are quite right, of course -- I don't think anyone seriously wants to stop the RNC from actually happening. They just want to express their opinions about it. However, in general, I don't necessarily agree with this. In particular, in the case of logging and other destruction of the environment, many activists have long since given up on increasing public awareness in time to protect the forests from destruction, and have resorted to direct action to try to stop the activity from happening, and I think in many cases this is morally correct.
I guess the difference in our approaches lies in whether you assume you are living in a truly democratic society, or you are being occupied by a totalitarian regime. I assume the latter, of course, and in that case working outside the law is a perfectly acceptable option.
Getting arrested either means 1) the law in the country is too strict, and violates our founding ideals (which is true, for many laws!), and what you were doing *should have* been legal, or 2) you were overstepping your bounds, and protesting in a way that is inappropriate.
In this particular case, I think the former clearly holds. Writing on the sidewalk in chalk to express your political views should definitely be legal. But in general, I think there is another category: things which, though in and of themselves should be illegal, are nonetheless moral to do if they advance a moral cause and are not actually doing voilence to human beings. But I make a very strong distinction between violence against people and violence against property. I don't really care about property all that much (mine or other people's), and if its destruction serves a good purpose, I say go ahead and destroy it.
Heh. Yeah, I get it. But the thing is, as I've discussed with st0rmshad0w, we're not really ready for a total abolishment of private property yet. Until we are, that is, until we are mature enough not to come along and take stuff that other people need and are using (and I don't have much stuff, by the way, you could fit it all into a couple of suitcases, and this computer is the most valuable thing I own), then we need the concept of private property.
Likewise. At first I thought you were just some flamer, but you've turned out to be quite coherent. Indeed, I think we've come close enough to consensus for all practical purposes: we agree that megacorps are the problem, and that their powers should be limited and they should be held accountable. If we can accomplish that much, it will be a great thing, and then we can talk about where to go from there.
Such a system would require a vast overhaul in ours and possibly the world's economy as well I think.
Definitely. That's why I say it would take a lot of work. And not only on the technological and economic levels. People in our culture are not equipped to deal with a non-heirarchical system. I know, I've been involved in attempts to form them. The problem is, authoriarian habits die hard, and people fall to bickering over the usual power games. It's sad, really. We have a lot of work to do. And we don't have a lot of time.
the business does well, the employees reap that reward. Or at least that used to be the way it was.
I think some companies have been like this at some times, in the cooler segments of the economy. But there has always been horrible exploitation as well, from the early sweatshops here in the US, to modern sweatshops in the third world. For the most part, we have exported our effective slave class, but that doesn't make it right. And as you say, these kinds of benifits are rapidly disappearing even in the tech industries, which used to be pretty good from an employee standpoint, certainly nothing near as bad as manufacturing or service.
The problem is, I think the corporation as we have created it is inherently anti-human, because it is a kind of artificial life-form which exists in this abstract space of profits and resources, and humans are just another resource. The market forces corps to purchase their resources at the lowest price they can get, and get as much profit out of them for the least expense. It's built into the system.
respect is earned, and an opinion blindly held without any examination or forethought is a dangerous thing.
OK, I agree with you there. There is a general movement among the more educated within the protest movement to educate their less well-informed collegues, and I think this is a good thing. But some people are just reacting from gut feeling, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes your gut thinks better than your head.
people as a whole are fairly easy to manipulate
I don't know about easy, but it can be done. Actually, the PR industry has put enormous time, effort and money into learning to manipulate people, and they have succeded to such an extent that it probably looks easy at this point, but they had to put a lot of work into it. It was recognized early on that a democratic system causes enormous problems for industrial capitalism, because if you give the people power, pretty soon they're going to want a fair share of the profits, and then how will the elite afford their lavish lifestyles? How will they control the "bewildered herd?" So vast amounts of effort were expended to create the current system of manipulation, and it was done very well indeed. Read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky for more info on this fascinating subject.
