Peaceful Protests Change Nothing, but Looting Does!

[Josh F]

Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party have resulted in no positive reformation to either wallstreet or the federal reserve.  However, in light of Ferguson, Barack Obama is calling for a $263 million spending package to reform police departments across the country and ensure 50,000 more officers wear body cameras.

 

The History of looting in the United States is heavily correlated with positive reformation.  Martin Luther King himself wrote a letter from prison, explaining that his ability to negotiate the end of Jim Crow and segregation was because of the looming and present threat of the violent wing of black protests.  

 

The initiation of America itself began with an act of looting, called the Boston Tea Party, in which the private property of British exporters was destroyed by a group of colonists dressed as natives.   

 

This is not a moral argument, certainly, but a pragmatic one.  Nonetheless, a well deserved addendum to the discussion of looting.

 

I grew up in Los Angeles, and after the Rodney King riots Los Angeles underwent epic changes.  The neighborhoods that Dr. Dre raps about are no longer than violent ghettos he depicted.  Other police departments like Rampart were revealed for their corruption.  Laws and training were put into place to reduce police racism.

 

So, the question isn't is looting moral or immoral.  The question for debate here is: does looting work?

[dsayers]

No. The topic assumes that buying body cameras is positive reform. There have already been numerous measures undertaken to "keep police honest." Every one of them is predicated on the assumption that they will follow their own rules. By "they," I'm referring to those in power. Buying the body camera will not guarantee it is used. Wearing it doesn't mean it's recording. It recording doesn't mean the cop, his boss, a judge, etc won't tamper with or disregard the information it contains.

 

Besides, even if it is used, recording, not tampered with, and is able to capture the specifics of a righteous shooting, this will not stop the leader-serving media from trying to incite slave on slave violence to protect the masters who steal from and assault all of us from scrutiny.

[shirgall]

Occupy Wallstreet and the Tea Party have resulted in no positive reformation to either wallstreet or the federal reserve.

 

 

Because both groups were co-opted by entrenched interests, either on the left or the right. They both started from the same point -> no bailouts for Wall Street, but with different justifications.

 

It was only after being co-opted that Occupy turned violent (and communist). It was only after being co-opted that TEA turned Social Conservative.

 

The history of looting in the USA starts with Washington and Hamilton sticking Western Pennsylvania whiskey makers with the bill for the Continental Congress. This is not positive at all. Instead it showed, early on in the country's formation, that powerful lobbyists will get the government they want.

 

The Tea Party example you gave was different because they destroyed the tea so no one could have it, rather than taking it for themselves. It was an act of rebellion, if not an act of war. I don't see anything going on these days as similar. I see what's going on now as a call for "Do Not Rebuild".

[Josh F]

 

The history of looting in the USA starts with Washington and Hamilton sticking Western Pennsylvania whiskey makers with the bill for the Continental Congress. This is not positive at all. Instead it showed, early on in the country's formation, that powerful lobbyists will get the government they want.

Well, firstly the Whiskey Rebellion was after the Boston Tea Party.  Secondly, the Whiskey Taxes were repealed by Jefferson after the rebellion was squashed.  Federalists also changed.  They no longer challenged the freedom of assembly and the right to petition.  Similarly, the government is trying to stop looting in Ferguson and does and will prosecute the looters, but the above article demonstrates that the government also knows it needs to make some concessions.  

 

Looting, far more than peaceful protests, procures change.  

I don't like the title of your post, because the looters were neither raised peacefully, nor raised their children peacefully.

I don't understand what this has to do with my post?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression you read what I wrote.  

 

EDIT: ahh I just realized I think you misread the title as Peaceful Parenting and not Peaceful Protests.

[shirgall]

Well, firstly the Whiskey Rebellion was after the Boston Tea Party.

 

I think you missed my point. The looters were in the government, not the rebels. The Tea Party removed tea from royalists and rebels alike, as an act of war. The government stole items of value (with an army!) from people who had harmed no one, thus making them looters. I probably bent the metaphor too far.

[MMX2010]

I don't understand what this has to do with my post?  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression you read what I wrote.  

 

Sorry.

 

I misread what you wrote as "Parenting" instead of "Protesting". 

