isadore;1867287 wrote:unbelievable. your continuing attempt to give a moral equivalence to Nazi.

This is bullshit. Blaming both sides in no way "normalizes" the white supremacists. I've seen that idea floating around the news, and it's actually very offensive, the idea that failing to normalize the violence on the left is actually normalizing the violence on the right.

You punch a Nazi in the mouth because he called you a name, sure, I might approve and believe he deserved it. I also 100% believe you should go to jail for assault. No, I'm not "normalizing" anyone's free speech. I'm refusing to normalize assault.

isadore;1867299 wrote:resistance to racism, fascism and Trumpism

What is Trumpism?

O-Trap;1867310 wrote: We may just have to disagree on these points. I don't like the idea of anybody deciding how much risk is too much or how much "safety" is necessary for a right to not be infringed and then applying it to everyone. I know that's a topic of discussion among libertarians, though.

What right is being infringed? Protests in many places are lawfully regulated - if you choose to participate in a protest requiring a permit, then your rights in no way are being infringed. If you want to walk around Saturday open carrying, then fine. You just can't do it in this protest over there.

And there are places where protest and assembly is freely permitted. But if you want to protest/march somewhere a permit is required, then you should abide by the conditions the community imposes on that permit.

I didn't propose anyone deciding or evaluating risk. I didn't propose permits be denied based on what the group or purpose is. I simply said protestors should be banned from carrying any weapons, if for no other reason than to ensure the safety of the officers that the taxpayer is shelling out overtime for.


While I'm content to let the lowest common denominators on both sides duke it out, I think more can be done to avoid having police in volatile and dangerous situations to begin with.

We believe in peaceful protest. We're having a lot of problems with that right now, and something needs to be done because it's getting worse. There may be a fine line between a protest and a mob.

QuakerOats;1867316 wrote:What is Trumpism?

When you stick your head up your own ass and motorboat your prostate.

like_that;1867260 wrote:This forum the last few days pretty much sums up the political landscape on steroids. Nobody is allowed to have a view without wearing black/white lenses. It's incredible how both parties and the media have forced everyone to conform to good/evil on every social or political discussion.

This and nothing but this. Reps to you!

Also, I'll slam gold down on a random table right now, GUT, that Automatik and S&L are just winding you up lol

And one more thing: I think that the lack of police actions could have prevented 99% of what happened, including the death. We see it time and time again where police are told to stand down and not try to gain control of bad situations. Time and time again. Most notably Baltimore, but it happened in Berkley, Portland, several other cities in the past year and now in Charlottesville.
Despicable.

gut;1867320 wrote:What right is being infringed? Protests in many places are lawfully regulated - if you choose to participate in a protest requiring a permit, then your rights in no way are being infringed. If you want to walk around Saturday open carrying, then fine. You just can't do it in this protest over there.

Why not? Am I by some extension less responsible in a protest?

If you take legal action against a protest for failing to have a permit, then you're still restricting free speech. The exercise of free speech on public property doesn't (or, at the very least, shouldn't) require a permit.

Same applies to the right to bear arms.

gut;1867320 wrote:And there are places where protest and assembly is freely permitted. But if you want to protest/march somewhere a permit is required, then you should abide by the conditions the community imposes on that permit.

The libertarian position is that the community majority's decision never trumps an individual's rights, so the community shouldn't be able to impose the requirement for a permit in that view.

gut;1867320 wrote:I didn't propose anyone deciding or evaluating risk. I didn't propose permits be denied based on what the group or purpose is. I simply said protestors should be banned from carrying any weapons, if for no other reason than to ensure the safety of the officers that the taxpayer is shelling out overtime for.

I was using "risk" in its relation to "safety." Safety is, of course, subjective. A person is less safe driving a car than they are walking. The degree is nominal, so we don't mind, but it's still true.

When we call something unsafe, it's not that we're determining that something bad WILL happen. It's that we don't like the odds that something won't happen. But that line is subjective.

gut;1867320 wrote:While I'm content to let the lowest common denominators on both sides duke it out, I think more can be done to avoid having police in volatile and dangerous situations to begin with.

Frankly, if both sides agree to it, I'm game to let them duke it out without police involvement.

gut;1867320 wrote:We believe in peaceful protest. We're having a lot of problems with that right now, and something needs to be done because it's getting worse. There may be a fine line between a protest and a mob.

I would contend that the line is an act of violence. While I don't mind the idea that we ought to pursue a means of avoiding violence, I don't think building a proverbial legal wall around it and taking action against those who cross that all is the right idea, particularly if it restricts the right to free speech, assembly, and bearing arms.

