From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Tue Jan 21 2003 - 23:36:15 MST
Alex writes
> [quote from: Lee on 2003-01-20 at 18:44:32]
> > I've never understood why people can't simply do as I
> > do, and cooperatively express their views in the voting
> > booth? And if they have more energy and time than it
> > takes for than, then in discussions with others, and in
> > writing articles and books?
>
> One vote isn't worth the chads it produces. They are on the streets in
> order to influence other voters, and it's their constitutional right to do
> so.
I actually said as much in a part you didn't quote.
> Physical protests may be a waste of energy compared to articles and
> books, but not everyone is gifted in the literary realm. Furthermore,
> filling the Extropians list with this war debate (am as guilty as
> anybody) is the electronic equivalent of a big, rowdy picket-line,
> isn't it?
Not at all! Picket lines intimidate, and often are threatening.
Marches disturb the peace, and also at least symbolically
threaten violence.
My main question in this thread, however
> > What I have always wondered about is a Kantian take on
> > all this: what if everyone took to the streets to make
> > their voices and views on issues heard?
goes unanswered. While on the other hand, there is no harm
whatsoever, and even some benefit, for people to express
their thoughts to each other in chat rooms, or email lists,
or via other modes of communication.
Why do some think it their prerogative to take to the streets
whenever they're unhappy about something? (Note again: I am
definitely not objecting to their legal right to do so!) Why
can't they do as they would have their political opposition
do, namely, assemble freely (in halls and other suitable places),
communicate as I said, and not take to the streets?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST