Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah, illegal protests are on average way more useful than legal ones. I admire anyone who is willing to go to jail over something, but don't make it about you vs the cops or whatever. The correct response is not being an unruly mob, the correct response is "we understand, you're going to have to arrest us, we are not moving"

Locking arms and making it difficult to pull them apart is what got the nightsticks out, though. Generally, you want to comply as soon as an officer actually grabs you. The level of force where they use open hands to pull you apart is the highest you actually WANT to go here. If you keep resisting there, worse things are going to happen and nobody actually WANTS that.

Ahtman wrote:Stupid illegal Tea Party didn't get permits to dress like local natives or to dump tea in the harbor. Buncha criminals don't know how to protest.

...Odd how those many now venerate as "hero's" were, at the time, seen as criminals and radicals.

Calling other posters "vile" is a personal attack and violates Rule Number One. Please avoid doing this in the future.

Thanks,

Manchu

TheHammer wrote:
Many of the vile people posting here

TheHammer wrote:resident fascists

ABSOLUTELY not necessarily.

I will be over here when you are ready to have a conversation.

I will not argue that the police had every legal right to clear out the park if the owner's asked them to. Which they did.

However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?

Did the Founding Fathers get permits for the Boston Tea Party? How about the Continental Congress? Were they not breaking the law in pursuit of unalienable rights? So, were they in the right or in the wrong?

The real question isn't whether Mayor Bloomberg legally had the right to clear the park. The question is does he have the moral right and was it the right decision based on our founding principles as a nation?

I don't know the answer to the question. I know how I feel about it, but that's it. That feeling is not rational. Not everything in this world is rational.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm just an impassioned fool with an overdeveloped sense of empathy for others. A liability in our world, and one I am seeking to correct with counselling. I'm also a poor typer.

Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?

I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.

The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Intent has legal precedence.

Edit: I can't type.

Easy E wrote:Did the Founding Fathers get permits for the Boston Tea Party? How about the Continental Congress? Were they not breaking the law in pursuit of unalienable rights? So, were they in the right or in the wrong?

Legal wrong, morally neutral.

When you break the law on purpose, you have to decide what's right or wrong for yourself. When you go against the grain, you are by nature charting your own moral course.

Civil disobedience is a lot like revolution. Revolution is legal if you win, illegal if you lose. Leaking the pentagon papers, similarly, was illegal, but it was important enough that they decided it was worth it and they were RIGHT! They won the fight and the pentagon papers are out of the bag.

Easy E wrote:The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.

Intent plays no part here. They likely assumed that because it's a park, it's "public property". It's not--and even if it were, you'd need permits to camp out there.

This isn't actually difficult to comprehend.

Again, I'm not a lawyer, but I believe Intent has legal precedence.

Intent has legal precedence--however ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?

I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.

If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.

Tea Party 1767 in Boston prior to the revolution was part of the escalation to the Revolution War. Constitution was not implemented till 1787

I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!

Also, can you explain "morally nuetral" to me? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at? When you chart your own course their is no morals? I don't think that is what you are tryign to say, but I want to understand.

Edit: Yeah, I know there was no Constitution. However, they were still breaking the King's law.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?

I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.

If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.

Ahtman...if it were in anyway possible to leap through my monitor and hug you... I believe I would.

Ahtman wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Easy E wrote:However, as the Declaration of Independence states, there are unalienable rights. If one is violating the law in pursuit of the unalienable rights, which trumps the other? The written law, or the unalienable rights of man?

I don't think you have an inalienable right to set up a shanty town on someone else's land is the thing.

If that were true we wouldn't have Texas, let alone the US.

But that was ordained by God. This is entirely different. Entirely.

Jihadin wrote:Tea Party 1767 in Boston prior to the revolution was part of the escalation to the Revolution War. Constitution was not implemented till 1787

That's really besides the point...individules had gathered to " protest" unjust actions in an " illegal" manner and in part effected change.

Step 1: Argue for the rule of law.
Step 2: Back track when that is demonstrated to not be enough.
Step 3: Misunderstand history.
Step 4: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

I don't use the term fascism loosely.

Easy E wrote:I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!

In essence, yes. I mean there's plenty of nuance depending on what you're doing and what your actual goal is, but you can totally go to jail and "win" if your goal was to get a message out. I just depends on your victory conditions.

Also, can you explain "morally nuetral" to me? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at? When you chart your own course their is no morals? I don't think that is what you are tryign to say, but I want to understand.

