Libya: should anything be done?

[JOZeldenrust]

That's actually pretty consistent with my definition of "democracy", too. It also shows how different "democracy" is from "freedom".

No, anyone can speak out. That doesn't make it a certainty you'll accomplish anything. That requires that the change you're trying to achieve is something that's supported by a significant power base, eighter by sheer weight of numbers or by some other way of exerting political influence.

Noone is stopping radical left-wingers like anti-globalists from speaking out - though they are kept from throwing stones trough the windows of the nearest McDonalds - there are just too many people who disagree with them for them to accomplish anything.

Being arrested doesn't count as a reprisal, then? Or does Canada not count as a democracy?

If the latter, I'm pretty sure your definition is different from JimC's definition.

In any community, limits are placed on how people can express their opinions. You can protest, and you must be allowed to protest in a way that will be visible to the public, but government can legitimately impose limits to prevent grave disturbance of public life. If you don't abide by those limits, you can get arrested.

If your protest includes throwing rocks through windows, you can get arrested.

The amount of violence protesters can legitimately use varies with the amount of repression dissidents face from the government. As long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed, violence by protesters isn't justified, and if they do you violence, or otherwise violate reasonable limitations imposed by the government, the government is justified in using proportional force against them.

[Dory]

Gawdzilla's avatar is too distracting, I fail to comment....

But I say that the US should boobs and Gaddafi boobies should at least boobs boobies and boobage and definitely boobs and bozonkas.


-Boobs

[Warren Dew]

In any community, limits are placed on how people can express their opinions. You can protest, and you must be allowed to protest in a way that will be visible to the public, but government can legitimately impose limits to prevent grave disturbance of public life. If you don't abide by those limits, you can get arrested.

If your protest includes throwing rocks through windows, you can get arrested.

The amount of violence protesters can legitimately use varies with the amount of repression dissidents face from the government. As long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed, violence by protesters isn't justified, and if they do you violence, or otherwise violate reasonable limitations imposed by the government, the government is justified in using proportional force against them.

I would agree but it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Sandinista says he was arrested without doing anything illegal, which I presume throwing rocks through windows would be.

[JOZeldenrust]

In any community, limits are placed on how people can express their opinions. You can protest, and you must be allowed to protest in a way that will be visible to the public, but government can legitimately impose limits to prevent grave disturbance of public life. If you don't abide by those limits, you can get arrested.

If your protest includes throwing rocks through windows, you can get arrested.

The amount of violence protesters can legitimately use varies with the amount of repression dissidents face from the government. As long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed, violence by protesters isn't justified, and if they do you violence, or otherwise violate reasonable limitations imposed by the government, the government is justified in using proportional force against them.

I would agree but it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Sandinista says he was arrested without doing anything illegal, which I presume throwing rocks through windows would be.

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

[Warren Dew]

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

[sandinista]

Well then, remain a marginalised extremist protestor who will always be part of a tiny and politically impotent minority, ignored by all except the rabid right, for whom you are the enemy they love to imagine...

So when we're talking about "speaking out without fear of reprisal", we really mean "speaking out without fear of reprisal, but only if you're in a politically powerful majority"?

That's actually pretty consistent with my definition of "democracy", too. It also shows how different "democracy" is from "freedom".

Thats about it in a nutshell, you are "free to speak out" as long as you watch what you say.

In any community, limits are placed on how people can express their opinions. You can protest, and you must be allowed to protest in a way that will be visible to the public, but government can legitimately impose limits to prevent grave disturbance of public life. If you don't abide by those limits, you can get arrested.

If your protest includes throwing rocks through windows, you can get arrested.

The amount of violence protesters can legitimately use varies with the amount of repression dissidents face from the government. As long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed, violence by protesters isn't justified, and if they do you violence, or otherwise violate reasonable limitations imposed by the government, the government is justified in using proportional force against them.

I would agree but it's irrelevant to the current discussion. Sandinista says he was arrested without doing anything illegal, which I presume throwing rocks through windows would be.

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

"Mistakes" surely you're joking. If a "democratic" government curtails free speech and makes mass arrests of innocent people it's a "mistake" if any other government does it it's "condemned"...It's not mistake.

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests hand protestors that fought back to show that mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

I wasn't generalising about any violent protest, I was speaking of the G20 protests and the like. In a country ruled by a military dictatorship, peaceful protests are often brutally squashed, and there is no ballot box as an alternative. I would not see a violent reaction by protestors as wrong in that context.

And let me add that I am also aware that some police actions, in some situations in the west, have been completely over the top, and deserve censure. That's why we need vigilant lawyers and investigative journalists, and a robust police complaints procedure.

Again...the "ballot box" is NO alternative to anything. It is the choice between two parties with the same ideology who support the same power structure. Vigilant lawyers...grow up.

