Civil disobedience. Love it.

That was great. The police knew what was happening, it was Business that had the problem. And how hard did that ignorant old dude try to intimidate them?

Great work.

@Fletch

At times I've chosen to just take all sorts of abuse from cops. Other times I've resisted the abuse, and the cops have made it worse. I hate myself when I just take the abuse, and I am bitter and resentful towards the cops and my government when I suffer the "worse". I prefer the latter feeling, so fuck those cops. Abusive cops are on a list with child sex abusers of people who do incredible damage and should be eliminated from society. The good news about cops is that their fuckeheadedness is institutional, so that can technically be changed without killing. Society is becoming more and more aware of civil rights due to Facebook and the like, so I don't think bad cops are going to be as prominent in the near future.

I had an incredible encounter with a perfect cop last night, for instance. I was taking part in a civil disobedience protest screwing up traffic downtown, and when the cops were finally able to get through, the supervisor just came up and chilled with us a bit, asked us what was going on, what we were protesting, started helping us out, and then really politely asked some of us if we could do it a little bit differently. We were mostly happy about his respectful stance and complied. It was fantastic. Hopefully this kind of behaviour will become the norm.

I'm often a police sympathizer. In this case I'd be interested in a little bit more context, but doubt it would really change my mind. This response seemed pretty disproportionate to the size of the rally, and you can't help but wonder if that has to do with the content of the rally.

At the same time, if you are the cops going to police the KILL PIGS rally, you probably want to make sure everyone is ready for anything. Unfortunately some precincts don't consider tolerance of mild civil disobedience. In cases like this it could be the most effective way to diffuse the situation. Worst thing that happens is they break a couple windows, set a dumpster on fire, and look like a bunch of assholes. Instead they have photos of you charging mickey mouse and your assault rifles and batons at the police brutality rally. That's some quality police work.

when civil discourse is abused to spread misinformation and divide opinion, than civil disobedience is the first answer. a lot of people skip the civil discourse part and go right to killing off and suppressing people.

Civil disobedience! Children! Take up your chalk and draw the shit outta that sidewalk.

Preferably with caricatures of the mean-spirited, anti-fun, old douche bags who are pushing this.
And don't forget the stink lines....

@dannym3141 my apologies brother. That comment was far more confrontational (and cynical) than I intended. I do stand by the final statement, but yes psycho- or sociopath doesn't really matter - semantic games around the idea of a person capable of unwarranted atrocity. (Not sure why I've always associated psychopaths with more direct engagement in violence than sociopaths - wishful thinking, perhaps?)

As for democracy, well, the ancient Greeks had a form of democracy (from which our own is derived), but my point was more broadly focused. People that aspire to or seize power have been of the same ilk forever. What I'm saying is that our elected officials are no different than ancient warlords or modern tyrants in their desire for power and their drive to attain it. This is the cynicism I can't escape - those who would rule are by their very nature rulers, incapable of abrogating their own authority. If you want to depose them, you must have the same desire to rule. That trait has been known to all since before we even were humans. And of course, any deposer soon becomes the tyrant.

Don't mistake my cynicism for fatalism though. I don't think there is any political system that can get around that aspect of human nature, but it doesn't mean I think we should put up with anything unless we're willing to do the same (anything). It is possible to muddle through life essentially ignoring the assholes until they get right up in your face. That's when action on the part of courageous individuals and groups makes a difference. Questioning authority, civil disobedience, or just defiance of the local cultural dogma - all of these are theoretically capable of establishing collective authority (at least temporarily) over individual authority. But it's hard. Generally, we suck it up until we're ready to stick 'em up.

For a vehicle with adequate clearance, I would wager that the smoothest way to traverse these (other than swerving into the other lane or otherwise going around them) might very well be to have a mild amount of speed built up -- something like 10-15 MPH or more. Remember the episode of Mythbusters where they drove on a washboard road at varying speeds, and the higher speeds were generally smoother?

Of course, you'd have to have enough play and range in the suspension to have that apply here, and they might just be too tall for the great majority of vehicles. But if that is the case, then they would also be presenting high-center and front/rear bumper scrape problems to a whole bunch of standard vehicles. If that is the case, I think a little civil disobedience (or disobedience to the housing complex or whatever entity installed them) might be in order involving a few sledgehammers and shovels...