This particular action? I disagree. I think he's getting a lot of popular sympathy on this, and with good reason. He is being held without charges. Doesn't this make a statement about the suppression of dissent?
The only reason someone truly practicing the ideals of civil disobedience would get arrested for spraying chalk on sidewalks is if they were protesting laws against spraying chalk on sidewalks.
You make good points, and I agree in general. I'm willing to concede that CD should have some point other than just getting arrested.
However, in this particular case, if you take a slightly broader view, this still counts as CD. Look at it this way: the guy is not protesting against laws about spraying chalk on sidewalks, he is protesting against the suppression of dissent. Most people who write on the sidewalk in chalk are not arrested. That this guy was arrested is not necessarily a reflection of the law, it is part of a deliberate program to suppress, criminalize, and marginalize dissent. So this guy's arrest can be seen as CD against that campaign, not against laws about chalk per se.
OK, OK, good point, and I'll give in on this one. It's not exactly in the original spirit of civil disobedience. Nonetheless, in this case, it was quite effective and well executed, and I salute the guy.
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.
if your act of CD is only effective through arrest, it wasn't properly planned: the powers-that-be can simply ignore you.
This is a great point, and I hadn't thought of it. You are quite right about the necessity of forcing the system into a lose/lose situation, which I think this guy has done an admirable job of doing.
frame the Bush gang as a bunch of radicals
I understand the sense in which you are using the word, but I'm going to make a play on it: you can't frame someone for a crime they have in fact committed.
For the RNC, I find the strategic objective rather weak
I think the point is simply mobilization for mobilization's sake. There is no chance the Republicans are going to actually be affected by the protests. However, it's a good excuse to make a lot of noise and let people know that a lot of people object to Republican policy. OTOH, there's a good case to be made that the RNC is a trap. Norman Mailer quoted Trotsky on this: "'some questions, once asked, answer themselves,' and the question we need to ask is, why did the Republicans pick New York?"
The trick, then, is not to walk into the trap: to protest in non-violent ways that will not turn public opinion against the protestors, and still get the message out. So far people seem to be doing a good job of this, and Kinberg is a good example.
I withdraw my earlier suggestion that he should have used permanent marker. That would have been far less effective than this, which everyone will recognize as pretty innocuous, yet got him arrested anyway. I'm still glad he was arrested, though (as long as he doesn't get raped in jail, which I don't think is too likely), it makes a fantastic publicity stunt.
Definitely, at least in the positive sense. You would be free to live without being dependent on the system. This is also my goal.
Unfortunately, as you point out, we would still not have negative liberty, that is, we would not be free from oppression, violence etc. In order to do that, we're going to have to completely dismantle both state and corporate power, and that's a tough nut to crack. You have to tackle it one step at a time, and I think getting the current admin out of office is an important step that we can and should take right now.
Try that sh*t on my property and you'll be pulling back a bloody stump and find that marker in a very uncomfortable place.
I suppose that's your idea of a proportional response, is it? Do you shoot kids who play on your lawn too?
OK, kidding aside, you make some valid points, so I'll address them.
People generally work pretty hard for the things they own, even harder for the things they make or build.
Though I don't recognize the legitimacy of private property, particularly corporate property (if it was me, I would have spray-painted the message on Starbucks windows), I do recognize the value of labor, so this is a legitimate point. However, it's simply a matter of relative value. At this point, denouncing the Bush admin is more important than the labor it takes to repaint a building or whatever.
Now, we can argue tactics if you want, you can say this is not an effective means of denouncing the administration and you may be right. However, in terms of moral justification, I say sacrificing the paint job on a few buildings is a small price to pay to spread an anti-Bush message. If you want the guy to do the work to repaint afterward, I think that would be fair.
It's called "civil" disobedience for a reason.
