Plain Old Forks want what the Shiny Silver Spoons have.
Those forks see they will never be able to scoop up whatever they please like the silver spoons do.
"Its not fair!" they proclaim. "Where is the equality? Where is the justice?
I want delicious mouthfuls too!"
So, they devise all sorts of ways to extract as much as they can directly from the Silver Spoons, forgetting that their sturdy prongs have the ability to pick up perfectly fine mouthfuls, as well.
( There is a moral to this story, but I can't think of it right now.)
I don't hold against people just because they are rich. I don't care if you can buy a bigger house or a fancier car. I do care about the corporate class, wealth influence in area of public policy and buying and influencing our elected representives to the detriment of the most of the middle class that put him or her in Congress. In other words, I resent them trying to buy things that should not be for sale, and that is the danger; greed, power and control without limit.
It's not OK to use money to gain influence, but it is OK to block roads, burn neighborhoods and fight with police to do the same thing? "Civil disturbance", in other words? At least one is legal...
All or nothing, again, where did I say that it is OK to block roads as part of a demonstration. Did I not say that you have to be in possession of a permit to interfere with public thoroughfare?
Actually, you did. But are you not a proponent of civil disobedience? You've always given me that impression.
I give you that impression because I have a progressive mindset. I want to be sure that the right to demonstrate without violence or hinderence of public throughfare without permit is protected. As otherwise, those that don't approve of the purpose are provided with an excuse to stifle speech and expression for ideas that they just as soon not be exposed in public. And, we cannot have that, now can we?
I am a proponent of the right to demonstrate, not riot.
Is it OK to block entrance to stores you don't like? Is it OK to illegally camp on public parks, destroying them in the process? Is it OK to chain yourself to private property so that it cannot be used by the rightful owner? Is it OK to trespass on private property? Is it OK to climb a public flagpole and remove/destroy flags you don't like? Is it OK to enter, and disrupt, a political rally in private buildings? Is it OK to climb trees and stay in them weeks or months so they can't be cut down by the rightful owners? Is it OK to have a "sit in" in campus offices so they cannot be used?
Wait - here's a good one! Is it OK to refuse to follow the law and do the public job you are being paid to do, while still being paid and requiring your subordinates also disobey that law?
All "demonstrations" in the last couple of years or so.
When is it OK to perform illegal activities because you think your cause is "just" and want media attention? When is it OK to disrupt the lives of other citizens because you think your cause is "just" and want media attention? It's called "civil disobedience" and just when do think it is OK?
Is that what I said? You are against all demonstrations in principle? Unless, they consist of the Macy parades or an NRA demonstration? I have seen these people marching through the street brandishing firearms Those are ok, right? You're just afraid of the idea of dissent from a rightwing baseline.
But, you did say the same for the nuts in Oregon that took over the park reserve in defiance to federal law. But, that did rise to another standard, threatening armed confrontation with federal authorities..
You sound like a broken record on the same theme. I said that you can't affect the public right to access and egress, you cannot deface or damage private/public property, you cannot riot. But, that will not be enough for you unless they just 'shut up'. But that ain't going to happen, as long as these groups stay within the confines of 'peaceably assemble', I will support their right to speak 100 percent. If you think that makes me an advocate of civil disobedience, than so be it.
So, I guess here is the point where we agree to disagree?
When the occupy movement came to town town, it cost the public around a hundred thousand dollars to repair the damage they did in our little town, and that doesn't count the power they stole, the extra police protection, the 2 rapes and one stabbing, etc. Yet they were applauded all over the country.
So yeah, I guess so (agree to disagree). I've never been a fan of disobeying the law, without repercussions, because one thinks their cause is right and proper and wants media attention.
I did see one demonstration that I found reasonable, though - a group of picketers the union hired to picket a job site. They stayed on the sidewalk, taking less than half of it and never blocking the driveway. No trouble, didn't bother anyone, didn't disrupt business...and the media never showed up, either.
No Credence - if you're going to commit a crime (or misdemeanor or whatever) then expect to pay the price for it. That you want the TV station to film it is no import to me.
No problem, if you commit crimes or misdemenors, you should pay for it. But as you mentioned, demonstrations are not always synonomous with breaking the law.
Who pays for all the cleanup after the Macy or Orange Bowl parades?
The entity that put it on. I assume the city in both cases - are you insinuating that the public pick up the tab for any and all demonstrations? Perhaps we should include wages for those that march, sit or camp too?
