Civil Disobedience

Anxiously awaiting ideas...
Organize and publicly protest in d.c.?

Move to Canada.
Seriously. I don't want to live in Michigan anymore after the yes on proposal 2.

I have little doubt that organized protests will be popping up pretty soon.

That's the first (and easiest) step for anyone to take.

Once support has been shown by the populace against the policies of those who would style themselves our ruling class, one can begin to move on to the real action of civil disobedience; the systematic shutdown of commerce through non-violent (though illegal) means. You wouldn't believe some of the interesting ideas I've come up with for this.

First, however, it is neccessary to garner a small but dedicated base of support. Organizing protests will help some; the Bush admin will help some by enforcing even stricter conservative policies, the fallout of which will undoubtedly drive people to our side. We will need a definate and strong web presence. Some financial backing wouldn't be too bad either, but we can help finance the cause through seized goods (though this is illegal as well).

We will have to contend with a stepped-up secret police force in the new Bush administration. There will have to be stricter methods for exposing moles and disposing of them through non-violent means. I would encourage anyone with ideas on this front to plz email me, cycloptichorn@remove.this.hotmail.com

I highly would encourage all concerned citizens who do not own a rifle to purchase one and train thyself in the proper care and usage of said personal tyranny defense device.

My roomate's grandfather called us up last night; he said there's little difference in his mind between the things being said by the Bush admin. and the things he heard as a small child in Nazi Germany.... I've been thinking about that all day. I don't believe it's too late for us to reclaim power from the thugs, but we must face the possibility that it is, and prepare accordingly.


Cycloptichorn

Do you see any conflict between the first extracted paragraph and the second? I mean, "non-violent means" is oddly juxtaposed with the idea of getting a rifle and learning how to use it. Normally, when someone offers the second bit of advice, someone else jumps in with the Radical Right charge. In any case, the firearms positions of the two presidential candidates just may be the one single issue which made Mr. Kerry completely unacceptable to a significant number of voters.

Break the law and serve the time. Criminal behavior is not a very good way to voice your opposition to the government. I think you're getting carried away by the rhetoric. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not under attack. Governmental checks and balances still make it difficult for any interest group to dominate for more than a very short period.

It is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party that has been most vocal about removing firearm ownership from private citizens, not the administration. The freedom of the press is unchallenged by government, and no one in government has suggested that there be a State Religion. Cycloptichorn, which of your freedoms have vanished? You say you are tired of trusting the system, does that mean you are disillusioned with the Constitution, and the democratic institutions that we've relied upon for over 200 years? It sounds as if you just are plain tired of hearing opinions that you don't personally agree with. Back in the 60's we heard a lot of friends take similar positions in opposition to LBJ and the war in Vietnam. Many of those friends joined the Weather Underground and other subversive organizations. They blew up stuff, robbed banks and murdered police officers and other innocent civilians in pursuit of their glorious political goals. Some were killed, some sent to prison for long terms, some eventually became reconciled to living life underground. They were wrong to try and impose their political beliefs on others, and everyone suffered for their foolishness. Don't. If you take up arms against the United States, don't expect to later cry foul when you are treated as a traitor.

If you want to go out into the streets and cry out your anguish, go ahead. Perhaps that will even persuade someone to adopt your opinions. I don't think so, but you can try it. If you want to leave the country, take with you that old favorite "A Man Without a Country".

The first statement is demonstrably false, both are under assault. I offer as an example the Patriot Act, an example that has become something of a common place. A second is the supreme Court decision in Bush v Gore, to stop a vote count and award a presidential election, also something of a common place.

The checks and balance claim fails on two counts. First when a single ideologically driven faction dominates all three branches of government. Second, the Constitution can be changed (amended). I do not doubt that it now will be. I offer the 19th amendment (Prohibition) as a previous example.

Asherman. History says you are wrong. The best Americans have always broken the law in opposition to the government.

The Revolution started with the Boston Tea Party, a criminal act of protest.

The Underground railroad freed thousands of slaves-- definitely against the law.

Henry David Thoreau went to jail for not paying taxes in protest against war.

Hundreds were jailed in the civil rights movement for illegal bus riding and sitting at lunch counters -- all against the law.

And what happened (besides many people being jailed (or worse)).

