I wonder why I am so hard to understand. Can you perhaps let me know what two different things I am talking about and whether or not one of them is the same thing that BC is being consistent about? That will make it easier for me to correct you if you are wrong. — unenlightened

Sure, sorry for responding a day later.

To be nonchalant of other people if they are private business owners because they are more easy targets (while trying similar tactics to the actual object of the protest would be more riskier) sounds strange, when you say it's all about human rights and equality. Talking about being against unfair and unequal treatment and supporting the basic human rights. Well, basic human rights are usually divided into civil and political rights, but also economic, social and cultural rights.

To be nonchalant of other people if they are private business owners because they are more easy targets (while trying similar tactics to the actual object of the protest would be more riskier) sounds strange, when you say it's all about human rights and equality. — ssu

Well let me take it somewhere else, where it might seem less strange. Like Vichy France. There is a National government of sorts, that is collaborating with the Nazis, and your average boulanger wants to get on with baking and selling bread as best he can, and protests his innocence.

But from the point of view of the resistance, there is no neutrality; you are part of the resistance or you are a collaborator. And the boulangerie may well be blown up as a diversion, to kill a few German customers, or simply to disrupt the ordinary functioning of life that is serving to transport and annihilate certain sections of the populace. A price worth paying.

Of course things are not that bad, but it is a judgement to be made, how bad they have to be before Joe Public's private property becomes part of the battleground. How many corpses does it take before your property is at the disposal of the resistance?

Well let me take it somewhere else, where it might seem less strange. Like Vichy France. — unenlightened

This sounds good.

your average boulanger wants to get on with baking and selling bread as best he can, and protests his innocence. — unenlightened

Yes. My options are a) continue as a civilian or b) take part in the resistance or c) try to join the Free French under DeGaulle somehow. If I choose b) and arm myself and start shooting at the first German I see, I'll be an illegal combatant. Hence if I get caught, I can be taken to the nearest forest and shot (with the ease that people can get banned here :snicker: ) and my execution won't be a warcrime.

But from the point of view of the resistance, there is no neutrality; you are part of the resistance or you are a collaborator. — unenlightened

Question: does this apply to children? How about invalids or old people like Bitter Crank? If the resistance decides to plant a bomb using a local six year old boy, Maurice, and an old timer like Bitter Crank posing as his grandfather and both aren't so hot about it, can they be shot as collaborators? Because there's no neutrality! Their dead bodies will surely bring the message home to others that there's no messing around with the Spanish Inquisit, sorry, the French Resistance!

Of course things are not that bad — unenlightened

When Americans here start saying that it is really so bad, then I'll really get worried where the US is going.

but it is a judgement to be made, how bad they have to be before Joe Public's private property becomes part of the battleground. How many corpses does it take before your property is at the disposal of the resistance? — unenlightened

Do they come to me and ask: "Bonjour monsieur! We've noticed that there are many Germans shopping in your bakery so if you don't mind, we'll blow them up while they are inside your bakery! Yes, mon ami, you or your employees and your ordinary customers might be killed too, but, it's war, vive La France!"

And now I don't think it's even war. Yet actually your question is simply when should I take the law into my own hands?

There might be reasons for that, certainly, but is it really necessary on this occasion? StreetlightX surely thinks so, who I think is at another continent (or a foreigner in the US). Yet I've noticed a massive outcry right from the start in the media and a response from even politicians. Do you think that NOTHING would have happened if nothing would have been burnt or looted? The only thing that has been strange is simply that those that have mentioned that burning and looting private property isn't good have gotten flak on this thread. I think the rioting has been a side issue here and has been more of the talking point in Fox News. Besides, I'm not seeing the American cities burning, so is this not even a current issue.

Are these Iraqi people a) protesting American invasion or b) rejoicing the downfall of Saddam Hussein or c) doing something else?

Well there are many questions there, and I do not want to argue them all to a conclusion; I don't know enough about the particulars. I am satisfied if I have made a space for a moral resistance to racism that does not necessarily respect property rights as absolute.

