Favorite editorial cartoons: December 2009

[Toddo]

I've transported fireworks over a state border with the intent of using them in a state that frowns on it.

 

[jpariury]

Clearly, Toddo, you're the Rosa Parks of fireworks.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Clearly, Toddo, you're the Rosa Parks of fireworks.

I was the Rosa Parks of underage drinking. My parents let me drink a tiny amount of wine with dinner every night I wanted it around the time I was 8 or 9. OH NOES!

 

[jpariury]

And yet you go uncelebrated for the sheer bravery of your actions in advancing the cause of civil liberties. 'sa damn shame, really.

Random thought: what would it take for you (in the generic, not just Gee or Mike) to want to organize a violent overthrow of the current government?

 

[Gee-Perwin]

And yet you go uncelebrated for the sheer bravery of your actions in advancing the cause of civil liberties. 'sa damn shame, really.

Random thought: what would it take for you (in the generic, not just Gee or Mike) to want to organize a violent overthrow of the current government?

I can never see a point where I would be forced into taking violent actions against this government. When people turn to violence against them it only reinforces the state. It makes people want to turn to the state to protect them from the "crazys." I understand why someone would think a violent overthrow is the only answer, but I really think something like civil disobedience would work much better. If people just stopped being good little serfs the state would be powerless to stop them. Some peaceful disobedient people may have violence used against them by the state, but that would just expose the government as thugs to everyone else.

 

[jpariury]

I can never see a point where I would be forced into taking violent actions against this government. When people turn to violence against them it only reinforces the state. It makes people want to turn to the state to protect them from the "crazys." I understand why someone would think a violent overthrow is the only answer, but I really think something like civil disobedience would work much better. If people just stopped being good little serfs the state would be powerless to stop them. Some peaceful disobedient people may have violence used against them by the state, but that would just expose the government as thugs to everyone else.

So, for all your admiration for the actions and intents of the founding fathers, you disagree with what they did? I'm confused.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Gee, your earlier comments seemed to say that we, as a people, do not have to obey laws we disagree with, and that was a perfectly fine defense, and therefore it was wrong for the government to punish you for breaking the law.

That is far different from staging a protest or breaking a law knowing that it is possible you could get caught. I mean, I do speed but it's not like I can say after being caught "Well, I disagree with the speed limit so therefore I'm in the right." A client of mine couldn't say "I dislike the drug laws in America so therefore it's OK for me to break the law."

My point was that we still have to obey the laws even if we disagree with them, or we have to pay the penalty (which you call "government force").

 

[Gee-Perwin]

I can never see a point where I would be forced into taking violent actions against this government. When people turn to violence against them it only reinforces the state. It makes people want to turn to the state to protect them from the "crazys." I understand why someone would think a violent overthrow is the only answer, but I really think something like civil disobedience would work much better. If people just stopped being good little serfs the state would be powerless to stop them. Some peaceful disobedient people may have violence used against them by the state, but that would just expose the government as thugs to everyone else.

So, for all your admiration for the actions and intents of the founding fathers, you disagree with what they did? I'm confused.

Go back and read what I wrote about the constitution being a failed document. I admire what they did, no doubt. It was a great step into the unknown and brought the world closer to understanding true liberty. I just think if history has anything to teach us it is that violence begets violence. We need to travel further down the path of true liberty and learn how to resolve our problems nonviolently.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Gee, your earlier comments seemed to say that we, as a people, do not have to obey laws we disagree with, and that was a perfectly fine defense, and therefore it was wrong for the government to punish you for breaking the law.

That is far different from staging a protest or breaking a law knowing that it is possible you could get caught. I mean, I do speed but it's not like I can say after being caught "Well, I disagree with the speed limit so therefore I'm in the right." A client of mine couldn't say "I dislike the drug laws in America so therefore it's OK for me to break the law."

My point was that we still have to obey the laws even if we disagree with them, or we have to pay the penalty (which you call "government force").