The United States is not part of England. There is no slavery. Women can vote. Institutional racism has been ended.

Breaking unjust laws has always been the most effective way to truly change our country. Your attempts to stifle a movement of dissent are distinctly Unamerican.

I don't plan to leave my Country. I plan to change it.

The two suggestions are completely seperate, and there is no conflict.

In the first, we are discussing the problems of operating a counter-governmental organization (perfectly legal) when there is every indication that the amount of 'secret police' activity will be stepped up to an unprecedented level; the current admin has already begun this infiltration throughout the country in peace and anti-war advocacy group meetings. The stated comments of the ruling party show no desire to retain any right of privacy for any citizen; 'terror' can be used to justify, well, whatever they want it to.

There needs to be a non-violent way of identifying and removing said operatives. I'm hoping that the advent of technology can help this problem, but I need ideas on ways of making it stick.

The second paragraph was a recommendation to all citizens that the time may be coming when a rifle could be extremely useful for defending oneself from tyranny. I specifically said rifle as they are useful in a militia-like atmosphere; handguns really aren't that accurate and are less likely to be used in a defensive posture than rifles.



The process of beginning non-systematic change in the country is a tiered one; certainly you can't just go out on Nov. 3rd and start blowing things up and expect to be taken seriously.

So we do demonstrate. Without a significant but small base of the population (let's say 3 to 7 percent, that's what, 10-15 million people?) supporting the cause, there's little chance that enough change can take place to warrant any extra-legal activities.

There is every chance that the demonstrations will have the desired effect. There is every chance that there will not be enough popular support for the movement to stay alive; that being the case, and being without change in the country, it is time to throw up one's hands and move elsewhere; or accept, which I will not do.

Now, there are many of those who would say that we should 'work within the system'; yet the system cannot be trusted any longer. There is no guarantee possible that the votes which were cast on the electronic voting machines are the same as the ones which were reported, and a significant amount of evidence that the results could have easily been manipulated. Those who question the accuracy of said machines are laughed off as 'conspiracy theorists,' because people don't really wan't to take a good hard look at the data and see just how easily an election could be manipulated or stolen by a small number of operatives.

Therefore, what is the point of working to elect a candidate who won't win anyways?

Given that I a) do not support the current admin's previous policies, and b) am unlikely to support the future policies, there is little doubt in my mind that the next four years will be something less than satisfying from the position of a concerned citizen.

The impact of this election on our Supreme Court is huge, as well. I really don't expect RoeVWade to survive. I really don't expect there to be any constitutional right to privacy; this one would meld well with the Total information Awareness approach the admin would like to take to comabting terrorism(and the American public in the process).

To recap:

I cannot sit around and watch the US go down the same path we have for the last four years. Some of you will call me alarmist for saying that; That's your right to do so.

I believe the voting system has been comprimised to a great degree. I no longer place faith in the system whatsoever; I'd like to see this change in the future, and would welcome suggestions on how to make this so (but I don't really belive it will).

I believe that those in power would like to maintain the concept of a ruling class vs. a subclass here in America based on economic status. The early reports that I've seen coming out from the Repub's seem to confirm that they wish to exacerbate this situation even further in the next four years.

I would hope that enough people will wake up and realize this on their own; that evidently hasn't happened yet, and we need to be prepared to take action in case it does not.

I'm certainly not trying to be an alarmist, folks; there is every possibility that things will change for the better in the next four years and we (as a society) will not have to resort to such means.

But; being the good boy scout I am, I remember the motto: Always be Prepared! Therefore; it would be better to be ready to enact changes and not have to, then to need them and not have an organization ready to enact them.

We will do what has to be done to save this country, one way or the other.

Cycloptichorn

Interesting takes from some of our 'out of the mainstream' libs here.

This is not the 1960's. You people are on the brink of becoming forever irrelevant. In fact, the actions you propose will cause the rest of the country to push liberals even further away from any sort of chance to enter the ring.

While your actions might feel good and give you some sort of personal satisfaction, sadly, it is actually selfish on your part. For liberals and the Democratic Party to influence or win future elections, people like you are going to have to suck it up and try to leave the fringe of society.....

This isn't the 1960's. Rather this is the 1950's. There is a large portion of American society with an overly simplistic view that allows them to ignore real problems.