Actually, this is a common misconception. The word "civil" in this case refers to disobedience to "civil authority," not to being polite or respectful or anything like that. Civil disobedience is often what some would consider "uncivil" in the sense of being rude or socially inappropriate.
As for books, I would recommend "The Disposessed" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.
If you're going to get arrested for an act of civil disobedience you'd better be getting arrested for breaking the law you oppose to get it contested
I addressed this earlier. I think it would indeed be better to accomplish a dual purpose, by breaking an immoral law at the same time. For that purpose, I would recommend defacing only corporate property, as I definitely think the laws protecting corporate "personhood" are immoral and should be abolished, and corporations should definitely not be allowed to own property. When it comes to personal property, the issue is much trickier, and our society is not remotely ready to do away with the concept of personal property, so maybe spray-painting people's houses would be a bit out of line.
9 out of 10 of these political protest idiots are stupid sheeple
This I really object to. It is this sort of condecending, elitist, anti-democratic attitude which is really jeapordizing what little liberty we have left in this country. Perhaps some of the protestors are not educated to your standards. But I assure you, there are plenty of principled and well-thought-out reasons to protest aginst Bush, so I would advise looking closely before you assume someone's opinion is uninformed. Some people are a lot smarter than they look.
Depends on which jail, and under what circumstances. Rape is not usually very common in county jails. I've personally spent two weeks in the Miami-Dade county jail, one of the worst jails in Florida, which is saying a lot, and I wasn't molested. Actually, the guys in there were really cool. Prison is much worse, of course, but if you don't fuck with anybody, keep to yourself, and make it clear that you won't take any shit, you'll usually be fine.
At the moment, I'm on probation, so getting arrested for a misdemeanor would get me several years in prison. However, if it weren't for that, I'd probably be spending the night in jail in NYC tonight.
so you don't want complete anarchy...but you want to regularly apply a sledgehammer to the system to make sure things don't clump together too much?
Mmmmm... sort of. I don't advocate drastic revolutionary changes, though we are working under a deadline at this point (the system as it is will render this planet uninhabitable via soil depletion sometime in the fairly near future). And ulimately, I do want "complete anarchy," which I would simply take to mean complete lack of government and concentrated power. However, I am definitely in favor of people organizing themselves in a democratic and egalitarian manner to provide for the common good. That's not government, that's what's called "civil society" and I'm all for it.
I don't know about applying sledghammers. Society is a delicate system, and it would be better to use more subtle tools.
What I really want to see is small organizations of libertarian individuals taking control of their own lives and their means of sustainance, and working to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate all forms of concentrated power. In my view, the best route toward this is permaculture.
I'm not on either side. I'm against the Dems and the Reps. But I'm against the Reps more, because I view them as a slightly greater threat to liberty and justice than the Dems.
how can a libertarian be a socialist? lib == system runs wild doing whatever. soc == people in dc run wild making the system do whatever
This is a common misconception. Look up Libertarian Socialism in Wiki. Socialism is not equivalent to totalitarianism. Socialism is the principle that the workers should control the means of production, in particular, and that society should be organized to provide for the common good, in general. Historically, this idea has typically been implemented through government control of the means of production and various forms of statist or authoritarian socialism, which in my view is even worse than capitalism, being simply a form of totalitarianism.
Libertarian socialists believe that society should be organized to provide for the common good from the bottom up, rather than the usual top-down approach of big government and mega corporations. I support small collectives and cooperateves, and am against any form of large organization or concentration of power.
I wonder how many Slashdot armchair lawyers would stand up for this bum's "rights" to vandalize if his message had been "Heil Hitler!" instead.
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.
you are allowed to protest the current government without fear of being arrested
Mmmm.... well, to be precise, you are allowed to protest against the current government in a legal manner without being arrested. Would you expect to be arrested if you, for example, were to murder a public official as a means of protest against the government?
Protesting by legal means is fine, and people should not be arrested for that. In my view, protesting by illegal (but still moral) means is also fine, and people should be arrested for it as part of the proper use of the technique.