Yet actually your question is simply when should I take the law into my own hands? — ssu

Let me put it this way: if the law is that black people are slaves, or that black people are not allowed to use the same facilities as others, or that Jews have to wear a star and live in the ghetto, or some other inhuman and immoral law, then not to resist or protest or break the law is immoral and indefensible, and to seek to protect one's property at the expense of those who oppose and resist is doubly indefensible. Thus spake the Lord.

Don't know how I missed this but this is kinda cool I guess:

"New York’s City Council approved an austere budget early Wednesday that will shift $1 billion from policing to education and social services in the coming year, acknowledging protesters’ demands to cut law-enforcement spending but falling short of what activists sought.

The vote by the council came at an extraordinary moment when the nation’s biggest city is grappling simultaneously with a $9-billion revenue loss because of the coronavirus pandemic and with pressure to cut back on policing and invest more in community and social programs.

...The police department also would give up control over security of the city’s public schools, a function the NYPD took over from the Department of Education in 1998. The city has about 5,300 civilian school safety agents. De Blasio said details were being worked out, but the Education Department would train the agents. Money would go instead to education, social services in communities hit hard by the coronavirus and summer youth programs for over 100,000 people."

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-07-01/new-york-billion-dollar-cut-nypd

The 1b figure is fudged (by about 500m even, according to some figures) if details are taken into account, but this is the kind of shit direct, collective action helps facilitate. More.

But isn't that a bit arbitrary? I mean, the Netherlands is tiny with a relatively homogenous culture compared to the USA. Most things are international for us because our neighbours are just a stone's throw away. Moreoever, the right of self determination often stems from a cultural or ethnic group inside national borders; so not very international.

I think both approaches should be reconciled with each other. I'm not going to deny individual autonomy but there's a point for me where collective pressure is such that I don't think punishing individuals makes sense unless they actually had power to influence events. So we sentenced Nazi leaders but not Nazi soldiers. It's not as if the BLM movement is actively encouraging riots; compare that to a President who was actively encouraging shooting US civilians.

At the same time it (property damage) is used as a distraction by those opposing change. So how we deal with it also becomes a tactical issue.

And in a way, people that voted for an obvious racist are complicit even if they didn't vote for him because of his racism, they allow the system to exist where such a person is not only electable but actually became the president. That is a betrayal by citizens of their fellow black citizens. Enough to deserve to possibly get your house burned down? Probably not.

But the reverse is there too. Those that were betrayed and are discriminated against. Enough that in anger they might burn or loot buildings, or even in desperation? Apparently. So I can't condemn it and for tactical reasons I will defend it (by deflecting back to the actual issue). I also, maintain that the threat of violence is a viable method to affect change and private property is not an absolute (pace unenlightened above).

Dutch budget for the entire Netherlands: 6.1 billion USD (today's exchange rate) per year until 2022. NYPD was 6 billion and will go back to 5 billion USD. 17.3 million people in the Netherlands vs. 8.4 million NYC residents. US figures for police budgets really are astronomical.

if the law is that black people are slaves — unenlightened

Where does this stuff even come from? Just the other day you had a black athlete saying he wants 20 million dollars a year or "he ain't playing". I mean. That's really just another day in the USA for ya. Not even a thing.

But isn't that a bit arbitrary? I mean, the Netherlands is tiny with a relatively homogenous culture compared to the USA. Most things are international for us because our neighbours are just a stone's throw away. Moreoever, the right of self determination often stems from a cultural or ethnic group inside national borders; so not very international. — Benkei

I feel like we might be talking past each other here. When I say I support self-determination I'm saying that, in general I support the right of "a people" to freely choose their own government (implying statehood) and to have that statehood be free from external interference. So, I would support the creation, of, say, a Kurdistan. It comes down to protecting ethnic minorities and the idea that we can't just rely on our neighbors to keep us safe.

