On Recent Protests

a reply to: Indrasweb




Not for nothing but while I was reading that I heard the voice of Sargon of Akkad! I thoroughly enjoy the classical liberal perspective thus why I refuse to refer to Progressives as Liberals. I actually agree with many things of the Classical Liberal ideology. Hate to categorize so much, but this appears to be where identity politics has lead us. Way too many tribes willing to go to war for not getting things their way.

Reading the replies here, I've condensed most of the objections into a few categories, which I will address here.

1. The rule of law means that there is never any justification for violence, no matter how the protesters feel.
Legally this is absolutely true. There is no law that allows anyone to simply "exit" the boundaries of civil society and resort to violence. Such a law would be preposterous, of course. Of course these protests are illegal the moment they turn violent or damaging. But I'm not talking about legality, I'm talking about human nature, justice, and natural rights. The law itself only corresponds to justice as long as those in charge of writing and enforcing that law adhere to the spirit of democratic self-rule. When someone loses the ability to influence their own government, whether it is because they have been cast out based on sex or race or religion, or because they cannot afford to buy the attention of their representatives, or for some other reason, they are no longer morally obligated to follow the law. While their actions may at that point diverge from the laws being passed and enforced, that does not necessarily mean their actions are immoral. Plenty of people smoke marijuana despite how illegal it is, for example, and they are not usually decried as moral degenerates. So whether or not a protest turned violent is immoral is not decided by "the law", but by whether or not those protesters have been so disenfranchised from their government that destroying property is the only way to express their natural political rights. Personally I would argue there are still more constructive ways to do that, and indeed these protests or "riots" are not nearly as violent as the media pretends they are, and there is plenty of evidence that most of this property destruction is actually being instigated by outside agitators and not by legitimate protesters.

2. There is no evidence that these particular protesters have been "silenced" by the current administration.
I did not write the OP as some kind of anti-Trump rant. That isn't what this is at all. Trump is Trump, the administration is what it is. It could be argued that the administration's aversion to facts and science broadcast their intention to turn on and oppress anyone who disagrees with their narrative. This is what protesters are responding to now, but it isn't only this. There has been plenty of exclusion, disenfranchisement, and oppression to go around for decades. Trump's presidency is only one more straw on the camel's back. We have in this country an epidemic of corrupt gerrymandering that works to remove the power of the people to choose their representatives. We have and overtly unfair justice system that targets racial minorities and the poor at outrageously disproportionate rates. These are not problems that began with Trump, but they have fostered an environment where ever slighter provocations from the State are likely to induce chaos, because the unfettered power of our government can be used with impunity.

3. I am "advocating" for the destruction of property as a means to achieve my political ends.
No, I'm not. I don't want my own home burned down or looted any more than anyone else does. I'm only recognizing that protests and riots tend to be the result of denying entire classes of citizens the right, or the opportunity, to participate in their own government. When people are disengaged because the hurdles between them and participation have been raised higher than they can reasonably jump, their political voice does not just evaporate. When we tell people who have no time or money to go to the DMV and get a photo ID that they must do so in order to vote, and then close the nearest DMV to their house anyway, they don't just magically stop having political opinions. When we pass laws in the middle of the night with no announcement, and no period for public inquiry and comment, people don't just stop having political opinions. The people will only abide so much smoke and mirrors before they exercise those rights that the government has tried to stymie. When the pressure of these opinions reaches a critical mass, it doesn't take much to tap into it. So I'm not saying any of this is "good" or "justified". I'm saying this is what happens when you exclude people as a matter of natural law. You can't pretend to be surprised.

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: vexati0n
You are wrong. Every small person rich or poor has had their moment where their voices are heard. I mean everybody who chooses to. It's called Democracy and your time to influence this Democracy was the time you put your mark on a piece of paper (or however you did it).

The US isn't a Democracy (otherwise the popular vote would have counted and Clinton would be President.) It's a representative Republic (remember the phrase in the pledge ... "and to the Republic for which it stands".)

originally posted by: vexati0n
So I'm not saying any of this is "good" or "justified". I'm saying this is what happens when you exclude people as a matter of natural law. You can't pretend to be surprised.

Bull.

Again.

You're justifying it by means of "natural law".

Can you show me who enacted natural law?

Natural law is a made-up bullspit term to justify violence because someone got butthurt.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: vexati0n
So I'm not saying any of this is "good" or "justified". I'm saying this is what happens when you exclude people as a matter of natural law. You can't pretend to be surprised.

Bull.

Again.

You're justifying it by means of "natural law".

Can you show me who enacted natural law?