The point of civil disobedience is to change laws that you think are unjust, by disobeying them publicly and making your reasons known.
This is a good point. However, I also think civil disobedience can be used constructively to protest against the government and systems of authority in general, not just specific laws. I mean, sure, I'd be even more in favor of smoking pot in public as a method of protest, as you'd be killing two birds with one stoner, if you will. But I doubt that would get much publicity.
People who, for example, break traffic laws as a means of protest are not protesting against the traffic laws, they are using that as a means of making a statement against the system of authority in general. Suppose that, like me, you view all forms of concentrated power and authority as illigitimate. Then breaking any law is a form of civil disobedience, provided it does not violate your moral principles. Writing on the sidewalk in chalk does not violate my moral principles, and others have pointed out that children are allowed to get away with this all the time.
I'm not saying writing on other people's property should be legal. I'm saying that it should be illegal, and people should be arrested for it. However, I think that using nonviolent illegal means to express your opinion is a perfectly legitimate form of civil disobedience.
I'm glad he got arrested. And this is coming from somebody who not only supports his message and his methods, but thinks he should have done it in permanent marker all over the place, including on private property.
What's the point of civil disobedience if you don't get arrested for it? The whole idea is to get arrested to get publicity for your message and to put a stress on the system. Would any of us have heard of this if he hadn't been arrested? If he's really committed to his cause, spending a few nights in jail should be a small price to pay for this kind of publicity.
You're forgetting the all important third option: Record/Pirate movie for non-personal non-profit distribution.
Quite so. However, the act of distributing it (for profit or not) is a separate act from the act of recording it. If they want to make that a separate crime with its own punishment, that might make sense. Three years in prison for the act of recording it alone, regardless of the purpose, doesn't make sense.
Well, movie pirates likewise cause millions in economic damage
They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
On the other hand, this is an excellent example of targeting a niche market. There are those whose values would lead them to buy something like this, and by catering to that market, you are pretty much guaranteed a customer base. Just because your market is small doesn't mean you can't be successful, especially in a niche where there isn't much competition.
If I could afford one at the moment, I would put myself on the list right now. Next time I'm in the market for a car, I'll probably buy one, or something very similar.
Slashdot Mirror
the desired outcome of protesting is increased public awareness, not cessation of the activity being protested
In this case, you are quite right, of course -- I don't think anyone seriously wants to stop the RNC from actually happening. They just want to express their opinions about it. However, in general, I don't necessarily agree with this. In particular, in the case of logging and other destruction of the environment, many activists have long since given up on increasing public awareness in time to protect the forests from destruction, and have resorted to direct action to try to stop the activity from happening, and I think in many cases this is morally correct.
I guess the difference in our approaches lies in whether you assume you are living in a truly democratic society, or you are being occupied by a totalitarian regime. I assume the latter, of course, and in that case working outside the law is a perfectly acceptable option.
Getting arrested either means 1) the law in the country is too strict, and violates our founding ideals (which is true, for many laws!), and what you were doing *should have* been legal, or 2) you were overstepping your bounds, and protesting in a way that is inappropriate.
In this particular case, I think the former clearly holds. Writing on the sidewalk in chalk to express your political views should definitely be legal. But in general, I think there is another category: things which, though in and of themselves should be illegal, are nonetheless moral to do if they advance a moral cause and are not actually doing voilence to human beings. But I make a very strong distinction between violence against people and violence against property. I don't really care about property all that much (mine or other people's), and if its destruction serves a good purpose, I say go ahead and destroy it.
Because the speech itself is more important than the property it's written on.
Yeah, I disagree with that, I think you made some good points as I said.
resident of occupied north america
Right on, man! This reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers: "US out of North America! Nobody for President in 2004!"
