danivon wrote:To be accurate, Ray Jay, Egyptians had a vote under the old regime. It was just that the options of who to vote for were strictly limited.

Not like the USA of course. You get a choice of two parties who are clearly between them so effective at reining in special interests and managing the government.

Beck has been pretty nasty about OWS. I don't see why they should ignore it.

I hear there have been arrests at Occupy DC.

Occupy DC? I thought that one of the leading criticisms was that they weren't in DC? Oh well, propagandists gotta propagand, I guess.

danivon wrote:

danivon wrote:To be accurate, Ray Jay, Egyptians had a vote under the old regime. It was just that the options of who to vote for were strictly limited.

Not like the USA of course. You get a choice of two parties who are clearly between them so effective at reining in special interests and managing the government.

So your point is that the upheavals in Egypt and the protests in the US are similar because our governments are equally dysfunctional?

Well, it just struck me after my earlier post that Americans also have limited choice in real terms at elections.

Of course, you don't have it imposed upon you by a military dictatorship, which is a major difference. However, the right to protest surely is a right that we all have to protect. It it's only 'acceptable' to us to see it in regimes that, ummm, don't allow it, then what's the point?

You always have to differentiate between absolute and qualified rights.

Uh huh. So who gets to decide which are 'qualified' and what the cut-off is?

Absolute rights are impossible, but only because we balance rights against each other. Not because there are some which are 'qualified' and so less worthy than the others.

danivon wrote:Uh huh. So who gets to decide which are 'qualified' and what the cut-off is?

In the "west" it is courts, elected officials, and the weight of public opinion. Democracy in the "western world" is filled with institutions that officiate all of this.

I'm not sure where this is going. I realize that people like to make pithy statements comparing the US to Egypt. But the reality is that any positive to be gained by making a clever comment is outweighed by the loss from not understanding how repressive these regimes truly are. Not only is it insulting to our western institutions, but it is insulting to those who suffer in places like Egypt. Just ask a gay, or a Copt, or a woman or an atheist or a professor. I'd say ask a Jew but they were all forced out about 50 years ago.

The main girl that called for the original demonstrations in Tahrir came to OWS and called it Tahrir. She also has a lot to say about rights and manhood.

I'm not arguing equivalence, if that's where you think I'm going. Neal may be, but I am not.

The agencies that we hold up to protect us in the West are flawed. They can only ever be so because they are human. Even 'public opinion' is no bulwark - the recent history of the world is littered with examplles of 'public opinion' being much more illiberal than we'd like, or least it is not beyond manipulation. Our elected officials need to raise money to fight campaigns, which means they are tempted by party loyalty, special interests or the 'purity' of ideology.

I've said Egypt is worse. It may not be much better for Copts or gays or atheists under a democracy than it has been under military rule. Conditions may deteriorate, especially if 'public opinion' allows it to.

But let us not pretend that the West is perfect. You had the Patriot Act, we had internment in Northern Ireland, France killed a Greenpeace activist...

One thing I do believe is that nothing ever got any better by people avoiding action. And that our freedoms and democracy are always under threat unless we are prepared to defend them. Part of that is allowing dissent, and allowing it to express itself. If it is repressed, it won't simply go away.

Yes, I basically agree with that. I think that OWS has a two burdens to prove:

1. Are the rights that they are asserting through camping out in various cities an effective way to express dissent?
2. Are they preventing others from enjoying their basic rights, and how do you balance their right of assembly and speech vs. the rights of others (to enjoy public property and safety)?

I think those are the basic constitutional questions that we need to answer.

After you get past those questions, you get to two more:

1. Is their dissent correct?
2. Do they have a valid plan to take that dissent and turn it into effective political change (via democracy)?

Neal Anderth wrote:The main girl that called for the original demonstrations in Tahrir came to OWS and called it Tahrir. She also has a lot to say about rights and manhood.

The main girl?

1.

Are the rights that they are asserting through camping out in various cities an effective way to express dissent

?

We won't know unless they affect a change in attitude or in concrete change to govnerment poicy. The ealry evidence is that they have at the least cemented within publiuc discourse the concept of income inequality or better the unequal treatment of the welathy under law and govnement policy. 2.

Are they preventing others from enjoying their basic rights, and how do you balance their right of assembly and speech vs. the rights of others (to enjoy public property and safety)?

In some cases they probably are...and its up to local authorities to provide balance. In most cases, I think OWS camps may have over stayed their welcome and could have been smarter about their strategies...
I

think those are the basic constitutional questions that we need to answer.