 

Anyway, your thesis is that looting "works" because it "produces social change" and "reveals police corruption".  However, there are (unprovable, yet plausible) accusations that the federal government ordered Ferguson officials to not intervene in the looting.  There are also (unprovable, yet plausible) accusations that the federal government bussed in protesters in the hope that they would riot/loot.  Lastly, there is also the (unprovable, yet plausible) presumption that the government ignores corruption most of the time, and only reveals/terminates a particular piece of corruption when it suits the government's interest.  (So, for example, the federal government knew that the Ferguson police department is corrupt - but "allowed" the police department to stay that way, because it "didn't see the need to intervene".  Furthermore, the end result of all government intervention is the expansion of government.) 

[powder]

Josh, can you rephrase the question "does it work" to "is looting as effective way to ..........  ?" 

[jpahmad]

 

 

Looting, far more than peaceful protests, procures change.  

 

This is interesting.  I never thought about it too much.  But it seems as though one violent gang (the govenment) will only respond after being threatened by another violent gang (looters).  The looting is a threat.  Looting means "if you don't do something that we find desirable, we will destroy your infrastructure."  That means something.  The government doesn't care about anyone who is peacefull.  They'll just laugh at it.

[Josh F]

Sorry.

 

I misread what you wrote as "Parenting" instead of "Protesting". 

 

Anyway, your thesis is that looting "works" because it "produces social change" and "reveals police corruption".  However, there are (unprovable, yet plausible) accusations that the federal government ordered Ferguson officials to not intervene in the looting.  There are also (unprovable, yet plausible) accusations that the federal government bussed in protesters in the hope that they would riot/loot.  Lastly, there is also the (unprovable, yet plausible) presumption that the government ignores corruption most of the time, and only reveals/terminates a particular piece of corruption when it suits the government's interest.  (So, for example, the federal government knew that the Ferguson police department is corrupt - but "allowed" the police department to stay that way, because it "didn't see the need to intervene".  Furthermore, the end result of all government intervention is the expansion of government.) 

I thought about the "the police stand by and allow looting" arguments.  As I explained, I'm from LA, and they said similar things regarding the Rodney King Riots.  I don't really have an explanation, or know if its true, and if it is true what the reasoning is... but I'll keep that argument on tap.  I think one reason might be that the police are severely undermanned, 20 potentially armed looters would make for an extreme shootout.  Another is that there are often innocents around.  And lastly, that more police violence would only prompt further looting in the aggregate.  But I don't really know.  

 

Regarding your later point, absolutely.  I've heard people say that government abuse only extends as far as people will tolerate.

 

Josh, can you rephrase the question "does it work" to "is looting as effective way to ..........  ?" 

Yes, very fair.  "Looting is an effective way to accomplish political change."

 

This is interesting.  I never thought about it too much.  But it seems as though one violent gang (the govenment) will only respond after being threatened by another violent gang (looters).  The looting is a threat.  Looting means "if you don't do something that we find desirable, we will destroy your infrastructure."  That means something.  The government doesn't care about anyone who is peacefull.  They'll just laugh at it.

Yeah, its analogous to the old wisdom of dealing with a bully.

[J. D. Stembal]

What does looting seek to remedy exactly? If you don't have a clear and specific purpose, there is no point to doing it, whether it is moral or not.

[Josh F]

What does looting seek to remedy exactly? If you don't have a clear and specific purpose, there is no point to doing it, whether it is moral or not.

Police abuses, in the case of Ferguson and Los Angeles.  There are those lunatics who go crazy after sporting events, that I'll never understand.  Also I don't know if looters 'seek to remedy' anything, I doubt that the individuals actors are particularly principled.  Its just an outburst of rage in response to something, throughout a city.  Its clearly in response to police abuses, though.  And as the article suggests, it might result in some very positive changes if 50,000 more police are going to be strapped with a body camera.  Statistics show that when cops have cameras, police abuses drop significantly.  

[MMX2010]

What does looting seek to remedy exactly? If you don't have a clear and specific purpose, there is no point to doing it, whether it is moral or not.

 

My former friend is married to a part-time prostitute / cam-girl.  She works about six days a month, and they don't have much money. 

 

Before he lived with her, he had high aspirations of becoming a musician, a stable career in the military, a good body, and a reasonably healthy mood.  Now, he's going to declare bankruptcy in January - (because he got medically discharged from the military) - hasn't written a new song in three years, has become overweight, and suffers from anger/anxiety/depression. 

 

His main goal in life is to have his wife attend therapy, so that she can become happy, independent, and wealthy.  And whenever she attends just one therapy session, and experiences just one breakthrough, he becomes ever-more dedicated to the process of "helping her grow". 

 

When I stopped living with him, I sent him a note, which concluded, "I don't know why you married the complete opposite of your ideal woman in the hopes of making her your ideal woman, rather than just marrying your ideal woman in the first place." 

 

Josh's question, "Does looting work?" sounds exactly like my male former friend searching for a way / (rejoicing over a potential way?) to turn a far-less-than-ideal form of government into one "closer to his ideal".  But why rejoice in such victories, when you can just prefer a drastically better government in the first place? 

[cab21]

so say there are issues such as

 

" we want police to wear body cameras and police cars to have cameras"

" we want police to use non lethal force when possible"

" we want police that humanize civilians and don't think they need to use lethal force on some civilians faster than other civilians"

 

then we would look at peaceful protests, and how they affected government change, so if we have 3 months of peaceful protests and nothing, then peaceful protests arent so effective, than a day of looting and burning if that looting and burning causes government change.

 

but say the peaceful protests had a government start looking into how to make these changes, start looking for which body cameras to use, and how to use them, and write up procedures and trainings for police officers, a proccess that will take some months with due diligence. then a violent protest comes along because the changes have not happend yet, then the ishue gets more talked about, and when the changes happend quicker after the police department has done it's research, people give the violent riots the credit.

 

so for credit on peaceful protests vs looting, i think we would have to look at the initiation of when the change happend, and if the violent protests made the change come faster, and if that faster change was for PR.

[Josh F]

so say there are issues such as

 

" we want police to wear body cameras and police cars to have cameras"

" we want police to use non lethal force when possible"

" we want police that humanize civilians and don't think they need to use lethal force on some civilians faster than other civilians"

 

then we would look at peaceful protests, and how they affected government change, so if we have 3 months of peaceful protests and nothing, then peaceful protests arent so effective, than a day of looting and burning if that looting and burning causes government change.

 

but say the peaceful protests had a government start looking into how to make these changes, start looking for which body cameras to use, and how to use them, and write up procedures and trainings for police officers, a proccess that will take some months with due diligence. then a violent protest comes along because the changes have not happend yet, then the ishue gets more talked about, and when the changes happend quicker after the police department has done it's research, people give the violent riots the credit.

 

so for credit on peaceful protests vs looting, i think we would have to look at the initiation of when the change happend, and if the violent protests made the change come faster, and if that faster change was for PR.

There is no doubt that is for PR.  As for it coming faster, its a bit impossible to say that without public outcry the change would have happened at all.  Would the Civil Rights movement have peacefully ended Jim Crow without the violent protesters?  MLK didn't seem to think so, nor did many other people in the movement.  Did protests end the Vietnam war as some baby boomers like to think, or was it because the soldiers were refusing the fight and fragging their officers?  

 

Additionally, this measure is proof positive of police abuses, considering reports of abuse drop significantly when cops are forced to wear cameras.  This doesn't proof Wilson was abusing his power, but it does prove that the rioters and protestors are justified in their assessment that the police are abusive.  

[J. D. Stembal]

It would make more sense to have the civilians wear the hidden body cameras than police. GoPro could pioneer the new "Freedom Accountability Camera" for catching people in lies, or getting their face put on social media for moral abuses. If you could get an unobtrusive audio and video personal body recording device that's about the price of a GoPro and operates via voice commands (cops won't like it if you are fiddling inside your clothes as they approach you), I would get one.

 

Here's a set of glasses with a hidden camera. Pretty cool. http://www.dpl-surveillance-equipment.com/8000110.html

 

You could have to have a separate device for audio, though. Now that i think about it, having a GoPro mounted and hidden in your car under the dash would be useful for traffic stops.

[cab21]

so say violence is more effective than nonviolence

then you would look at, is it more effective to be violent against the police, to change the police, or to be more violent against your own communities small business to change the police.

 

now a soldier refusing to fight is a peaceful protest, and fragging the officers would be violent protest, so we would look at if the fragging officers made the biggest difference.

[Josh F]

so say violence is more effective than nonviolence

then you would look at, is it more effective to be violent against the police, to change the police, or to be more violent against your own communities small business to change the police.