Morality is entirely subjective. An action is just an action. It can be moral to me or immoral to someone else. The boston tea party was moral to me personally, but I am not comfortable calling it an inherently moral or immoral act. What's important is that the people DOING IT viewed it as such and a big enough segment of the population agreed with them that it became an understood truth.

Out at the philosophical edges of a representative government, there is a grey area where it no longer matters if it's moral or immoral, what matters is that you achieve your goal or not. Sort of like how we believe we have inherent human rights, but those rights are only manifested because we gathered together with people who believed the same thing. While I believe in inherent human rights, I don't actually believe they exist without us. We created them and keep them alive ourselves. There's nothing magical or special about humans, we just decided the world would be better with basic human rights and it sure is.

It's a lot like international law. Once you get to the highest level of government, the gaps between jurisdictions end up kind of fuzzy and things just happen because of consensus. It's both a horrible and great expression of the deeper essence of democracy. International law is fascinating that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheHammer wrote:Step 1: Argue for the rule of law.
Step 2: Back track when that is demonstrated to not be enough.
Step 3: Misunderstand history.
Step 4: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!

I don't use the term fascism loosely.

You know, the rest of us are having a really great conversation right now. Please don't screw it up.

Easy E wrote:It's nice when the rules and their enforcement only apply to 'some' people. Provided you aren't "some" people.

Easy E wrote:Tell that to the predatory lenders who still haven't been punished.

Easy E wrote:This is all just RAW vs. RAI writ large on a societal scale.

Start mixing the ANFO and gathering the molotovs. Burn it all down. Or whine in the web, which ever is more convenient for you.

TheHammer wrote:
I don't use the term fascism loosely.

Yeah you do. You also use it incorrectly.

These aren't "jackbooted thugs" breaking heads open left and right. If this was a fascist action and "comparable to Tianamen Square", then the streets would be overflowing with bodies and there would be no records of official arrests.

Since it's not a "fascist action", the most these protesters are going to face is whatever injuries they get during the course of police calming things down. And there's already the typical response of the ACLU and other anti-establishment law nonprofits lining up to sue on their behalf.

It makes me sad when people are harsh on the ACLU like that. I really like them. They're misunderstood.

Easy E wrote:The question is why did they set-up the Shanty Town? that's when you get to inalienable rights. The intent is the key, not necessarily the action itself.

My copy of the Declaration lists:

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Just out of curiosity, which of those do you feel had been violated for the OWS folks which would then validate their illiegal actions?

I see, so to the victor goes the spoilers is the extent of "legal"/"illegal"? That explains a lot. Everything is legal until you can no longer get away with it!

Hhmmmm when the Tea Party happen British Parlimant (in England mind you) passed the "Coercive Act" in 1774 which pretty much closed Boston Port down.

The First Continental Congress gathered and petition the Monarchy to repeal the act.
(Wiki)

Shot heard around the World kicked that off

What I'm getting at is the comparison using the Boston Tea Party as an example before the Constitution was implemented as if the constitution was before the Tea Party.

Since we fell under british law at that time (notice wiki is horrid on dates) this pretty much lead up to Revolution War

The colonists' disappointment began shortly after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, when the British government tried to reduce the debt incurred during the war by collecting additional taxes and gaining more control over the colonies. The Stamp Act of 1765 was one such measure. It created an excise tax on newspapers, customs documents, licenses, college diplomas, and most legal documents.

Although the Stamp Act was widely popular in England where taxes were far higher than they were in the colonies, it was uniformly resented in the colonies. Nine colonial legislatures officially expressed their objections to this British tax, and civil disobedience to this Act was rampant throughout the colonies. The Stamp Act became increasingly unenforceable, and in March 1766 Parliament revoked it.

The colonists were grateful for the repeal of the Stamp Act and were eager to mend their relations with the mother country. At this point, a complete break from England remained unimaginable, but a precedent for colonial defiance had been created.

Despite the repeal of the Stamp Act, underlying philosophical differences remained. The British wanted the colonists to pay the greater part of the cost of royal government in the colonies, whereas the colonists resisted imperial taxation and limits on self-government.

A series of incidents that took place between 1765 and 1775 emphasized these differences. For example, the Townshend Duties of 1767, which taxed imports, led to nonimportation agreements (boycotts of British goods) that injured the British economy and caused the repeal of the Townshend Duties in 1770. Customs racketeering, in which greedy customs officials seized ships and their goods whether or not evidence of smuggling existed, led to widespread violence and to the British occupation of Boston in 1768. The British occupation itself led indirectly to the Boston Massacre of 1770, when an angry mob incited a soldier to fire into the crowd. The ensuing mayhem caused five deaths.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 and the punitive British response solidified colonial fears that the Crown was attempting to limit traditional English liberties throughout North America. In response to these events, the first Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia in 1774. (Virginia's representatives to the Continental Congress included two of the original opponents of the Stamp Act, Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry. George Washington was the third Virginia representative.) The delegates summarized their principles and demands in the Declaration of Rights, which conceded to Parliament the power to regulate colonial commerce, but argued that parliamentary efforts to impose taxes, enforce laws through admiralty courts, suspend assemblies, and unilaterally revoke charters were unconstitutional.