I think both approaches should be reconciled with each other. I'm not going to deny individual autonomy but there's a point for me where collective pressure is such that I don't think punishing individuals makes sense unless they actually had power to influence events. So we sentenced Nazi leaders but not Nazi soldiers. It's not as if the BLM movement is actively encouraging riots; compare that to a President who was actively encouraging shooting US civilians. — Benkei

Punishment/judicial procedures and moral responsibility are two different things. There are plenty of shitty, terrible people who we would never put on trial or punish in any type of formal way. There are also decent people who commit crimes who we need to punish. I support reconciling the two approaches as well. Any reasonable approach should. We did punish German soldiers who committed actual war crimes (then again plenty of those who did commit war crimes got off scot-free) but in the post-war period the West had an interest in a strong West Germany and we weren't about the lynch the country for its past crimes and punish everyone with even a trace of connection to the Nazi party. Hell, even Israel established ties with West Germany in the mid 50s.

If BLM isn't encouraging violence/rioting then I'm fine with BLM if that's truly what they stand for. I haven't looked into the BLM movement that much... it seems like there are a ton of different perspectives on it and I'm just not interested in digging too much into the weeds here. If it's just about non-violent resistance/protests and police reforms then that's fine in my book. I definitely support some police reforms.

So how we deal with it also becomes a tactical issue. — Benkei

On a philosophy forum we should be able to call a spade a spade. I get that there's a tactical/rhetorical/political element to it.

Those that were betrayed and are discriminated against. Enough that in anger they might burn or loot buildings, or even in desperation? Apparently. — Benkei

I just don't buy this. On one hand many of the businesses they destroy are minority-owned businesses and businesses in poor areas. I think many of them are opportunists who see disorder/free stuff and think they can cash in. In any case even if you are legitimately angry you're still shooting your own community in the foot.

not to resist or protest or break the law is immoral and indefensible, and to seek to protect one's property at the expense of those who oppose and resist is doubly indefensible. Thus spake the Lord. — unenlightened

How do people in Hong Kong protest the Chinese authorities by burning their own property down? Why would the store owners be the culprits there? You genuinely think that Beijing cares about that?

There has happened huge losses for democracy and freedom just now in Hong Kong and in Russia, and people here are disgusted about someone daring to say that looting and destroying private property isn't the way, even if they totally agree on the issue and have no problem with non-violent protests. That's crazy.

(Besides, are there huge riots in the US anymore? I'm sceptical about this, I think the vast majority of the protests have been totally peaceful and they have made their mark.)

I just don't buy this. — BitconnectCarlos

:up:

How do people in Hong Kong protest the Chinese authorities by burning their own property down? Why would the store owners be the culprits there? You genuinely think that Beijing cares about that? — ssu

So many questions. Why not pick North Korea? People in Hong Kong protest as best they can, and I am not going to second guess their tactics, any more than I am going to second guess protestors in the US.

(Besides, are there huge riots in the US anymore? — ssu

No. But some people seem to be terribly exercised about a couple of incidents. Otherwise, we could let the property damage thing go and focus on the real topic of what to do about systemic racism. I am defending the principle that damage to property is traditional and justifiable form of protest that has worked to change things for example in the case of the suffragettes. and in the anti apartheid movement in the UK. It's a way of making justice an economic issue, and economic issues always get attended to.

I am defending the principle that damage to property is traditional and justifiable form of protest that has worked to change things — unenlightened

Direct action and using violence has worked. Creating economic losses has surely worked. War works. Someone's freedom fighter is another one's terrorist, as the saying goes. Just remember when you say something is "traditional and justifiable", using that method then is so also for someone pushing an agenda you vehemently oppose.

using that method then is so also for someone pushing an agenda you vehemently oppose. — ssu

No it isn't. Why would you think that? Violence to promote injustice is not equivalent to violence to end injustice. That's ridiculous.

Do you really think that someone pushing an agenda that you don't agree with thinks he or she is pushing injustice? That someone surely thinks it's the just cause.