Natural law is a made-up bullspit term to justify violence because someone got butthurt.

It's called Classical Liberalism and it's the philosophy that the Founding Fathers used as the foundation of our entire system of government. Think about it in these terms, as quoted from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

They are saying, quite literally, that human beings are endowed with natural rights that predate any government. Government neither grants these rights, nor can it destroy them. They are natural. "Governments are instituted among men" to protect these rights. The entire basis of our government revolves around this belief. This is what I'm talking about.

a reply to: vexati0n

No. You're twisting definitions to support/defend violence.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: vexati0n

Personally I would never waste my time protesting as there are too many more intellectual options available to people to work towards their goals. I consider protesters to be mindless zombies.

Oh really? A waste of time? Mindless zombies?

January 30, 2017 inside the Montana State Capitol:
FYI, this protest helped defeat H.R 621. linky


Protesting can, and does work, when the objective is narrowly defined and all the participants are united for the same cause.
These daily city protests/riots are an amalgamation of the disaffected, with no concise vision or objective, except their loathing of Trump and pals. They will not change anything for the better, IMO.


ETA: OP, beautifully written post. Thank you.

a reply to: vexati0n



Let's get this done.

"All of it began when some of you who knew better and are old enough to know better let young people think that they had the right to choose the laws that they would obey as long as it was in the name of social protest."

originally posted by: vexati0n

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: vexati0n
So I'm not saying any of this is "good" or "justified". I'm saying this is what happens when you exclude people as a matter of natural law. You can't pretend to be surprised.

Bull.

Again.

You're justifying it by means of "natural law".

Can you show me who enacted natural law?

Natural law is a made-up bullspit term to justify violence because someone got butthurt.

It's called Classical Liberalism and it's the philosophy that the Founding Fathers used as the foundation of our entire system of government. Think about it in these terms, as quoted from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...

They are saying, quite literally, that human beings are endowed with natural rights that predate any government. Government neither grants these rights, nor can it destroy them. They are natural. "Governments are instituted among men" to protect these rights. The entire basis of our government revolves around this belief. This is what I'm talking about.

So please show me where the founders of the country recognized the "natural right" of people to destroy property and interfere with the rights of others to peaceable assembly, free speech and going about the business of living their lives?

I'm a liberal libertarian. I think my rights end when they begin impinging on your rights. If I want to protest some proposal by my government, I have the right to assemble peaceably with others of like minds to present our opposition to Proposal X. I've found that the peaceable protests often have far more positive effects than any riotous protest. Especially on a local level.
In order to promote the actions you want from your representatives, you must address your representatives. What good is it to clog up the process at an airport when the poor people working at the airport or just trying to get from point A to point B have nothing whatsoever to do with the thing you're protesting? Do you gain followers by such a move or do you just get everyone whose rights you've impinged even more ticked off at you?

I live just outside a small town (less than 30k) where most of the voters know the people they're pulling the lever for at voting time. A few years ago a bunch of them who had held office for far too long decided that laws were written for people who just didn't know how to get around them. They assumed that we the people would go along with whatever they proposed because we'd elected them time and time again.

They decided to enact a tax that had no stated purpose, no end date. They told us it was needed to pay for the local jail to be "updated" because the Feds had told them that the jail was inadequate. Now it's a wonderful thing to be concerned with the welfare of prisoners. They shouldn't be ill treated. But the fact of the matter was that they saw a way to enact a tax that would go on forever and was illegal according to state statutes. When questioned, they wrung their hands and claimed they had no choice.

But when 300 of us showed up at the next meeting of body we got their attention. We didn't have any pre-printed signs or t-shirts. We didn't yell and scream. We didn't break anything except the record for public attendance at a meeting of this body.

They called in the newspaper and the had them print, on the front page, "Local group seeks to overthrow county government." Now all we'd done was to ask them politely to follow state statutes in passing this law, that is, tell us what the money is to be spent for and when the tax will end. Their little play for sympathy backfired on them big time when they called the 300 who showed up for the meeting, "a small group of fringe voters." The 300 turned into 500 at the next meeting, another new record for attendance---and since they'd had the newspaper bring up the "overthrow" of the government, we did address that issue and some of us promised the body that we would spend the next two years, until the next election, finding people who believed that elected officials were subject to the same laws as the electorate.

It took filing a lawsuit and winning it and two long hard years of work but at the next election, we had an entirely new county government. Because people protested. In a peaceful manner. Because people woke up and realized that we must pay attention to who is holding office. It took the help of the State Auditor and Attorney General to root out the corruption but it was all done without violence or property damage.