After these incidents, a break from England had become a distinct possibility (although still not a certainty.)

In Williamsburg in April 1775, on orders from the British ministry, Governor Dunmore directed British marines to remove guns and powder stored at the Magazine. A violent clash between the alarmed city residents and the British almost erupted. Dunmore soon fled to a British ship in the York River. Determined to regain control of the colony, the governor threatened to offer freedom to all slaves who ran away to the British side.

By July 1775, battles in what eventually became known as the American Revolution had already taken place in Massachusetts: Concord and Lexington in April, Bunker Hill in June. Despite this ominous turn of events, not all parties saw the Revolution as inevitable. For example, a majority of the second Continental Congress, which began meeting in May 1775, still opposed independence. Even Samuel Adams, among the most radical of the colonists, described himself as "fond of reconciliation."

In July 1775 the colonists' opinions were divided. Most colonists had hoped that their resistance would either convince the king to dismiss the ministers responsible for the repressive legislation or would jolt Parliament into renouncing its authority over all matters in the colonies except trade regulation. As it became clear that neither course would occur, some loyalist colonists accused their contemporaries of creating a rift, or at least inflaming existing problems. Their Revolutionary counterparts often browbeat clergymen who preached pro-British sermons, pressured their countrymen to boycott British goods, and coerced merchants to burn British imports.

King George III declared the colonies in rebellion on August 23, 1775. In November, Governor Dunmore signed his Emancipation Proclamation placing Virginia under martial law and granting freedom to all slaves and indentured servants who would bear arms for the king. Excerpts from Thomas Paine's Common Sense, which influenced many a fence-sitter, were published in the Virginia Gazette in February 1776, and the Declaration of Independence followed a few months later.

A rebellion against a establish government so throwing in the Boston Tea Party doesn't TO ME equate with what OWS is trying to do...what are they doing actually doing?

The protests have focused on social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan "We are the 99%" refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

Thats what they are protesting. Can it become a revolution for 2012ish? Mind you. I'm sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from both foreign and domestic

got way off topic.....so hows the BBQ going for you all this weekend?

Never mind, cleared it up as I was asking for clarification.

Rented Tritium wrote:It makes me sad when people are harsh on the ACLU like that. I really like them. They're misunderstood.

I'm not trying to be harsh on the ACLU. They're an organization that has a reputation for being muckrakers, but they're not necessarily a bad group. They do take the idea of civil liberties seriously, and that is important.

However I feel it also lessens the impact of many protests in that when they get broken up if even the slightest whiff of impropriety is present---it's very likely that some some members of the ACLU will come running like a deer to a salt lick.

I want to volunteer to man the water cannons when OWS gets out of hand...I really really do...really...traverse the water cannon left and right holding a Extra Large Duncun Donut Coffee with cream sugar in it...smoking....I'm all in

I'm Equal Oppurtunity to...so whoever is in front...is getting nailed

Yeah, it's true. The ACLU ends up defending a lot of scumbags, but I'm mostly ok with that. Even scumbags deserve a good lawyer and they have some dang good ones working for free.

@Auston - I know it was only like 15 real minutes ago, but it was 2 pages ago that you asked me about the links. I wasn't making a point there, I was just sharing right and left news stories about the topic

Jihadin wrote:I'm sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from both foreign and domestic

"...that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

I'm not sure I would classify disenfranchised citizens as enemies of the Constitution just yet.

Thank you for the correction Aht. I still want to get on the water cannon. Suprise how much one can forget when one's "INDIF"

Rented Tritium wrote:Yeah, it's true. The ACLU ends up defending a lot of scumbags, but I'm mostly ok with that. Even scumbags deserve a good lawyer and they have some dang good ones working for free.

Again: I have no problems with that part. In some cases, it's very good that the ACLU exists as it insures that there will in fact be someone who can be considered of "moral fiber" and will take their job seriously due to their own code of morals.

I just don't think it's good for them to be taking the case of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who is at a protest which is shut down for having improper permits while clamoring that Constitutional rights are being infringed.