But as the song goes "Times they are a changin'"...

Amending the Constitution isn't something that I like to see. More often than not its a mistake. You mention prohibition, and I've never liked the 17th Amendment. The only Constitutional Amendment currently talked of regards the definition of marriage, and I think it very unlikely to get off the ground.

The Patriot Act has been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court, but then you challenge the authority of the Supreme Court. If you don't like the Supreme Court as it is currently constituted, you are really going to hate it after the next four years. The reason is that President Bush will almost certainly be appointing at least 2-3 new Justices. We can expect the appointees to reflect the Conservative view of the Constitution, and that may lead to some decisions that our more liberal brethren will find distasteful. However, that is the way our governmental system is designed to work by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is The Arbiter of what is, or is not Constitutional, and it is by design very conservative. However, over time the Court overturns decisions that no longer reflect the tenor of the country. FDR really, really hated the Supreme Court's repeated rulings that his policies were UnConstitutional and he tried to pack the Court. Wrong.

If you want to "throw out" the Supreme Court as Constitutional arbiter, then in effect you are attacking the Constitutional basis of our government. I don't think that's what you mean, nor is it what you intended to say. Surely, you would not advocate scrapping our form of government just because your opinions differ from the majority, and elected representatives of that majority.

Absolutely. The 'War on Terror' is an opening for rampant McCarthyism. You will see a lot of that in the days to come.

Cycloptichorn

I do not want to throw out the Supreme Court or the Constitutional basis of our government.

I am just pointing out that citizens breaking laws for reasons of conscience is part of the Constitutional form of government. You are right that we should accept our punishment (and historically many have).

But remember the Supreme court ruled that slavery was Constitutional, as was the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, and concentration camps in the Phillipines.

Would you say that those who worked on the Underground Railroad to free slaves, when the SC upheld that laws against this type of activity were Constitutional were "attacking the Constitutional basis of our goverment"?

I think not.

Civil Disobedience is as American as democracy.

With no way to verify the accuracy of elections,

There is no way to verify that the process has not been subverted.

The rise of the Republican party, and the rise of electronic voting, are not coincidences in my mind.

Cycloptichorn

cyclop....sounds like you are trying to mold this country into a vision the electorate has rejected, and continues to reject, at the polls. I wish you luck in your quest to find happiness in this, the greatest of all nations.

Thank you.

Cycloptichorn

If you break the laws, don't whine when you have to pay the penalty. Sometimes, usually in very extreme circumstances, a law is so wrong that it must be disobeyed. When we adopt civil disobediance as a tactic we have to be very sure of our ground. Is the law you are going to jail for breaking really worth it? Now if there were a law that imposed censorship on a newspaper, and I were the editor of the paper I might very well be inclined to publish stories without the censor's approval. There is no such law, nor is there likely to be in the U.S. Which laws to you think are so morally bankrupt in 2004 that you are willing to go to jail for breaking?

Civil Disobedience only works in those societies where those in power accept the notion that opposition is legitimate. Try to use civil disobedience in Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union and you would vanish into a secret grave. If the system is truly despotic, civil disobedience doesn't work, and if it will work then other tactics may work just as well.

By taking up arms against the United States, you declare yourself the enemy of the Constiution and the nation. We are swron to protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foriegn and domestic. Those in rebellion against the nation and the Constitution can not expect much sympathy, but a lot of pain.

Its not existing laws that they are concerned or angry about. It is socialistic policy that doesnt yet exist that is their main gripe.

Not true.

Civil Disobedience saved thousands of lives in Hitler's Germany. Many people hid Jews and we all know the story of Arthur Schindler. There was quite a bit of disobedience against Stalin as well including people who refused to stop practicing their religion. You will notice that there is still religion in Russia.



I don't think that anyone is talking about taking up arms (I certainly wouldn't).

I would provide support for "illegal" immigrants that I felt were being treated injustly. I would block government actions to infiltrate religious groups and I would eagerly make a "secret" warrant public. I would publish confidential photos of injustices commited by the US millitary.

I also feel that the imprisonment of people in Guantanamo for years without due process is one of the great injustices of our time. Any ethical way to protest this, legal or illegal, is worth it.