Heh. Yeah, I get it. But the thing is, as I've discussed with st0rmshad0w, we're not really ready for a total abolishment of private property yet. Until we are, that is, until we are mature enough not to come along and take stuff that other people need and are using (and I don't have much stuff, by the way, you could fit it all into a couple of suitcases, and this computer is the most valuable thing I own), then we need the concept of private property.
Likewise. At first I thought you were just some flamer, but you've turned out to be quite coherent. Indeed, I think we've come close enough to consensus for all practical purposes: we agree that megacorps are the problem, and that their powers should be limited and they should be held accountable. If we can accomplish that much, it will be a great thing, and then we can talk about where to go from there.
Such a system would require a vast overhaul in ours and possibly the world's economy as well I think.
Definitely. That's why I say it would take a lot of work. And not only on the technological and economic levels. People in our culture are not equipped to deal with a non-heirarchical system. I know, I've been involved in attempts to form them. The problem is, authoriarian habits die hard, and people fall to bickering over the usual power games. It's sad, really. We have a lot of work to do. And we don't have a lot of time.
the business does well, the employees reap that reward. Or at least that used to be the way it was.
I think some companies have been like this at some times, in the cooler segments of the economy. But there has always been horrible exploitation as well, from the early sweatshops here in the US, to modern sweatshops in the third world. For the most part, we have exported our effective slave class, but that doesn't make it right. And as you say, these kinds of benifits are rapidly disappearing even in the tech industries, which used to be pretty good from an employee standpoint, certainly nothing near as bad as manufacturing or service.
The problem is, I think the corporation as we have created it is inherently anti-human, because it is a kind of artificial life-form which exists in this abstract space of profits and resources, and humans are just another resource. The market forces corps to purchase their resources at the lowest price they can get, and get as much profit out of them for the least expense. It's built into the system.
respect is earned, and an opinion blindly held without any examination or forethought is a dangerous thing.
OK, I agree with you there. There is a general movement among the more educated within the protest movement to educate their less well-informed collegues, and I think this is a good thing. But some people are just reacting from gut feeling, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, sometimes your gut thinks better than your head.
people as a whole are fairly easy to manipulate
I don't know about easy, but it can be done. Actually, the PR industry has put enormous time, effort and money into learning to manipulate people, and they have succeded to such an extent that it probably looks easy at this point, but they had to put a lot of work into it. It was recognized early on that a democratic system causes enormous problems for industrial capitalism, because if you give the people power, pretty soon they're going to want a fair share of the profits, and then how will the elite afford their lavish lifestyles? How will they control the "bewildered herd?" So vast amounts of effort were expended to create the current system of manipulation, and it was done very well indeed. Read "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chomsky for more info on this fascinating subject.
This particular action? I disagree. I think he's getting a lot of popular sympathy on this, and with good reason. He is being held without charges. Doesn't this make a statement about the suppression of dissent?
You make good points, and I agree in general. I'm willing to concede that CD should have some point other than just getting arrested.
However, in this particular case, if you take a slightly broader view, this still counts as CD. Look at it this way: the guy is not protesting against laws about spraying chalk on sidewalks, he is protesting against the suppression of dissent. Most people who write on the sidewalk in chalk are not arrested. That this guy was arrested is not necessarily a reflection of the law, it is part of a deliberate program to suppress, criminalize, and marginalize dissent. So this guy's arrest can be seen as CD against that campaign, not against laws about chalk per se.
OK, OK, good point, and I'll give in on this one. It's not exactly in the original spirit of civil disobedience. Nonetheless, in this case, it was quite effective and well executed, and I salute the guy.
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...
This is a great point, and I hadn't thought of it. You are quite right about the necessity of forcing the system into a lose/lose situation, which I think this guy has done an admirable job of doing.
frame the Bush gang as a bunch of radicals
I understand the sense in which you are using the word, but I'm going to make a play on it: you can't frame someone for a crime they have in fact committed.