Besides, what African Americans have given to the United States is that they have pushed the Union to truly live up to it's ideals and core values that the country was founded on. For many countries their constitution is just letters in a formal paper that has no resemblance to reality and no meaning other than being an empty lithurgy, which the country's citizens likely have no idea of even existing. Not so for Americans. Some cannot be more equal than others, only in George Orwell's famous depiction of the Soviet Union they can, but not in the United States.

African Americans did not achieve the ending of segregation through a violent revolt, but through the Civil rights movements using nonviolent resistance campaigns, which indeed was so successful, that the country took the movement as part of it's own cultural heritage to be cherished and remembered.

Today that push for a more just US that would live up to it's values even better could be continued with opposing police brutality and the whole legal system, or what has become of it. Nonviolent means will be far more effective means to do this in a deeply polarized country bursting with guns and which is hell bent on transforming into a police state from a justice state as a huge security apparatus already exists in the country.

Today that push for a more just US that would live up to it's values even better could be continued with opposing police brutality and the whole legal system, or what has become of it. Nonviolent means will be far more effective means to do this in a deeply polarized country bursting with guns and which is hell bent on transforming into a police state from a justice state as a huge security apparatus already exists in the country. — ssu

I hope you are right, but your post in general sounds like wishful thinking and fantasy national virtue. I very much fear there will be a blood bath, because economically it will suit the monied class.

I'm not buying this. Non-violent protest is preferable if it's effective but violent protests is preferable if nonviolent means are ineffective when pursuing justice. As to the whole reciprocity argument, it doesn't fly.

There's only a few options here:

1. the people don't have a just cause, so they do not get the support they need and nothing changes and they're caught (RAF);
2. the people don't have a just cause, but they are part of a fascist state that supports or condones it nonetheless (KKK terrorism, Apartheid beatings and killings);
3. the people have a just cause, but they do not get the support they need or the State apparatus is too strong and nothing changes and they're caught (HK protesters);
4. the people have a just cause, they get the support they need, change is affected (race riots of the 60s).

Where does your reciprocity fit in? If we're against change but we're in category 3 or 4, we are on the wrong side of the divide. Tough luck. History will judge us. I also find it rather unlikely to happen any way. Or are we know going to pretend justice, equity and fairness are such ethereal concepts that, for instance, HK protesters should have a nice rational debate with the PRC because the PRC actually has a reasonable position?

What the majority of people actually think about the perceived (in)justice matters more than any property rights in that respect. A society that perpetuates injustice cannot cherry pick to have some of its rules respected; they're all contributing to injustice as they regulate the system in which the injustice is upheld, perpetuated or caused. Burn it down if people prefer order over justice. Society doesn't deserve to exist and people have no right to safety if they deny it for others. In your view slaves wouldn't be allowed to destroy their masters crops and house. In fact, there's a moral duty on their neighbours to burn the place down if he doesn't listen to reason. The fact their neighbours don't act, make them fair game.

Now, these are more extreme examples than what is currently happening in the US but the categorical opposition against property damage is just wrong, both ethically and historically it should be rejected. And no, this is not a defense of opportunists, obviously. However, if corporate America and half of the politicians think "taking a knee", no longer casting "white people" to voice "black cartoon characters", or no longer having "master bedrooms" and all the other symbolic bullshit happening is "making a difference" then they sure as hell deserve a molotov cocktal through their window at some point.

The white man will try to satisfy us with symbolic victories rather than economic equity and real justice. — Malcolm X

What's worse is that these law and order types love their boycotts and sanctions, which indiscriminately affect entire societies and cause tremendous economic damage and death. Less visible than a fire. Just look up how many kids died in Iraq due to lack of medicine resulting from the sanctions. But that's perfectly fine because it respected property, right? In reality, they might as well have torched the hospitals. The ethical equation doesn't change here, only the imagery does.

