Subject:
|
Re: May Day "riots" in London
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 12 May 2000 19:37:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
224 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Alex Farlie writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> > > Destruction of property has a very valid role in aggressive conflict
> > > resolution. It is a key part of disrupting mobility and supply • infrastructure.
> > > Were I to stage a revolt, careful distruction of property would be the
> > > PRIMARY means of combat.
> >
> > Oh, sorry about this but.... I agree with you. And with Alex. You're talking
> > about armed insurrection and you are as usual, spot on. Alex is talking about
> > law abiding peaceful demonstration and he is right as well.
Is the difference always clear? It seems that Alex isn't talking about
law-abiding demonstration at the Cenotaph since laws were broken.
> I happen to agree as well. An armed inssruection against genuine tyranny
> ,dictatorship or threats to democratic freedom is justisified (cv. Rumaina
> (c 1990) ,Cezchsolovakia 1968,Hungary 1956 and some actions in South America).
You list three specific conditions, one of which must be met for insurrection
to be justified. Do you assume that a revolt against a democracy would be
unjustified, merely because you happen to enjoy that form of governance?
> But violence purely to ahicive a politcal aim when there is no cause for it
> and there are other less violent chanells to use is something that I can't
> suppourt.
First, I don't call it violence unless the damage is being done to something
alive. Second, I disagree. Lots of people seem to believe that while a
channel for working within the system exists, folks seeking to be agents of
change _must_ use those systemic channels. So, all a bureaucracy has to do to
quell change is present an impossible channel for changing the system and no
one has a good claim on insurrection.
Speaking for the US, there is no way to fix it. We are only just figuring out
that we've peaked as a global economic empire and, like all empires, we're
collapsing. It'll take a while, but I bet eventually it will get ugly. A
revolution could stimulate sufficient change to throw the old emire out and
start a new one. But it won't because no one agrees with me. (And the few
that do, are scary :-)
Chris
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: May Day "riots" in London
|
| (...) I happen to agree as well. An armed inssruection against genuine tyranny ,dictatorship or threats to democratic freedom is justisified (cv. Rumaina (c 1990) ,Cezchsolovakia 1968,Hungary 1956 and some actions in South America). But violence (...) (24 years ago, 12-May-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
   
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
