Yesterday (Dec 17th) I wrote under the heading "This Ain't Kansas" that for people who were against the status quo have been increasingly victimized by the state. And that inevitably those who don't see any problems aside from those they deem "complainers." would think everything is a-ok. As usual, when I'm onto something I get gifted by Oludumare with a real life example. Over at Salon.com one Rick Fogarty wrote:
"I am not real sympathetic with Salon's article on the Miami demonstrations. The anti-globalization crowd has a well-earned reputation for property destruction and general mayhem wherever they go. Remember Quebec City and Genoa during the G8 summits? These were examples of a lack of police resources and the failure by the police to use overwhelming force. I applaud the Miami police department for its willingness to use force and also for its restraint. The demonstrators achieved their objectives by getting arrested and bragging rights about their injuries. So the show moves on to the next city.
As far as the loss of political freedoms in this country: That is left-wing hype and agitprop. I'll stand up and complain about the loss of civil liberties if Michelle Goldberg and others like her can no longer publish their ideas or views on what happened in Miami and similarly I can no longer respond accordingly."
I guess Corporations or countries do not cause physical damage to property or the environment. or that just isn't important to him. I won't get into the value of property or whether police protect property or people argument here as there is a more pressing issue. What is it that people consider Civil Liberties? It seems that this person believes that so long as one can write or publish then you are "free." So I would surmise that this individual feels that when one is arrested because one "fit's the description' but has done nothing illegal, that this is not a violation of civil liberties. Or when you are, for no reason you have your property searched, destroyed or otherwise damaged that your civil liberties have not been violated. Or perhaps that arrests on false charges is an OK thing to do. If that is the case I think that these "conservatives" have a very dim view of what civil liberties are. It would seem to me that had the Colonial Americans though along the lines of people like Rick, then John Locke
would no doubt not be seen as a 'blathering liberal" for stating:
That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but that magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offence is thereby the greater, both as being ungrateful for the greater share they have by the law, and breaking also that trust which is put into their hands by their brethren.
§ 232. Whosoever uses force without right - as every one does in society who does it without law -puts himself into a state of war with those against whom he so uses it, and in that state all former ties are cancelled, all other rights cease, and every one has a right to defend himself, and to resist the aggressor.
And the US would be another British colony.