Well then, remain a marginalised extremist protestor who will always be part of a tiny and politically impotent minority, ignored by all except the rabid right, for whom you are the enemy they love to imagine...

The police have your movement infiltrated very effectively, your violent demonstrations will be squashed (without any real carnage, unlike Libya) and you will be forever ignored by the "broad mass of the people" you claim to represent...

Otherwise, enjoy the faded dreams and broken barricades while the world (including those of us from a time of honourable and peaceful protest) move on...

Again...with the "extremist", can't make an argument, can't get your facts right, so you resort to name calling. On all counts you are wrong. How did your "honorable" "peaceful" protests work out for you in Chicago? Fucking head in their clouds hippies.

[JimC]

Jim, you are wrong about protests. Violence and destruction is a legitimate part of protesting as evidenced by every single Arab revolution lately. All the protests hand protestors that fought back to show that mean business. Without the show of force by the protestors, there would have been no change.

I wasn't generalising about any violent protest, I was speaking of the G20 protests and the like. In a country ruled by a military dictatorship, peaceful protests are often brutally squashed, and there is no ballot box as an alternative. I would not see a violent reaction by protestors as wrong in that context.

And let me add that I am also aware that some police actions, in some situations in the west, have been completely over the top, and deserve censure. That's why we need vigilant lawyers and investigative journalists, and a robust police complaints procedure.

You can't cherry pick which protests you like and then tell Sandinista that he is wrong about his particular protest methods. One man's infamy is another one's gain.

Not so much "wrong" as ineffective and counter-productive. In the countries you mentioned, the lid had been held on by repressive means for many years, there was a mass movement of dissent, and they probably had no alternative to fairly hard-core direct action given the military repression of mass, peaceful protests.

On the other hand, reasonable and peaceful protests in the west against economic policies (eg. the G20 and G8 summits) have been consistently taken over by a small minority of destructive hooligans who are in it for the thrills. They have set back their putative cause immeasurably, because the public now permanently associates dissent against aspects of globalisation with a violent but vocal minority of destructive fools.

[JimC]

JOZeldenrust wrote:

In any community, limits are placed on how people can express their opinions. You can protest, and you must be allowed to protest in a way that will be visible to the public, but government can legitimately impose limits to prevent grave disturbance of public life. If you don't abide by those limits, you can get arrested.

If your protest includes throwing rocks through windows, you can get arrested.

The amount of violence protesters can legitimately use varies with the amount of repression dissidents face from the government. As long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed, violence by protesters isn't justified, and if they do you violence, or otherwise violate reasonable limitations imposed by the government, the government is justified in using proportional force against them.

Precisely, well stated...

To "as long as peaceful protest in view of the public is allowed" I would add "and the government can be altered via the ballot box"

[JimC]

sandinista wrote:

Again...with the "extremist", can't make an argument, can't get your facts right, so you resort to name calling. On all counts you are wrong. How did your "honorable" "peaceful" protests work out for you in Chicago? Fucking head in their clouds hippies.

Ex-hippie, thank you...

As always, you totally ignore the key point, which is that nowhere, in the last 50 years, has a violent insurrection via Marxist principles in a Western democracy even started, let alone been successful.

You remain a tiny, marginalised minority of left-wing puritans, forever sneering at progressives and those of the centre left as sell-outs, even though such political forces are the only ones with a chance of actually counter-balancing the conservative right and big business.

I think someone else has their head in a cloud...

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

Again...with the "extremist", can't make an argument, can't get your facts right, so you resort to name calling. On all counts you are wrong. How did your "honorable" "peaceful" protests work out for you in Chicago? Fucking head in their clouds hippies.

Ex-hippie, thank you...

As always, you totally ignore the key point, which is that nowhere, in the last 50 years, has a violent insurrection via Marxist principles in a Western democracy even started, let alone been successful.

You remain a tiny, marginalised minority of left-wing puritans, forever sneering at progressives and those of the centre left as sell-outs, even though such political forces are the only ones with a chance of actually counter-balancing the conservative right and big business.

I think someone else has their head in a cloud...

oh yah, because something hasn't happened means it never will. There was never a black president before obama...never an native president before Evo Morales...Great logic there. "progressives"

[JOZeldenrust]

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

How often do people actually protest in favor of a government? If people think the government is doing its job well they just continue living their lives. Pro-government demonstrations are virtually non-existent in democratic systems. Totalitarian systems might stage pro-government demonstrations, but free people don't have any incentive to demonstrate in favor of their government.

If, somehow, some pro-government group organised a pro-government demontration that would cause considerable inconvenience to public life, I'm pretty sure a competent democratic government like those in Canada, the US or western Europe would take appropriate action.

[sandinista]

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

How often do people actually protest in favor of a government? If people think the government is doing its job well they just continue living their lives. Pro-government demonstrations are virtually non-existent in democratic systems. Totalitarian systems might stage pro-government demonstrations, but free people don't have any incentive to demonstrate in favor of their government.