I hope you are right, but your post in general sounds like wishful thinking and fantasy national virtue. I very much fear there will be a blood bath, because economically it will suit the monied class. — unenlightened

An economic depression doesn't suit the monied class. It's a statistical fact that during economic depression and downturns income inequality narrows (meaning the rich aren't getting so much as before). Of course that statistical narrowing of inequality is meaningless as when poor people loose their small income, it matters far more than a millionaires losing 20% of their income.

A bloodbath? The issue was far more explosive in the 20th Century as there really was existing laws on segregation and overt political opposition. Let's remember that Eisenhower had to deploy the army to ensure that local authorities abide with the rulings. And in the end the country did experience high level political assassinations.

Now look at how peacefully the CHOP/CHAZ was cleared. Where's the huge outcry about the eviction? If there was a huge outcry about it, it isn't reported on mainstream media. And did the police face opposition or sniper fire? Of course not. The protests are basically non-violent: nobody is willing to take lives and give their life away if necessary as in a true conflict situation or war. We just tweet these days very angrily, luckily.

Police dispersed protesters in Seattle's Capitol Hill Occupation Protest (CHOP) area and arrested at least 31 people on Wednesday after an emergency order by Mayor Jenny Durkan. Hundreds of police officers worked afterward on cleaning up the area

Which does tell about the situation (if it really has gone that way). First the mayor of Seattle was talking about "the summer of love" referring to the site, which I find a bit condescending, but then it seems that the turn came when the protesters dared to protest at her house in the middle of the night, so soon came the order to empty the area without Trump getting involved at all. Which shows just how much "on side" the democratic politicians are with the protests. Likely officially the reason was the homicides that happened there, but I tend to think disturbing the mayor was the key.

And sorry, but I fail to see the US at the cusp of a civil war, even if things can get worse in America. The incoming elections likely are very nasty and I think that in the following political turmoil lives are going to be lost, so it's pretty gloomy. That people start to roam the streets in vigilante groups and start shooting each other is a possibility, even if it's unlikely. Hurricane Katrina is a good example of how thin the line is.

(Yes, it can get ugly. Picture of an incident in New Mexico last month where a vigilante group faced of protesters.)

Non-violent protest is preferable if it's effective but violent protests is preferable if nonviolent means are ineffective when pursuing justice. — Benkei

And are they ineffective?

4. the people have a just cause, they get the support they need, change is affected (race riots of the 60s). — Benkei

Is it really the race riots? I think the vast amount of legislation ending segregation and Jim Crow was given before the worst riots, which were sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King. You should tell us why my understanding that the Civil Rights movement was mainly non-violent resistance is wrong.

However, if corporate America and half of the politicians think "taking a knee", no longer casting "white people" to voice "black cartoon characters", or no longer having "master bedrooms" and all the other symbolic bullshit happening is "making a difference" then they sure as hell deserve a molotov cocktal through their window at some point. — Benkei

Hence the focus of the protest has to be focused on real issues and actual legislation, not the "culture war" stupidities.

Just look up how many kids died in Iraq due to lack of medicine resulting from the sanctions. But that's perfectly fine because it respected property, right? — Benkei

UN sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime are a bit off this topic in my view.

And are they ineffective? — ssu

Too early to tell. But with all the symbolic victories and limited, coordinated efforts to resolve the underlying issues, it may very well be it will once again be ineffective. The effectiveness of both peaceful protests and violent riots has been limited in the US.

Is it really the race riots? I think the vast amount of legislation ending segregation and Jim Crow was given before the worst riots, which were sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King. You should tell us why my understanding that the Civil Rights movement was mainly non-violent resistance is wrong. — ssu

How many race riots were there during Jim Crow? Oh yeah, quite a lot. There was a relative quiet spell after the war until the early 60s. In the 60s the first riots started in 1963, before the first draft of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and before the assasination of JF Kennedy. Kennedy initially wanted to stay out of the "civil rights mess" and it was only after the escalation in Birmingham in May 1963, civil rights got on his to-do list. There's a riot that directly influenced the leader of the nation to do something about the underlying causes.