Doing it the legal way is hard. Hard work. It takes a lot more time and effort than simply lighting stuff on fire and acting like a five year-old who's been told NO. Most people aren't willing to put that much work into a protest movement. Most people don't have the time or the money to do so.

You have the right peaceful assembly. If in that peaceful assembly you want to be rude to others, scream vulgarities at passersby, and generally make yourself look like a nincompoop, I doubt you'll gain any followers other than a few nutcases.

As my Granny used to say, "Being kind costs you nothing but pays great dividends."

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: vexati0n
So I'm not saying any of this is "good" or "justified". I'm saying this is what happens when you exclude people as a matter of natural law. You can't pretend to be surprised.

Bull.

Again.

You're justifying it by means of "natural law".

Can you show me who enacted natural law?

Natural law is a made-up bullspit term to justify violence because someone got butthurt.

Nope.

You are over-reacting. Peaceful protest works. It is how the women got the vote. Look up what happened 100 years ago when women risked prison to stand in front of the White House with signs. Here's a place to start to learn about the Silent Sentinels. en.wikipedia.org...

But as you will see from reading about this movement, it wasn't easy and it wasn't quick. The violence came from the authorities who wished to keep women from having a say in the government to which they were subject.

a reply to: vexati0n

2. There is no evidence that these particular protesters have been "silenced" by the current administration.

I did not write the OP as some kind of anti-Trump rant. That isn't what this is at all. Trump is Trump, the administration is what it is. It could be argued that the administration's aversion to facts and science broadcast their intention to turn on and oppress anyone who disagrees with their narrative. This is what protesters are responding to now, but it isn't only this. There has been plenty of exclusion, disenfranchisement, and oppression to go around for decades. Trump's presidency is only one more straw on the camel's back. We have in this country an epidemic of corrupt gerrymandering that works to remove the power of the people to choose their representatives. We have and overtly unfair justice system that targets racial minorities and the poor at outrageously disproportionate rates. These are not problems that began with Trump, but they have fostered an environment where ever slighter provocations from the State are likely to induce chaos, because the unfettered power of our government can be used with impunity.

Once again your're begging the question that these "protesters" are excluded from the process, as you stated in the OP.

If people cannot vote; if they cannot reach their representatives; if they cannot participate in the system; then, they will participate outside of the system. This is where civil unrest comes from. It is not "a bunch of crybabies who can't deal with the fact they lost."

Yet you will not provide example nor evidence of anyone being unable to participate in the system, that they cannot vote, that they cannot reach their representatives. All you have to do is point to any group of protesters who have been inflicted with this tyranny, and your point that this is the reason of their protests, their civil unrest, could very well be warranted.

But there is far more evidence that this is not the case, and in fact it it is a bunch of crybabies who can't deal with the fact they lost.

Not all groups of protesters are the same. Some are simply examples of a tyranny of the mob.

a reply to: diggindirt

Don't confuse peaceful protest with attempted murder and destruction of property.

It makes you look silly.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm not the one who is confused. I've condemned violence and vandalism at every opportunity.

Maybe you've had too much SuperBowl joy or pain. To say that Natural Law is some "made-up" idea, made up in the modern era, is confused since it is one of the basic tenets of the Declaration. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were deemed to be unalienable rights---rights that governments are instituted to protect---not instituted to impinge.

Later, the founders decided to add several other rights, speech, press, assembly, etc. to the list they considered worth protecting with their lives and property.

Just to be clear here, Vex is also confused if he/she thinks that natural rights include the right to practice violence and vandalism. For those beliefs you'd have to go back to the time when people believed in the divine right of monarchs. And you'd have to be one of the chosen few, the "royals" to be able to freely practice violence on people and property. That sort of thing is exactly the reason the founders risked their lives and liberty to establish the idea that all men are equal. Now, granted, it did take enough time for all the founders to die off before women were allowed to participate in the government to which they were required to submit. It took almost 150 years of women agitating for the vote for their dream to be realized. But agitating alone didn't work, writing to Congress, speaking to Congress....things were pretty much stalled until the Silent Brigades began.

If you want to conduct a productive protest, study the methods of the suffrage movement. It's a very interesting portion of history about which I learned almost nothing in my high school and college courses. But because my great-grandmother was a well-known suffragette in our area, I learned from those who had participated. These women endured being spat on, called vulgar names and imprisoned---for having the nerve to ask for the right to vote. Realizing what these women experienced to give me the right to vote, how could I not join the Civil Rights protests of the '60s?

The way I see it, the big difference between the protests of 100 years ago and the protests today is that those ladies in front of the White House didn't have the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, and every other alphabet agency you want to name, competing for funding for public safety.