If, somehow, some pro-government group organised a pro-government demontration that would cause considerable inconvenience to public life, I'm pretty sure a competent democratic government like those in Canada, the US or western Europe would take appropriate action.

yes, give me convenience or give me death. Wouldn't want to interfere with shopping and working would we.

[JOZeldenrust]

sandinista wrote:

Again...with the "extremist", can't make an argument, can't get your facts right, so you resort to name calling. On all counts you are wrong. How did your "honorable" "peaceful" protests work out for you in Chicago? Fucking head in their clouds hippies.

Ex-hippie, thank you...

As always, you totally ignore the key point, which is that nowhere, in the last 50 years, has a violent insurrection via Marxist principles in a Western democracy even started, let alone been successful.

You remain a tiny, marginalised minority of left-wing puritans, forever sneering at progressives and those of the centre left as sell-outs, even though such political forces are the only ones with a chance of actually counter-balancing the conservative right and big business.

I think someone else has their head in a cloud...

oh yah, because something hasn't happened means it never will. Great logic there. "progressives"

No, there's just no popular support for the kind of change you want. (still not entirely clear what it is you want, actually) The vast majority of the people in western democracies do not want their society to change into a Marxist system, and they will resist, by force if necessary, attempts to impose such a system by a minority such as you and your buddies.

Whether force against you and your buddies is justified is up to you. As long as you limit yourselves to peaceful protest within reasonable limits to accomodate the freedom and safety of others (so you won't be allowed to protest on train tracks, or inside the house of parliament, but you must be allowed to protest in such a way that you're visible to the general public), the use of force against you isn't justified. If it is used regardless, you can go to court.

If your protests manage to convince enough people, you'll achieve changes in society, because it'll change the way people vote. Even if there isn't a party that shares your convictions at the moment, the number of supporters of your cause will mean there's enough support to enter the elections with a new party.

If you don't convince enough people, you won't achieve the changes in society you desire, and that's a good thing, because evidently the vast majority of people don't desire those changes.

[JOZeldenrust]

Governments, even democratic ones, make mistakes, often when dealing with loosely organised groups. Those are hard for government to deal with.

Yet, somehow I rarely hear of governments mistakenly arresting people that are demonstrating in the government's favor....

How often do people actually protest in favor of a government? If people think the government is doing its job well they just continue living their lives. Pro-government demonstrations are virtually non-existent in democratic systems. Totalitarian systems might stage pro-government demonstrations, but free people don't have any incentive to demonstrate in favor of their government.

If, somehow, some pro-government group organised a pro-government demontration that would cause considerable inconvenience to public life, I'm pretty sure a competent democratic government like those in Canada, the US or western Europe would take appropriate action.

yes, give me convenience or give me death. Wouldn't want to interfere with shopping and working would we.

If you need to disrupt public life to get your way, that's not protest. That's extortion.

[sandinista]

sandinista wrote:

Again...with the "extremist", can't make an argument, can't get your facts right, so you resort to name calling. On all counts you are wrong. How did your "honorable" "peaceful" protests work out for you in Chicago? Fucking head in their clouds hippies.

Ex-hippie, thank you...

As always, you totally ignore the key point, which is that nowhere, in the last 50 years, has a violent insurrection via Marxist principles in a Western democracy even started, let alone been successful.

You remain a tiny, marginalised minority of left-wing puritans, forever sneering at progressives and those of the centre left as sell-outs, even though such political forces are the only ones with a chance of actually counter-balancing the conservative right and big business.

I think someone else has their head in a cloud...

oh yah, because something hasn't happened means it never will. Great logic there. "progressives"

No, there's just no popular support for the kind of change you want. (still not entirely clear what it is you want, actually) The vast majority of the people in western democracies do not want their society to change into a Marxist system, and they will resist, by force if necessary, attempts to impose such a system by a minority such as you and your buddies.

Whether force against you and your buddies is justified is up to you. As long as you limit yourselves to peaceful protest within reasonable limits to accomodate the freedom and safety of others (so you won't be allowed to protest on train tracks, or inside the house of parliament, but you must be allowed to protest in such a way that you're visible to the general public), the use of force against you isn't justified. If it is used regardless, you can go to court.

If your protests manage to convince enough people, you'll achieve changes in society, because it'll change the way people vote. Even if there isn't a party that shares your convictions at the moment, the number of supporters of your cause will mean there's enough support to enter the elections with a new party.

If you don't convince enough people, you won't achieve the changes in society you desire, and that's a good thing, because evidently the vast majority of people don't desire those changes.

Largely, popular support for anything comes from whatever is advocated via the mass media. It's a hard battle to fight, but slowly the people will move past corporate rule. Because there is a majority doesn't necessarily mean their thoughts or beliefs are in any sense correct or just. If that were the case, there actually is a God...praise him.