View Poll Results: If the mayor evicts you, would you leave?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • I would leave the park.

    17 60.71%
  • I would refuse to leave the park.

    11 39.29%
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 105

Thread: Would you leave the park?

  1. #51
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    The officials that these people elected have put in place certain ordinances in their names that prohibit certain types of assembly in certain places at certain times.
    Those officials are limited in the way they can act, and may not initiate government force against the People for mere exercise of right. Law must fall within the realm of protecting rights.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #52
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,397

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by rhinefire View Post
    It does not belong to them so they have no right to occupy it.
    This point-of-view is just another example of legitimizing the government's totalitarian status. What is the definition of *public* property? It's supposed to be the other way around. We own the government, thus we own anything the government owns. Hence, it does indeed "belong to them (us)".

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Josie View Post
    Let's say you were part of the Occupy, Tea Party or other movement you care about in large city. You've been camped out in this part for several weeks. The mayor of the city decides that enough is enough and you cannot occupy the park for as long as you want to. The mayor orders the police to evict you and your group from the park.

    Do you leave or do you stand your ground?
    Keep in mind the Tea Party events were one-day corporate sponsored events with air-conditioned buses, nice Koch Bros. port-a-potties, and big Fox News Tents. The Tea Party impotent anger and misinformed masses are not the same thing as other true grass roots movements.

  4. #54
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Those officials are limited in the way they can act, and may not initiate government force against the People for mere exercise of right. Law must fall within the realm of protecting rights.
    I disagree. Then again I largely disagree with the idea that most of these things are Rights rather than Privileges to begin with. The purpose of Law is to maintain ORDER in society and to contain the population within the boundaries that society has set up.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    05-01-14 @ 03:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    12,879

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by hazlnut View Post
    Keep in mind the Tea Party events were one-day corporate sponsored events with air-conditioned buses, nice Koch Bros. port-a-potties, and big Fox News Tents. The Tea Party impotent anger and misinformed masses are not the same thing as other true grass roots movements.
    Neither the Tea Partiers nor the OWS protestors get any respect from me. Either/Both of them will BEGIN to earn that respect when they get it through their heads that non-violent assembly will not change a damn thing in this country. The TPers assembled how many thousands on the Mall last year? If they'd come armed they could have fixed the problems that afternoon.

  6. #56
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigger View Post
    I disagree. Then again I largely disagree with the idea that most of these things are Rights rather than Privileges to begin with. The purpose of Law is to maintain ORDER in society and to contain the population within the boundaries that society has set up.
    The purpose of law is to protect and proliferate the rights and liberties of the individual.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  7. #57
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hare View Post
    What changes would you like to see? Specifics not generalities.
    I would like to see people oriented gov't funding. The Energy department is an advocacy grouop for big energy not renewables/alternatives. FDA is cheerleaders for big Pharma. As an example, solar and wind funding is for huge projects that tie into existing large corporate infrastructures when they should be done at the local level on individual homes. Gov't funds should be allocated to start new businesses instead of existing corporate behemoths and the Mililtary/Industrial complex is an excellent example of what is wrong. Fund local small farms, not huge conglomerate farms. Use gas mileage laws instead of smog laws that enhance technical problems. All gov't monies are intercepted by large corporations and laws are passed keeping small start ups out of corporate backyards. Big Pharma and selling of Oxycontin, that would be opium from Afghanistan. The Centralized Distribution of Energy system and the profits from the movement, storage and control of Iraqi OIL. The only pollution laws that are enfordced are the ones that cost Joe Sixpack more money. Let's enforce the banking laws when we are ripped off. Let's move Goldman Sachs out of our gov't offices and Treasury offices and Federal Reserve offices. Let's make jobs that are not designed to move paper but to actually require machining, shovelling, fitting, building, and addressing actual real problems like Global Warming, corruption, sound currencies, etc. I do realize that bankruptcy is the likely outcome irregardless, but ya' swallow the turd and get on with your life. Change is not easy and the natural human inertia must be overcome. Not to mention the "unseen hand."

  8. #58
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,940

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    But by this logic, we could also have no assembly and protest since the government gets to decide who stays and who goes at their whim.
    Yes, if by that you mean by my logic the government could also have no speech allowed or ban all guns.

    Constitutional rights can have reasonable limits placed upon them. Taking that and then attempting to cache it in an all and nothing extreme situation to attempt to disprove it doens't do that, it just creates a strawman of you beating upon fantasy rather than reality.

    Stating that a large group can not camp out for weeks on end in a park as a form of "protest" when it is inhibiting other park goes from partaking in the public property and keeping the government from properly maintaining the property to an acceptable level based on the publics expectations and safety regulations is no more a justification for the government to be able to just say "no protesting ever on this part at any point" than it is to say that being unable to yell fire in a crowded theater is justification for the government to be able to say "no more speaking in public, ever".

  9. #59
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Yes, if by that you mean by my logic the government could also have no speech allowed or ban all guns.

    Constitutional rights can have reasonable limits placed upon them. Taking that and then attempting to cache it in an all and nothing extreme situation to attempt to disprove it doens't do that, it just creates a strawman of you beating upon fantasy rather than reality.

    Stating that a large group can not camp out for weeks on end in a park as a form of "protest" when it is inhibiting other park goes from partaking in the public property and keeping the government from properly maintaining the property to an acceptable level based on the publics expectations and safety regulations is no more a justification for the government to be able to just say "no protesting ever on this part at any point" than it is to say that being unable to yell fire in a crowded theater is justification for the government to be able to say "no more speaking in public, ever".
    Crying fire in a public theater directly creates a situation in which you threaten the rights of others. That has always been the one and only limitation to our rights; we may not infringe upon the rights of others. So long as that is adhered to, the individual should be left to do as they desire.

    The problem with your "reasonable restriction" is that you've not actually LIMITED it to reasonable restrictions. You allow restrictions, but there are not restrictions on the restrictions nor does anyone properly argue for one. It's always "well the government can do X because blah". But without checks and balance, there is no way to constrain the government properly to protect our rights. In the end, assembly and protest are essential to the future and well being of a Republic. Due to this importance, I'd much rather see the natural conclusion of freedom as opposed to "reasonable restriction" which is unrestricted.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  10. #60
    Iconoclast
    DaveFagan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    wny
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,290

    Re: Would you leave the park?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    No one had more effective peaceful protest than Martin Luther King. He had a clear rallying message, people swarmed to him, and they marched. He never occupied jack ****. If they had set up tent cities, the coppers woulda' sic'd th'dogs on 'em.
    It looked to me like someone did sic the dogs on Martin, even though he played by their rules.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •