What would be ideal act of civil dis in NH?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Oh!  I thought it might have been a 'chad' thing

[John Edward Mercier]

lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms?

If I remember correctly...
Thoreau went off into the 'woods' to live outside society, and Ghandi refuted the use of anything British provided.

[David]

lucky for us our movement is not defined or confined by the naysayers
we know our civil disobedience is understood by many people including the government thugs who tell us we put them in an "impossible situation". I use that term because of the connections to Thoreau and Gandhi. Since we are doing the same things, why not use the same terms?

Mr. Therian of the Fed Protection service seems to.  He seemed to be irritated more than angry when Kat and Lauren provoked an arrest at the Keene irs office in response to Dave R. being arrested for his Outlaw Leafleteering.  He knows we are not a threat to him.     He said to the effect that he wished he could have spent time going after those who are a threat to the gov't.  Maybe someone remembers his exact wording. 

I think that is a good thing.  Dr. King was very focused on keeping things civil, largely due to his fear that violence would create a "bitter legacy".  he was keenly aware that he was a minority in a country that was hostile to minorities.  We are a political minority.  I try to keep that in mind. 

[srqrebel]

Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?

Actually, the two are inseparable.  The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.

Unless, of course, your objective is to be misunderstood and/or not taken seriously.

Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).

The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong.  They were successful at limiting government temporarily.  Government is like a cancer, and they managed to slow its growth, even temporarily reversing it, while ultimately preserving its existence.  I want to actually cure this disease for good, and it makes sense to me that using old terminology ("civil disobedience") only serves to obfuscate our (my) radical new objective of curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms.

The term "civil disobedience" does nothing to prompt people to think outside the box created by Gandhi and MLK.  The term "asserting one's sovereignty", on the other hand, opens peoples' minds to the 'possibility' that each individual is sovereign, and "governmental authority" is an irrational fiction that infringes on this. 

If there is ever going to be a more rational (government-free) social order, there has to be a massive paradigm shift.  Combining activism with carefully chosen semantics can go a long way toward accomplishing that.

[Lloyd Danforth]

I was referring to the discussion about what is a state

[srqrebel]

I was referring to the discussion about what is a state

Ah, gotcha.

Yeah, that subject was already covered ad nauseum in another thread

[Russell Kanning]

Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?

Actually, the two are inseparable.  The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.

Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).

The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong.

Sure we can separate them .... so I don't have to waste all of my time
civil disobedience subconsciously destroys the state
these activists conveyed the message to me ... so I guess it worked

if you want to use other term ... fine .... but I see no reason to change terms ... this thread is about the best possible use of the technique and term

[J’raxis 270145]

Is this topic about effective CD or semantics?

Actually, the two are inseparable.  The better you can convey to others what you are doing and why, the more effective you are.

Unless, of course, your objective is to be misunderstood and/or not taken seriously.

Russell makes a good point -- while the term "civil disobedience" subconsciously propagates the notion that government itself is legitimate, as in "it just needs to be reigned in", it also subconsciously links our activism to that of MLK and Gandhi (and Thoreau to a lesser extent).

The thing is, none of these activists successfully conveyed the message that government itself is inherently evil, only that certain actions of the government were wrong.  They were successful at limiting government temporarily.  Government is like a cancer, and they managed to slow its growth, even temporarily reversing it, while ultimately preserving its existence.  I want to actually cure this disease for good, and it makes sense to me that using old terminology ("civil disobedience") only serves to obfuscate our (my) radical new objective of curing the disease rather than treating the symptoms.

The term "civil disobedience" does nothing to prompt people to think outside the box created by Gandhi and MLK.  The term "asserting one's sovereignty", on the other hand, opens peoples' minds to the 'possibility' that each individual is sovereign, and "governmental authority" is an irrational fiction that infringes on this. 

If there is ever going to be a more rational (government-free) social order, there has to be a massive paradigm shift.  Combining activism with carefully chosen semantics can go a long way toward accomplishing that.

I actually think of Thoreau first when I encounter the term civil disobedience, because he essentially invented it in his essay Civil Disobedience. It's always important to go to the origin of a term, a belief, or similar, otherwise you run the risk of misunderstanding what it truly means. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the term:—

The word "civil" has several definitions. The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state," and so "civil disobedience" means "disobedience to the state." Sometimes people assume that "civil" in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make "civil disobedience" something like "polite, orderly disobedience." Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word "civil," it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance. For instance, Gandhi used this interpretation to suggest an equivalence between Thoreau's civil disobedience and his own satyagraha.