After you get past those questions, you get to two more:

1. Is their dissent correct?

If you agree with their POV it is. If you don't, it isn't. But their right to dissent is indisputable.

2. Do they have a valid plan to take that dissent and turn it into effective political change (via democracy)?

Some of them might. But its not like they are an organized political party like: _________
Its more about the promotion of ideas... which influences the political actors. Its like the Viet nam protestors. They didn't actually pull troops out of Viet nam, but eventually convinced political actors to adopt that policy.
For that reason the comparison to Tahrir square etc. is unfortunate. In a functioning democracy demonstration is about ideas. In a despotic country, its about asserting control over the course to freedom. A more fundamental struggle that is at its heart always potentially violent. OWS, should never have to resort to violence nor should the authorities have to resort to violence to assert an accomodation under law. When either occurs its a failure. Although in the scope of things a prtty small failure.

Ray Jay wrote:Yes, I basically agree with that. I think that OWS has a two burdens to prove:

1. Are the rights that they are asserting through camping out in various cities an effective way to express dissent?

I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? How do they prove that it is 'effective'? By getting their way? In which case, it's a post-hoc test.

If you mean are they successfully registering their wish to protest against the current economic system, the way that large multinational corporations (mainly banks and other financials) have made huge amounts of money for a small number of people (aided by government), caused a major downturn and been bailed out (by government) and all at the cost of ordinary people.

I'd say they are getting there, but I suppose it's subjective as to whether the message is getting out.

2. Are they preventing others from enjoying their basic rights, and how do you balance their right of assembly and speech vs. the rights of others (to enjoy public property and safety)?

This is indeed a good test.

I think those are the basic constitutional questions that we need to answer.

Neither of those is constitutional, Ray. The Constitution defines what the Federal government can and cannot do and what it's basic duties and structure are. It does not provide an exhaustive list of the rights of persons (citizens, residents or otherwise), or even which ones are 'qualified'. The Constitutional questions are not about what the protestors are doing, but about what government is allowed to do about it.

After you get past those questions, you get to two more:

1. Is their dissent correct?

Again, this is a confusing question. Do you mean are their motivations correct, or the actions they take to express it? And what is the abiter of 'correct'? I think that they are correct in many of the things that they are protesting about, and I'm interested in some of the ideas coming out of the movement (which is not homogeneous, or centrally organised). But I've always said that I think that the tactics they use are in many ways counter-productive.

But that doesn't mean that I think they should be cleared from the streets like vermin.

2. Do they have a valid plan to take that dissent and turn it into effective political change (via democracy)?

Do they need one? Is that an essential part of every legitimate protest movement? Frankly, did the Tea Party have one at the beginning? Not really, it was 'against' stuff, and only later did it become co-opted into a party and push candidates for election. Occupy probably won't do that, but could well be the genesis of a lobbying movement through other means, which I think is just as valid.

Danivon:

I think those are the basic constitutional questions that we need to answer.

Neither of those is constitutional, Ray. The Constitution defines what the Federal government can and cannot do and what it's basic duties and structure are. It does not provide an exhaustive list of the rights of persons (citizens, residents or otherwise), or even which ones are 'qualified'. The Constitutional questions are not about what the protestors are doing, but about what government is allowed to do about it.

This is all that I am driving at. From the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I realize that this is a limitation on government.

Danivon:

2. Do they have a valid plan to take that dissent and turn it into effective political change (via democracy)?

Do they need one? Is that an essential part of every legitimate protest movement?

Legally no, but practically they do. They are creating expense and cost, and if the middle class is to put up with this, we have to feel like there is some purpose to it. Otherwise it's just self indulgence.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

I think those are the basic constitutional questions that we need to answer.

Neither of those is constitutional, Ray. The Constitution defines what the Federal government can and cannot do and what it's basic duties and structure are. It does not provide an exhaustive list of the rights of persons (citizens, residents or otherwise), or even which ones are 'qualified'. The Constitutional questions are not about what the protestors are doing, but about what government is allowed to do about it.

This is all that I am driving at. From the 1st Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I realize that this is a limitation on government.

And therefore the burden of proof on whether to do something about Occupy rests with the government, if the government are to act.

Do they need one? Is that an essential part of every legitimate protest movement?

Legally no, but practically they do. They are creating expense and cost, and if the middle class is to put up with this, we have to feel like there is some purpose to it. Otherwise it's just self indulgence.

Hmm. There is a purpose to it, it's just not one that many agree with.