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

According to the Chancellor of Berkley (Not this college) linking arms is NOT non-violent civil disobedience. Definitional persuasion fail!

You do realize that you don't need to give them your return address right?

Besides, they get rigid envelopes all the time - the post office is set up for it - sending a rigid piece of mail isn't a crime.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Beautiful idea, thanks Trancecoach.
But, putting asphalt roofing shingles in would be a bad idea. It's possible--and since big business owns judges, probable--that someone could get charged with a felony. Something along the lines of using the federal mail to sabotage the mail sorting machines that are used on all of those return envelopes (they may even use this tactic against wood shims). Tampering with the USPS mail is a serious crime.
Now some brave soul may be okay with Civil Disobedience that might have such consequences--but they should be aware of the potential consequences first.

Obviously not trying to convince anyone--just trying to inflame the wing-nut base.

The Occupy Movement already has the majority opinion behind them--this will only illuminate the differences. People peacefully trying to make the government change vs. people trying to inflame hatred and distrust.

This will backfire and the people who already are in favor of needed reforms will see this attack for what it is and more will support Occupy and Warren.

The class war was started by the rich and their dupes, it will be ended by peaceful, civil disobedience.

*promote

Beautiful idea, thanks Trancecoach.

But, putting asphalt roofing shingles in would be a bad idea. It's possible--and since big business owns judges, probable--that someone could get charged with a felony. Something along the lines of using the federal mail to sabotage the mail sorting machines that are used on all of those return envelopes (they may even use this tactic against wood shims). Tampering with the USPS mail is a serious crime.

Now some brave soul may be okay with Civil Disobedience that might have such consequences--but they should be aware of the potential consequences first.

No one has the right to disobey a lawful order. You cannot have a rule of law that way. If it is an unlawful order, that is a different story. If you want to protest, you also have to be willing to take the heat, and to be civilly disobedient and risk arrest. What you're hoping for is to gain public support and enact some change in the mind of the public, which will hopefully led to a change in the system. That's the way it works. I don't buy that someones highfalutin ideals gives anyone the inherent right to defy the police. That's called anarchy. I feel the authorities here were not being entirely unfair, and did let them stay for a few days before asking them to leave. Why should people have the right to form impromptu tent cities and live in the public space for weeks on end? That's not a protest, that's called squatting.

I am speaking here of western style democracies. Totalitarian regimes are a different story. I believe God gives us certain inalliable rights, and if an authority is suppressing those rights, I believe we have right under God to transgress the earthly authority in those cases.

>> ^Kofi:
What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.
Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.
If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?
Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"
This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).
If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

What you are saying is that if it is legal it is right. Legal positivism. If it is illegal then the police have the duty to respond with whatever power is within their means, not just what is appropriate.

Lets take that principle to its logical conclusion.

If the government says "You are not allowed to continue with the activity that you are doing. Therefore we are asserting our duty to protect the community at large and are going to forcefully prevent you from continuing in your unlawful act" Does this seem reasonable?

Google "Laws for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service"

This is the logical conclusion. What the protesters represent is a cause higher than that of the law. They are going about it in a peaceful manner with the minimal violation of laws and others rights (rights pertaining not to life, limb or property but of occupying public land. PUBLIC land).

If this is still unsatisfactory please ask why it is ok for police to do this and not ok for the lethal crackdowns we saw in Egypt, Syria, Yemen and Tunisia.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however
This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.

I'll preface this with the statement that I feel that police brutality is on the rise and unchecked power is never a good thing, however

This video is not shocking. What is shocking to me is that people seem to think they can defy the police and get away with it. They had no right to be there, and they were told to leave and refused to go. So therefore, the police had the right to use reasonable measures to force them to leave. Were some cops using more force than necessary here? Probably so, but the protesters made the conscious choice to resist which gives a police officer the right to use force at their discretion. If you are going to use civil disobedience as a protest, you should expect to be arrested. If you are going to openly defy the police, you should expect a response. In civil society there is a rule of law. I don't see why anyone is shocked at the police enforcing the law on people who are breaking it. It doesn't matter how peacefully they were protesting; their right to protest became null and void when they decided to refuse to obey a lawful order.