 

now a soldier refusing to fight is a peaceful protest, and fragging the officers would be violent protest, so we would look at if the fragging officers made the biggest difference.

There have been some authors who tackle the subject, but its largely ignored in the popular version of the end of the Vietnam War.

 

I think it works like this: if the violence threatens the state's power then it reacts.  So for example, if I, right now, began as an individual to riot and loot in this small and quiet town I live in, I don't think it would threaten the state's ability to enforce law and nothing would come of it.  However, if 10% of this town began looting and 20% began protesting, they'd be threatened.  If a soldier kills himself to avoid combat, or deserts like that guy in Afghanistan recently, it doesn't threaten the state.  If they killing officers, it does.  So it isn't just violence, but violence which disrupts the state's authority.  

[cab21]

for this we could even look at the kkk and driving state jim crow laws and black codes. within that there is state authority combating federal authority.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-kkk/

 

hell, this pbs article says what the kkk did worked as far as getting kkk goals, like getting rid of republican party influence by terrorizing and murdering blacks and republicans.

 

but it also might be a case of trying to disrupt a governments authority leading to a increased government authority. maybe the federal government took a bigger role by fighting states that fought the federal government and with the kkk's fight against the federal government

 

in this ferguson case, people that wanted the cop out of the police department got it when the guy resigned due to being scared by the threats on him and the police.

[Livemike]

Police body cameras do reduce police misbehaviour according to the all the research I've heard about.  They are resisted by police hierarchies of course.

[Josh F]

for this we could even look at the kkk and driving state jim crow laws and black codes. within that there is state authority combating federal authority.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/grant-kkk/

 

hell, this pbs article says what the kkk did worked as far as getting kkk goals, like getting rid of republican party influence by terrorizing and murdering blacks and republicans.

 

but it also might be a case of trying to disrupt a governments authority leading to a increased government authority. maybe the federal government took a bigger role by fighting states that fought the federal government and with the kkk's fight against the federal government

 

in this ferguson case, people that wanted the cop out of the police department got it when the guy resigned due to being scared by the threats on him and the police.

 

Right, I'm sure we could find a bunch of examples.  Even as far back as Rome, the Christians were rioting and looting because they were severely abused by the state, yet overtime Rome became Christian.  

[shirgall]

Police body cameras do reduce police misbehaviour according to the all the research I've heard about.  They are resisted by police hierarchies of course.

 

The ubiquitous nature of cameras in cell phones has also had an effect here, including an intense effort to remind police that recording their activities is legal.

[MMX2010]

Police body cameras do reduce police misbehaviour according to the all the research I've heard about.  They are resisted by police hierarchies of course.

 

Police hierarchies also resist the ability of citizens to video-tape their encounters with police.  By "resist", I mean "out-right lie to citizens about the legalities and illegalities of doing so". 

 

[Zerubbabel]

So, the question isn't is looting moral or immoral.  The question for debate here is: does looting work?

 

It is good to set the ground rules for debate. But tied up with the ground rules are some basic premises which should also be disclosed in such a clear and succinct manner. 

 

This debate presumes the acceptance of utilitarian action, and the necessary rejection of principle-based action. Participation in the debate is a tacit acceptance of this premise (if only for the sake of argument). I would have expected that this premise would have been rejected in unison by a group supposedly dedicated to UPB such as the NAP. It is the very most basic choice that needs to be made as the premise of any debate.   Every question concerning the relations between people is a moral question, IMO.  

[Leevan]

If a child throws a tantrum, should the parents give in to his demands?

[shirgall]

If a child throws a tantrum, should the parents give in to his demands?

 

If a child, or an adult, throws a tantrum it's evidence that they did not grow up with peaceful parenting. One must understand the underlying causes before discussing remedies.

[dsayers]

If a child throws a tantrum, should the parents give in to his demands?

 

If a child throws a tantrum, its parents should take a good long look at what they've done to the child that the child needs to go to such lengths to meet their needs AND thinks it's a valid way of accomplishing such.

[cab21]

If a child throws a tantrum, should the parents give in to his demands?

 

so if the parents are abusing the child, and the child throws a tamtrum demanding not to be abused, after peacefully asking the parent to stop the abuse failed, should the parents give into the childs demands or keep on abusing the child?