For the RNC, I find the strategic objective rather weak
I think the point is simply mobilization for mobilization's sake. There is no chance the Republicans are going to actually be affected by the protests. However, it's a good excuse to make a lot of noise and let people know that a lot of people object to Republican policy. OTOH, there's a good case to be made that the RNC is a trap. Norman Mailer quoted Trotsky on this: "'some questions, once asked, answer themselves,' and the question we need to ask is, why did the Republicans pick New York?"
The trick, then, is not to walk into the trap: to protest in non-violent ways that will not turn public opinion against the protestors, and still get the message out. So far people seem to be doing a good job of this, and Kinberg is a good example.
I withdraw my earlier suggestion that he should have used permanent marker. That would have been far less effective than this, which everyone will recognize as pretty innocuous, yet got him arrested anyway. I'm still glad he was arrested, though (as long as he doesn't get raped in jail, which I don't think is too likely), it makes a fantastic publicity stunt.
Definitely, at least in the positive sense. You would be free to live without being dependent on the system. This is also my goal.
Unfortunately, as you point out, we would still not have negative liberty, that is, we would not be free from oppression, violence etc. In order to do that, we're going to have to completely dismantle both state and corporate power, and that's a tough nut to crack. You have to tackle it one step at a time, and I think getting the current admin out of office is an important step that we can and should take right now.
I suppose that's your idea of a proportional response, is it? Do you shoot kids who play on your lawn too?
OK, kidding aside, you make some valid points, so I'll address them.
People generally work pretty hard for the things they own, even harder for the things they make or build.
Though I don't recognize the legitimacy of private property, particularly corporate property (if it was me, I would have spray-painted the message on Starbucks windows), I do recognize the value of labor, so this is a legitimate point. However, it's simply a matter of relative value. At this point, denouncing the Bush admin is more important than the labor it takes to repaint a building or whatever.
Now, we can argue tactics if you want, you can say this is not an effective means of denouncing the administration and you may be right. However, in terms of moral justification, I say sacrificing the paint job on a few buildings is a small price to pay to spread an anti-Bush message. If you want the guy to do the work to repaint afterward, I think that would be fair.
It's called "civil" disobedience for a reason.
Actually, this is a common misconception. The word "civil" in this case refers to disobedience to "civil authority," not to being polite or respectful or anything like that. Civil disobedience is often what some would consider "uncivil" in the sense of being rude or socially inappropriate.
As for books, I would recommend "The Disposessed" by Ursula K. LeGuin, and "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn.
If you're going to get arrested for an act of civil disobedience you'd better be getting arrested for breaking the law you oppose to get it contested
I addressed this earlier. I think it would indeed be better to accomplish a dual purpose, by breaking an immoral law at the same time. For that purpose, I would recommend defacing only corporate property, as I definitely think the laws protecting corporate "personhood" are immoral and should be abolished, and corporations should definitely not be allowed to own property. When it comes to personal property, the issue is much trickier, and our society is not remotely ready to do away with the concept of personal property, so maybe spray-painting people's houses would be a bit out of line.
9 out of 10 of these political protest idiots are stupid sheeple
This I really object to. It is this sort of condecending, elitist, anti-democratic attitude which is really jeapordizing what little liberty we have left in this country. Perhaps some of the protestors are not educated to your standards. But I assure you, there are plenty of principled and well-thought-out reasons to protest aginst Bush, so I would advise looking closely before you assume someone's opinion is uninformed. Some people are a lot smarter than they look.
Hey, man, if you want to write anti-bush slogans on my stuff, go right ahead. ;-)
BTW, thanks for the link, very useful. I agree that prison rape is a huge problem. However, I think this dude will probably be just fine.
At the moment, I'm on probation, so getting arrested for a misdemeanor would get me several years in prison. However, if it weren't for that, I'd probably be spending the night in jail in NYC tonight.