O-Trap;1867346 wrote: If you take legal action against a protest for failing to have a permit, then you're still restricting free speech. The exercise of free speech on public property doesn't (or, at the very least, shouldn't) require a permit.

There is a reason some places require a permit to protest. If you block a street that you have no permission to do so, you're not exercising free speech you're breaking the law and infringing on the rights of others. Libertarians don't promote one individual's interest or rights over another. That's why we have laws restricting where protests can take place, because the entire community has a right to that public space....and so preserving a person's right to use that public space free from harassment or danger is not restricting your rights - all are afforded fair and equal use of that public space.

You have no right to protest in a manner that infringes on my rights - the community is not the govt, it's people who are also individuals and have their own rights as individuals. If you want to embrace the more Libertardian philosophy, then they have the right to stand in the middle of the street and I have the right to continue driving as if they aren't even there. Or a more rational take is it's illegal to block my car and it's illegal to mow down a pedestrian.

O-Trap;1867346 wrote: I would contend that the line is an act of violence.

How about vandalism? How about blocking traffic or access to a business, which causes financial harm and could even impede life saving services?

gut;1867367 wrote:There is a reason some places require a permit to protest. If you block a street that you have no permission to do so, you're not exercising free speech you're breaking the law and infringing on the rights of others. Libertarians don't promote one individual's interest or rights over another. That's why we have laws restricting where protests can take place, because the entire community has a right to that public space....and so preserving a person's right to use that public space free from harassment or danger is not restricting your rights - all are afforded fair and equal use of that public space.

I would contend that a community does NOT have a right to that public space. The individuals who make up the community each do separately, but the community itself is not an entity with rights.

If the harassment or danger falls into the category of aggression, then sure. You have a claim. However, a person shouting his conviction is free speech. I don't have a right to keep people from exercising their free speech in a public place for my own convenience.

If one prefers the convenience, one might just have to go elsewhere.

gut;1867367 wrote:You have no right to protest in a manner that infringes on my rights - the community is not the govt, it's people who are also individuals and have their own rights as individuals.

Each has his right as an individual. But a "community" is a collective term, and if the "community" is passing legislation involving permits, then it is functionally government. Again, communities, as entire entities, don't have rights.

gut;1867367 wrote:If you want to embrace the more Libertardian philosophy, then they have the right to stand in the middle of the street and I have the right to continue driving as if they aren't even there.

No. Driving into me as though I'm not there, if you know that I am there, is aggression. That's pretty fundamentally opposed to libertarianism (it does, however, bring up a flaw in public roads).

gut;1867367 wrote:Or a more rational take is it's illegal to block my car and it's illegal to mow down a pedestrian.

In the event that this is true, that would mean you espouse the notion that you have a right to the public land that trumps my own if you are in a car, and I am not.

gut;1867370 wrote:How about vandalism? How about blocking traffic or access to a business, which causes financial harm and could even impede life saving services?

Vandalism of private property? That's certainly aggression.

Blocking traffic or access to a business? If they're on private property without permission, that's aggression.

Public land? Not aggression. Using the notion of "life-saving services" is only useful if you think the ends justify the means.

This is ultimately the problem with public roads. If they're public, then everyone ought to have an equal right to them. But that would require Rain McBleedingheard to have as much right to a public road for her protest as Average Joe Thousandaire, just trying to get to work or home.

QuakerOats;1867316 wrote:What is Trumpism?

Crypto-racism, demagoguery, jingoism, opportunism, misogyny accentuated with phony populism

O-Trap;1867373 wrote:This is ultimately the problem with public roads. If they're public, then everyone ought to have an equal right to them.

An equal right to use them for their intended purpose. Transportation. Not laying down on them. No individual, group of them, or government has the right to take away a law abiding individual's right to use public roadways for their intended purpose. Drawing lines with respect to liberty this to me is an easy one.

gut;1867311 wrote:This is bullshit. Blaming both sides in no way "normalizes" the white supremacists. I've seen that idea floating around the news, and it's actually very offensive, the idea that failing to normalize the violence on the left is actually normalizing the violence on the right.

You punch a Nazi in the mouth because he called you a name, sure, I might approve and believe he deserved it. I also 100% believe you should go to jail for assault. No, I'm not "normalizing" anyone's free speech. I'm refusing to normalize assault.

That is the despicable. It’s the phony “a plague on both your houses,” that allows the racist forces to grow. It is that little wink that lets the fascists know we really got your back. It is Trump condemning both sides then talking about how those vicious anti fascists attacked those poor folks trying to save the statue. Or Stephen Miller, Trump Senior Policy Advisor, attacking CNN reporter Jim Acosta, as having a “a cosmopolitan bias.” A favorite term Nazis used against its enemies. All these dog whistles you moral equivalence folks give to the Fascists.