So you would have arrested Rosa Parks because she broke the law? She deserved to pay the penalty, right?

edit: BTW, as a lawyer, I hope you don't say anything when you get caught speeding. Surely you know there are very easy ways to beat a radar speeding ticket in court, assuming the judge actually plays by the rules.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Gee, your earlier comments seemed to say that we, as a people, do not have to obey laws we disagree with, and that was a perfectly fine defense, and therefore it was wrong for the government to punish you for breaking the law.

That is far different from staging a protest or breaking a law knowing that it is possible you could get caught. I mean, I do speed but it's not like I can say after being caught "Well, I disagree with the speed limit so therefore I'm in the right." A client of mine couldn't say "I dislike the drug laws in America so therefore it's OK for me to break the law."

My point was that we still have to obey the laws even if we disagree with them, or we have to pay the penalty (which you call "government force").

So you would have arrested Rosa Parks because she broke the law? She deserved to pay the penalty, right?

Not all laws are just. An officer should have arrested her, yes, and I'm glad one did because it led to the protests that followed and the changing of the laws.

But we can't just have each individual person decide which laws are just or not and which laws they want to obey. You can't have laws be voluntary.

You know, we might not be disagreeing that much, and may have just been reading each other's posts too literally. Obviously, peaceful protests against unjust laws should be waged -- that's how things get changed. But no one breaking those laws should think that this excuses them from penalty in any way. See what I mean?

EDIT: Oh yeah, I know how to deal with speeding tickets, and handle quite a few for my clients! I haven't had a speeding ticket for years though. Maybe they just don't stop Honda Elements.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Here's a nice video of a letter written by Larken Rose (read by Ian Freeman of Free Talk Live):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVCDQgLyrG0[/youtube]

The video was added by some listener and is irrelevant. Just listen to it.

 

[jpariury]

Go back and read what I wrote about the constitution being a failed document.

I'm not sure what the success of failure of the Constitution has to do with violently overthrowing British rule.

I admire what they did, no doubt.

Which bit? It seems that the major thing they did was incite an organized violent protest? Sure, once that part was done, they sat down and put ink to paper and had some nifty and not-so-nifty ideas, but to say you laud them for doing it, then talk about how doing that exact thing is wrong and you would never do it... I'm having trouble reconciling those two stances.

Maybe they just don't stop Honda Elements.

Clearly they should pull you over for driving an ugly car.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

While I'm posting videos:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnTuAOBt-P8&feature=sub[/youtube]

I freaking love Andrew Napolitano. I met him back in September and got to hear him speak a couple different times over the course of a weekend. He sub'ing for Glen Beck here, but he has his own show called Freedom Watch online (I get it in podcast form). I wish he had Glen Beck's spot on Fox.

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Go back and read what I wrote about the constitution being a failed document.

I'm not sure what the success of failure of the Constitution has to do with violently overthrowing British rule.

I admire what they did, no doubt.

Which bit? It seems that the major thing they did was incite an organized violent protest? Sure, once that part was done, they sat down and put ink to paper and had some nifty and not-so-nifty ideas, but to say you laud them for doing it, then talk about how doing that exact thing is wrong and you would never do it... I'm having trouble reconciling those two stances.

I can look back on history and admire some actions people took back then, even while disagreeing with other actions they took. They didn't have the same types of resources--like the internet--that we have today. They wanted to be free and they felt that violence was the only way to obtain that freedom. I admire them for standing up for their freedom even if they chose the path of violence. Most people these days don't even care. Does that clear things up?

The declaration of independence is also worthy of some admiration. It states that we get our rights from our maker, NOT from a king. We are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This was a very bold statement to make back then. I don't agree with their choice to establish a government to guarantee these rights, because I can't have liberty when I'm being forced to pay into a system at the threat of force.

I can look back on a caveman and admire all the work he did to create fire & cook meat, and still disagree with how he dragged his woman around all day by her hair.

 

[jpariury]

Do you think they would/could have achieved their goals without resorting to violence? What's the historical basis for such a claim?

(Not being schmuck about it, I really couldn't find any pacifist overthrows of governments, but I may not have the right references)

 

[Gee-Perwin]

Do you think they would/could have achieved their goals without resorting to violence? What's the historical basis for such a claim?