Nothing in the correct definition of civil disobedience seems to imply that one accepts the legitimacy of the State—the term means simply that one is disobeying the civil authorities. I can see, however, that if one uses the "polite, orderly disobedience" definition that originated with Gandhi and MLK, that it could confer legitimacy to the State, since by treating one's opponent with civility it implies that one, at the very least, accepts the existence, and the right to exist, of one's opponent.

[Russell Kanning]

exactly
you add CD and love your enemies you get

MLKings brand of disobedience

[John Edward Mercier]

But SRQREBEL is correct. None of these men sought to secure an anarchy (maybe Ghandi)... just a fundamental shift in the State.
MLK wanted to the State to recognize in all facets the meaning of 'All men are created equal'. But didn't seek to desolve the State.
Thoreau and Ghandi sought a reduction in the State through greater individualism.

[Dave Ridley]

from ryan on a different thread:

<<If the May 25 event will be in Manchester, here are some local ordinances that are easy to break:

§ 111.80 No showman, tumbler, rope-dancer, ventriloquist, juggler, or other person shall for
exhibit any feats of agility, horsemanship, sleight-of-hand, rope-dancing, or feats of cards,
animals, wax figures, puppets, or other show, or shall perform or exhibit any theatrical or
dramatic representation or other exhibition, performance, or show of any kind or description
the city, unless a license therefor in writing, specifying the day and hour such person is allowed
to perform or exhibit, shall first be obtained from the office of the City Clerk....

Notice no distinction is made regarding whether it's for pay. Who knows some card tricks?

§ 130.05 No person shall jog or run on any city street without wearing appropriately colored
clothing, such as orange, so as to be clearly visible to motorists during daylight hours. No person
shall jog or run on any city street without wearing appropriately luminescent clothing, such as a
safety vest, running suit, or reflective tape so as to be clearly visible to motorists during
nighttime hours and at dawn or dusk.

Jogging around the perimeter of the park, even in daylight, is illegal if you're wearing dark colors.

§ 130.38 No person shall, without lawful permission, climb on or over any fence of any garden or
yard.

Veterans Park has nice railings for sitting on.>>

[highline]

Here is a law that every restaurant in the state violates.  I have never, in my 27+ years of living in this state, seen anyone comply with this law.

Nor have I ever seen it enforced.  Why have a law on the books if it will not be enforced?   

-----------

155:43 Display Required. – All commercial eating establishments or any place other than a private residence where food is served for consumption on the premises shall have posted in such premises in a conspicuous place a graphic display of the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver. Such display shall not be less than 8 inches by 11 inches in size and shall contain at least the following:
    I. A description in both words and pictures of what to look for to determine if a person is choking;
    II. A description in both words and pictures of how to perform the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver on a choking victim in order to expel the object from the victim's breathing passages; and
    III. Any other information necessary to adequately instruct a rescuer in the proper procedure in aid of a choking victim.

155:44 Penalty. – Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.

[Raineyrocks]

Here is a law that every restaurant in the state violates.  I have never, in my 27+ years of living in this state, seen anyone comply with this law.

Nor have I ever seen it enforced.  Why have a law on the books if it will not be enforced?   

-----------

155:43 Display Required. – All commercial eating establishments or any place other than a private residence where food is served for consumption on the premises shall have posted in such premises in a conspicuous place a graphic display of the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver. Such display shall not be less than 8 inches by 11 inches in size and shall contain at least the following:
    I. A description in both words and pictures of what to look for to determine if a person is choking;
    II. A description in both words and pictures of how to perform the Heimlich maneuver or similar anti-choking maneuver on a choking victim in order to expel the object from the victim's breathing passages; and
    III. Any other information necessary to adequately instruct a rescuer in the proper procedure in aid of a choking victim.

155:44 Penalty. – Any person who violates the provisions of this subdivision shall be guilty of a violation.

That's interesting!  I think by the time I got done reading it the poor choking person would be dead though and then would I be charged with reading too slow?   Only kidding about that part, partially, but that would be a good thing to have posted in restaurants.  Heck, they have wash your hands signs all over.

[Russell Kanning]

when did this thread change to pointing out all the silly laws that they don't enforce?

[Lloyd Danforth]

It is a silly law.  I can see why no one complies.  The only effective way would be a cartoon thingy. I don't think it would be very appetizing eating near one of these posters, or, after spotting it on the back of your menu.
Training the staff in Heimlich might be a good idea, but, not a law.