O-Trap;1867373 wrote:I would contend that a community does NOT have a right to that public space. The individuals who make up the community each do separately, but the community itself is not an entity with rights.

Each has his right as an individual. But a "community" is a collective term, and if the "community" is passing legislation involving permits, then it is functionally government. Again, communities, as entire entities, don't have rights.

Ahh, so we've walked it back from violence to aggression?

The community is the people. If I run you over with my car, am I infringing your right to a public space or exercising my right to that same public space? Or, perhaps as a community, do the people agree to regulate use so as to avoid anarchy? Everyone has the same and equal right to a public road, subject to the uses and laws of that road - jaywalking, protesting, blocking traffic or whatever is not one of those uses. You can't pick and choose certain property rights over others - if you're going to recognize personal property rights and regulations, you have to recognize the same in communal property. A handful of places you can't assemble without a permit in no way silences anyone.

I'm sorry, but the pure libertarian philosophy that two random individuals will mutually agree to public use in a way that is mutually beneficial is a pipe dream. Without fair use standards you have anarchy. Fair use standards are simply codifying that Libertardian utopia where you and I mutually and instantly agree not to infringe on either's rights. You're arguing the jay walker has a right to sunbath in the middle of the street - that's not even a rational debate.

Presumably, you prefer your right not to be run over to take priority over your right to camp in the middle of the street. So let's not pretend that traffic laws (at least some) infringe, rather than preserve, your rights.

isadore;1867382 wrote:That is the despicable. It’s the phony “a plague on both your houses,” that allows the racist forces to grow. It is that little wink that lets the fascists know we really got your back.

LOL, the only people doing this are the only people condemning only one side....which is a club almost entirely exclusive to liberals.

Let me ask you a question - how many white supremacist protests, free of any leftwing anarchists, have had violence and property destruction? Now how many leftwing protests free of any right wing nutjobs have had violence and property damage?

All the violence and property damage is originating from the left wing "do gooders". Looks like Bill Ayers must be back in the game.

gut;1867389 wrote:LOL, the only people doing this are the only people condemning only one side....which is a club almost entirely exclusive to liberals.

Let me ask you a question - how many white supremacist protests, free of any leftwing anarchists, have had violence and property destruction? Now how many leftwing protests free of any right wing nutjobs have had violence and property damage?

All the violence and property damage is originating from the left wing "do gooders". Looks like Bill Ayers must be back in the game.

Gosh a ruddies so you can extend back to Bill Ayres several decades ago. So you can add all the damage and injury from the rioting left and I can extend back to all the damage and injury done by the Klan. Gosh who gets a bigger total. Hell I don’t even have to go back that far in its history to get it slaughtering Civil Rights workers and Blowing up black churches in 1960s like Mr. Ayers.

isadore;1867404 wrote:Gosh a ruddies so you can extend back to Bill Ayres several decades ago. So you can add all the damage and injury from the rioting left and I can extend back to all the damage and injury done by the Klan. Gosh who gets a bigger total. Hell I don’t even have to go back that far in its history to get it slaughtering Civil Rights workers and Blowing up black churches in 1960s like Mr. Ayers.

Gosh a ruddies. The people slaughtering civil rights leaders and Bull Ayers are all Democrats.

superman;1867409 wrote:Gosh a ruddies. The people slaughtering civil rights leaders and Bull Ayers are all Democrats.

and where is the KKK today

superman;1867419 wrote:

1. Robert Byrd quit and denounced the KLAN.
2. Robert Byrd died. and Upon news of his death, the NAACP released a statement praising Byrd, saying that he "became a champion for civil rights and liberties" and "came to consistently support the NAACP civil rights agenda

3. Klan and Nazis love Trump.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/kkk-is-all-in-for-hillary-clinton/

isadore;1867375 wrote:Crypto-racism, demagoguery, jingoism, opportunism, misogyny accentuated with phony populism

lolololololol.........

majorspark;1867380 wrote:An equal right to use them for their intended purpose. Transportation. Not laying down on them. No individual, group of them, or government has the right to take away a law abiding individual's right to use public roadways for their intended purpose. Drawing lines with respect to liberty this to me is an easy one.

Who decides the intended purpose? Likely the entity that built them, yes?

So, we get to the point we're at right now: Government decides.

gut;1867385 wrote:Ahh, so we've walked it back from violence to aggression?

Well, given that the NAP is a pretty central tenet to libertarian philosophy, minarchism, and any of the various anarchist ideologies, it certainly seems appropriate. Would you not agree?

gut;1867385 wrote:The community is the people.