It was Lyndon B. Johnson who had the Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act wasn't passed until 1965. King was assasinated in 1968. Most of the riots were the year before (the long hot summer). But yes, riots also broke out after his assassination.

UN sanctions on Iraq and Saddam Hussein's regime are a bit off this topic in my view. — ssu

Off topic? Why? Because sanctions have proven to be so effective to cause regime change? Oh wait, they don't. And as if Kim Jong Un, Saddam and all the other "recipients" of the sanctions live(d) lives of less luxury? Oh wait, they didn't. Does it cripple entire countries' economies and kill people? Yes they do.

It does the exact same thing as a riot and tries to affect change too. The moral calculus is the same but somehow burning down a building is worse because of "property rights"? You've got be kidding me. I do hope we are capable on a philosophy forum to discuss ethics without relying on the law, which has fuck all to do with justice to begin with. As any lawyer worth his inflated fee should know.

EDIT: Riots in the 1960s, by the way, were because Southern racist pricks refused to adhere to the 1954 SC decision in Brown v. Board of Education that concluded racial segregation in education was unconstitutional. So for nearly 10 years the State stood by and did mostly nothing. It wasn't until June 1963 that Kennedy actively started intervening.

How many race riots were there during Jim Crow? Oh yeah, quite a lot. There was a relative quiet spell after the war until the early 60s. In the 60s the first riots started in 1963, before the first draft of the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act and before the assasination of JF Kennedy. Kennedy initially wanted to stay out of the "civil rights mess" and it was only after the escalation in Birmingham in May 1963, civil rights got on his to-do list. There's a riot that directly influenced the leader of the nation to do something about the underlying causes.

It was Lyndon B. Johnson who had the Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act wasn't passed until 1965. King was assasinated in 1968. Most of the riots were the year before (the long hot summer). But yes, riots also broke out after his assassination. — Benkei

:up: The civil rights movement was wrought end-to-end with violence and it's threat, and anyone who thinks otherwise has had their history whitewashed and sanitized.

An economic depression doesn't suit the monied class. — ssu

Oh but it does. Read The Grapes of Wrath

An economic depression doesn't suit the monied class. — ssu

It depends how it's managed. 2008 was a record profit year for many. As is this one.

Yes, who cares about economics when we have great literature. Just like during wartime, only a few mass wealth even if depressions are times when capital changes ownership.

It depends how it's managed. 2008 was a record profit year for many. As is this one. — fdrake

Usually the best year is when the economic downturn begins. I doubt 2009 was so great.

Yes, who cares about economics when we have great literature. — ssu

Shit. You really don't have an argument do you?

An economic depression doesn't suit the monied class — ssu

Hmmm...

Suicides on wall street aricle doesn't seem to be about the lower class. It might even support your point.

Suicides on wall street aricle doesn't seem to be about the lower class. — Wheatley

Did you read the article? It exposes the myth; it didn't happen. Of course some people with money lost out, but mainly, the little people lost their homes and livelihoods and 'the banker is the man who gets it all', as documented in the mere fiction I cited. But by all means look up the stats on wealth distribution through the last recession, to check.

But by all means look up the stats on wealth distribution through the last recession, to check. — unenlightened

I believe you. :grin:

But by all means look up the stats on wealth distribution through the last recession, to check. — unenlightened

Why don't we do that:

Here's statistics from the last economic downturn, the so-called Great Recession / Financial Crisis:



Notice what happens to the wealth of the top 10% between 2007 to 2010? It comes down. This small and as I stated before, statistical event, happens when stock market and housing prices go down. But it's a passing moment. The Gini index measures wealth inequality and you can notice the small drop when the country goes into economic recession (which officially happens later when the change has already happened). Once the bottom is reached, the unemployed stay unemployed longer, but asset prices start to rise anticipating the coming economic upturn.

it's a passing moment. — ssu

Et voila.

Notice what happens to the wealth of the top 10% between 2007 to 2010? It comes down. — ssu

A dip for the wealthy hits a lot harder than a dip for the poor. That's what your statistics don't show you.