Mmmmm... sort of. I don't advocate drastic revolutionary changes, though we are working under a deadline at this point (the system as it is will render this planet uninhabitable via soil depletion sometime in the fairly near future). And ulimately, I do want "complete anarchy," which I would simply take to mean complete lack of government and concentrated power. However, I am definitely in favor of people organizing themselves in a democratic and egalitarian manner to provide for the common good. That's not government, that's what's called "civil society" and I'm all for it.
I don't know about applying sledghammers. Society is a delicate system, and it would be better to use more subtle tools.
What I really want to see is small organizations of libertarian individuals taking control of their own lives and their means of sustainance, and working to gradually reduce and eventually eliminate all forms of concentrated power. In my view, the best route toward this is permaculture.
I'm not on either side. I'm against the Dems and the Reps. But I'm against the Reps more, because I view them as a slightly greater threat to liberty and justice than the Dems.
how can a libertarian be a socialist? lib == system runs wild doing whatever. soc == people in dc run wild making the system do whatever
This is a common misconception. Look up Libertarian Socialism in Wiki. Socialism is not equivalent to totalitarianism. Socialism is the principle that the workers should control the means of production, in particular, and that society should be organized to provide for the common good, in general. Historically, this idea has typically been implemented through government control of the means of production and various forms of statist or authoritarian socialism, which in my view is even worse than capitalism, being simply a form of totalitarianism.
Libertarian socialists believe that society should be organized to provide for the common good from the bottom up, rather than the usual top-down approach of big government and mega corporations. I support small collectives and cooperateves, and am against any form of large organization or concentration of power.
Yes, I do. Actually to be precise, I'm a Libertarian Socialist, or "Left Anarchist."
Any other easy questions?
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.
Mmmm.... well, to be precise, you are allowed to protest against the current government in a legal manner without being arrested. Would you expect to be arrested if you, for example, were to murder a public official as a means of protest against the government?
Protesting by legal means is fine, and people should not be arrested for that. In my view, protesting by illegal (but still moral) means is also fine, and people should be arrested for it as part of the proper use of the technique.
This is a good point. However, I also think civil disobedience can be used constructively to protest against the government and systems of authority in general, not just specific laws. I mean, sure, I'd be even more in favor of smoking pot in public as a method of protest, as you'd be killing two birds with one stoner, if you will. But I doubt that would get much publicity.
People who, for example, break traffic laws as a means of protest are not protesting against the traffic laws, they are using that as a means of making a statement against the system of authority in general. Suppose that, like me, you view all forms of concentrated power and authority as illigitimate. Then breaking any law is a form of civil disobedience, provided it does not violate your moral principles. Writing on the sidewalk in chalk does not violate my moral principles, and others have pointed out that children are allowed to get away with this all the time.
I'm not saying writing on other people's property should be legal. I'm saying that it should be illegal, and people should be arrested for it. However, I think that using nonviolent illegal means to express your opinion is a perfectly legitimate form of civil disobedience.
What's the point of civil disobedience if you don't get arrested for it? The whole idea is to get arrested to get publicity for your message and to put a stress on the system. Would any of us have heard of this if he hadn't been arrested? If he's really committed to his cause, spending a few nights in jail should be a small price to pay for this kind of publicity.
Quite so. However, the act of distributing it (for profit or not) is a separate act from the act of recording it. If they want to make that a separate crime with its own punishment, that might make sense. Three years in prison for the act of recording it alone, regardless of the purpose, doesn't make sense.
They do. But this law would give you up to three years in prison even if you don't do it for profit. While many people stealing movies for personal use may collectively cause millions in economic damage, individually you have only cost a few bucks. So the punishment should fit the crime, that is, it should only be worth a few bucks, not millions.
If somebody pirates a movie for profit and makes millions themselves, I can see this argument holding and requiring a stiff sentence. But for individual pirates stealing for personal use, it's just insane.
If I could afford one at the moment, I would put myself on the list right now. Next time I'm in the market for a car, I'll probably buy one, or something very similar.