Using the term to refer to a group of people is one thing. Granting that term rights or the ability to trump the individual is antithetical to the libertarian philosophy. You can hold that view, and that's fine, but it's not the view that a libertarian would hold.

gut;1867385 wrote:If I run you over with my car, am I infringing your right to a public space or exercising my right to that same public space?

You don't have a right to remove someone already occupying a public space against their will in order for you to occupy it. Your right to the space, like mine, doesn't give you the the right to use force against an individual's person or property.

However, I am not necessarily advocating for the right to protest specifically by intentionally blocking roadways. Doing so denies motorists the right to the public property on the other side of said protesters, to which they have as much right as the protesters themselves, so rest assured, I'm not just giving carte blanch to such protests. It still doesn't warrant a permit to be required for assembly or free speech, though, unless the First Amendment shouldn't include those things as rights.

gut;1867385 wrote:Or, perhaps as a community, do the people agree to regulate use so as to avoid anarchy?

The "people" don't regulate. Only something with the ability to enforce regulation can regulate.

Inasmuch as you do this, the "community" (which, if we're talking the creation of laws, is equitable to governance) trumps the individual simply because the community says they do. If that's a person's view, that's fine, but it is, again, antithetical to libertarianism.

gut;1867385 wrote:Everyone has the same and equal right to a public road, subject to the uses and laws of that road - jaywalking, protesting, blocking traffic or whatever is not one of those uses. You can't pick and choose certain property rights over others - if you're going to recognize personal property rights and regulations, you have to recognize the same in communal property. A handful of places you can't assemble without a permit in no way silences anyone.

I'm sorry, but the pure libertarian philosophy that two random individuals will mutually agree to public use in a way that is mutually beneficial is a pipe dream. Without fair use standards you have anarchy. Fair use standards are simply codifying that Libertardian utopia where you and I mutually and instantly agree not to infringe on either's rights. You're arguing the jay walker has a right to sunbath in the middle of the street - that's not even a rational debate.

The notion that fair use standards are a defense against anarchism is a slippery slope fallacy. The maintenance of governing abilities to handle circumstances in which one individual uses force to infringe on another's person or property can certainly be maintained without some local democratic determination of how public land "ought" to be used.

And I'm not saying that two people are going to shake hands and make it work. However, I'd wager that it'd happen more often than you seem to think it would. Consider sidewalks. There are no laws designating who has priority on the sidewalk in many places, and yet, we also don't see chaos or unchecked anarchy. People just tend to excuse themselves and get by. Either one person goes around or another moves. There aren't laws requiring this or stipulating guidelines on handling these situations. People do, in fact, just work them out more than 99% of the time.

What I'm saying that the right of a protester to protest in the street exists, but it doesn't give them the right to withhold access of public property from others. If a car comes and wishes to get through, protesters don't have the authority over the motorist such that they have the right to deny the motorist access. That doesn't mean that they don't have the right to the land themselves, though.

I am indeed arguing that someone has the right to be an idiot and do something irrational. I'm also arguing that people have a right to respond, either by taking a different road or by doling out a little public shame, which is undervalued. If someone wants to play Frogger while sunbathing, great. He's an idiot. Doesn't mean he doesn't have as much a right to the road as anyone else, and it doesn't mean he has more a right to the road as anyone else.

gut;1867385 wrote:Presumably, you prefer your right not to be run over to take priority over your right to camp in the middle of the street. So let's not pretend that traffic laws (at least some) infringe, rather than preserve, your rights.

Personally? Yes. The notion of getting run over doesn't appeal to me. I think that's a fairly safe assumption for most people.

However, let's not pretend that traffic laws functionally do that much to keep people safe, either.

Is it REALLY saving lives when I sit at the red light with no cars coming in any other direction?

Is it really so necessary to find a crosswalk when there is abundant clearance in all directions?

I wonder how many lives I'm saving by going the speed limit and not getting into accidents, and whether or not it's more than if I were speeding and not getting into accidents.

And when I was a kid, playing home run derby in the street, I had no idea that my mere presence standing on the road (but, of course, moving for all five cars that came by that day) was so problematic to people's rights.

superman;1867419 wrote:

His quotes are horrific, disgusting and outrageous. His grave marker should be dismantled; the buildings and highways named for him should be torn down; his family should be shamed and shunned; and everyone who ever voted for him should be required to pay reparations. This behavior cannot be tolerated in a civil society and his comments and hatred have no place in America. This is outrageous; it is not who we are.

QuakerOats;1867523 wrote: lolololololol.........

Your right, I forgot to include ignorant and bigoted, my mistake.