(Not being schmuck about it, I really couldn't find any pacifist overthrows of governments, but I may not have the right references)

I think Gandhi is a great example of how nonviolence & civil disobedience defeated the British Empire in that region. I also think MLK is a great example of how nonviolence & civil disobedience changed policy. I personally believe that if enough people decided to live their lives outside of government the system would fail. There aren't enough enforces and jail cells to house even 5-10% of the population. It probably wouldn't take that much if they were all in the same area. Imagine if, on a smaller scale, everyone decided to stop taking the deal on a speeding ticket and instead asked for a trial. The burden that would be placed on the system would be immense, especially when you consider that the cost of the trial will likely cost more than the ticket itself. Now imagine these same people just not paying these tickets. What could they do?

 

[jpariury]

I think Gandhi is a great example of how nonviolence & civil disobedience defeated the British Empire in that region.

Gandhi was the first person that came to mind, thinking about it more, I don't see that non-violence directly led to it. Quite the contrary, while he maintained a stance of non-violence for the most part, it was the threat of violence that led to actual peace talks. Indian independence came at the foot of the Quit India movement era, which itself allowed for acts of violence by Gandhi's own words, and at best, it could be counted as contributive, but not definitive, in Britain's decision to withdraw. The INA and RIN revolting, and Britain suffering a costly war with Germany all played their part into achieving the end result result of Indian independence.

Similarly, MLK seems like a likely candidate, but in the end, his actions didn't take place in a vacuum either. Civil rights for blacks didn't come as a direct, singular result of nonviolent protest. Violent protests were taking place on a fairly regular basis, even within his own demonstrations. It is hard (or downright impossible) to say that the goals achieved and steps taken would have been accomplished without a liberal application of violence, or at least the threat and willingness to commit the same.

I can understand the desire to have all conflict and disagreement be resolved without resorting or inviting violence, it seems a tad naive to suggest that someone came along and said "Yeah, no" and then everyone collectively slapped themselves on the foreheads with a resounding "Doh" and went a different direction.

You also seem to be under the impression that people don't want a government (or, at least, this one). I think for the most part, people are fairly satisfied with the state of affairs, at least enough to not try doing things your way. Freedom is only free so long as you don't run into the barriers. You want freedom, but say "no" to violence. How can anyone be free if the simple right to protect and defend by any means, including violence, is not permitted?

 

[Gee-Perwin]

They are by no means the perfect examples as there were violent movements behind the peaceful ones (even if the "leader" didn't agree with them). I will be the first to admit it would take a number of people to "Doh" in unison and then decide to work together to achieve liberty. There are quite a number of people who are a part of this movement and are working together. Free State Project is probably the best example, and they've accomplished a lot up in New Hampshire.

Supporting self defense and looking to violently overthrow the government are two different things. I believe a well armed society is a peaceful society. Guns are just tools. I just don't think violently overthrowing a government, particularly a government with the biggest, most powerful military in all history, is the way real change can come about. Hell, I'd go so far as to say they would LOVE something like that. It would give them a reason to steal more freedoms from people all in the name of keeping them safe.

I don't have a problem with people wanting to live in a government like we have today. I just think that if people wanted to form their own society outside of the government they have the right to be left alone. They have the same right to defend their lives and property should someone come into their home and try to steal their belongings. This is why I understand the types who have the "Molon Labe" attitude when it comes to their fear of the government stealing their guns. I just don't agree with their belief that killing a couple cops on your way out of this life is going to change anything.

 

[Mike Ventrella]

Nonviolence only works within a democratic enlightened culture, such as in America (MLK) and India (Gandhi). There's no way citizens in Iran and China are going to get much accomplished with nonviolence, and there was no way our founding fathers would have either. (No, I am not a pacifist.)

The paranoia I see on the extremes (both right and left) about the US government existing to steal all our rights seems, well, extreme to me.

 

[Duke Frost]

The U.S. government has to get in line. The N.J. government is first in line in taking my rights...and my money.