Actually, I think that our autumn parade is privately funded by donations. A big city thing, yes, but donations is what keeps it going.
I don't have a problem with a city using a small amount of tax money to provide limited entertainment. That's what a park or swimming pool does, yes?
Then every one of those things I mentioned were deserving of fines or jail. Somehow I think that when it came down to it you would disagree with that.
Do I remember reading that you protested for or was it demonstrated for the "Wounded Knee thing"? I guess I made a mental note of it, because it sounded insincere to me, as I recall.
Yes, I was involved in 1973 and wanted to go to South Dakota. But, my pop put kibosh on that saying that protesting was white folks, my mission was to go to the university and get the education that he was so involved paying for.
We had campus protests regarding this matter and Watergate, which I silently participated in. I was a ROTC, so I couldn't go around throwing Molotov cocktails. And, I had to draw the line at the 'streaking' stuff.
I attended a PowWow in support in Minneapolis before the stand-off. And to, visiting Clyde Bellecourt in the hospital later that year after Carter Camp shot him. That was as close as I got to the rough crowd, but it affected me for years and not in a spiritually positive way. Wheeha!
ADDED: God bless your Pop, and you for listening to him.
God bless AIM and the BIA, seriously, in the Way.
BTW, that was Native Americans, not "white folks".
When the need is great, and sacrifice is offered to pay the price.
Protests and demonstrations do often include purposeful acts of civil disobedience, much of the kind in your examples. But those acts and actors are not required for a demonstration or protest.
It seemed one perspective was of peaceful, (a la MLK), legal protests and demonstrations, and yours was of the opposite view - civil disobedience is part and parcel with all protests and demonstrations.
I think there is validity to Credence2's perspective. Put aside the extremes; the flag pole climbers and private property destroyers, and the purposely committed illegal acts, that even he disavows - and consider this...
I think MLK's peaceful marches were justified - there was a great need, and the participants - offered the sacrifice of their freedom, (jail time, or worse), as payment for their actions. But... those marches too, blocked entrances and damaged public greenways when tens of thousands of feet marched across them, and caused other acts of civil disobedience. Do you consider those protests and demonstrations to be as the rioting protests your examples portray?
Yes there can be times when the citizens must endure some inconvenience as imposed by an MLK-type protest, but never a time when citizen's must endure harm as imposed by your definition.
I want my cake, and eat it too. You two butting heads over an apples and oranges comparison makes that possible.
It might have been said that King's 1965 organized March across the Pettus Bridge in Alabama was an unlawful assembly as it interfered with access to the bridge by the General public. Yes, Civil disobedience was evident and was exceptional at a time and place where it was unlikely that Civil Rights marchers were going to receive a permit for anything. Under those circumstances, King was correct, but I do not apply this approach as a general rule as to how demonstrations should be conducted.
In an image search of MLK marches I saw many photos of the marchers on roads and bridges. Most showed the marchers left an opposing lane(s) open. You are right, they did interfere, but that interference was an inconvenience - not a harmful act as a complete traffic blockage would be.
In general, by my logic, most MLK-type protests fit my justification criteria; there was a great need, and there was a willingness to pay a price.
The Ferguson and Charlotte-type protests are the other end of the spectrum.
Princess Diana, was loved for her desire to help feed to poor.
The moral depends on whether the silver spoons were having soup.
by Doodlehead4 years ago
According to Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul has plans to lead the Liberty Caucus Republicanswhen he resigns in December. Lew says Dr. Paul has kept his typical low profileuntil he is out of Congress. ...
by Nickny798 years ago
Our Founding Fathers codified a profound respect for the common law notion of private property as between the gov't and citizens as well as among citizens themselves.The Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the...
by Josak5 years ago
“Poverty is caused by Private Monopoly. That is the present system. They have monopolized everything that it is possible to monopolize; they have got the whole earth, the minerals in the earth and the streams that...
by James Smith5 years ago
"Natural rights are rights which are "natural" in the sense of "not artificial, not man-made", as in rights deriving from deontic logic, from human nature, or from the edicts of a god. They are...
by Sooner284 years ago
Libertarians either claim we have an "absolute" right to private property (if they are of the anarchist variety), or that we nearly have one (those who believe the government should only fund military, police,...
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
The members of Westboro Baptist Church need to realize the true meaning of Christianity. These people can be aptly described as hatemongers. They believe that LGBT people are doomed and...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.