Civil Obedience

[Pat McCotter]

This is nutty! Trying to argue with someone who is not participating?

[Ryan McGuire]

One does not have to be a jerk about it, but resisting police authority is promoting a polite society. The opposite, compliance with them at every step, reinforces their monopoly on the use of force. With that monopoly, they have no incentive to care about your rights or to extend any sort of politeness toward you.

Politeness means not stealing from people. Politeness means not throwing peaceful people into dungeons. Politeness means extending to people the peace of mind that if they peacefully drive their car, or peacefully carry drugs or guns, that you won't randomly accost and harass them about it. Anyone who does those things deserves no politeness from me, no matter how nice they are talking or acting right this second. Past actions, reputations, matter. Sure, you might not know the reputation of the guy pulling you over tomorrow, but you'll know who he works for. Don't go ape-shit on them, but don't give one more inch to people that are known to be violent.

Rich, I agree with your sentiment that you want to extend trust, politeness and courtesy by default. I think that's a great way to live, and it's how I try to live. But people that are known to agress against people have to earn my trust and respect back. And that most likely means that they have to quit being a government bureaucrat.

[Tom Sawyer]

This is nutty! Trying to argue with someone who is not participating?

What is that supposed to mean!   You can't deny me the right to argue!

[Ryan McGuire]

This is nutty! Trying to argue with someone who is not participating?

Rich is cxxguy.

[Pat McCotter]

This is nutty! Trying to argue with someone who is not participating?

Rich is cxxguy.

OK. But now you've outed him here!

[Sam A. Robrin]

they consider it rude if you are not very very cooperative

. . . and even if you're animated!

[Ryan McGuire]

Rich is cxxguy.

OK. But now you've outed him here!

He's made no effort to disguise himself on this forum.

[David]

While I am a big fan of trying to defuse situations so as to avoid a conflict that I cannot win, I do not like the idea of civil Obediance as a tactic.  The biggest reason, is it is not a tactic, at least not in this context.  The police expect you to cooperate, they lose nothing if you do.  It was suggested awhile back even before the Robin Hood and his Merry Men to feed the meters as a way of denying the gov't fine money.  At least this method denies the gov't its precious fines.  The envelopes soliciting donations to keep the Merry Men effort going was a stroke of genious, and actually made me like the idea.    
But cooperating with police over-reach is not in my opinion much different than the millions of people already cooperating.  And worse, they get comfy with it and then over-reach more.  Which of course is the history of all police states. 

[Ogre]

I have to say, one phrase from the initial note really has been sticking with me since I first read it:

lost the opportunity to annoy and harass a guy who was trying to earn a living.

It really bothers me that so many people view government employees, and the police in particular, as "just doing their job." Is it too early to invoke Nazi references to "just doing their job?" I think on thing that will really help illustrate the true state of existence in America today is that every last government employee, from the policeman to the judge to the little old DMV lady, are all earning a living off my forced labor. And yes, while I realize that I can choose not to labor, that's not an effective comparison. I work and the government takes a portion of my labor, against my will, to pay these people to "do their job." I'm opposed to forced labor and slave labor. The government is not. Every person who accepts that government paycheck accepts and supports forced labor (with the threat of jail or death for disobedience).

And that doesn't even take into consideration that the primary job of the police officer is to obtain cash flow for the state by any means necessary...

[jzacker]

Dude, if anyone is going to demand your gun, kidnap you, and steal your money it's the police.

What is the gun for if not to defend yourself?

Even a gun won't protect you from the onslaught of the state.  But carrying a gun is a good idea because it reminds others that you are a individual with individual rights.  I think it makes people understand that their fear cannot impede on your rights.  It makes them think in less selfish terms.

[TackleTheWorld]

Even a gun won't protect you from the onslaught of the state.  But carrying a gun is a good idea because it reminds others that you are a individual with individual rights.  I think it makes people understand that their fear cannot impede on your rights.  It makes them think in less selfish terms.

That is completely unintelligible to me, can you spell it out?  How is someone without a gun also without individuality or rights or consideration?

[jzacker]

Even a gun won't protect you from the onslaught of the state.  But carrying a gun is a good idea because it reminds others that you are a individual with individual rights.  I think it makes people understand that their fear cannot impede on your rights.  It makes them think in less selfish terms.

That is completely unintelligible to me, can you spell it out?  How is someone without a gun also without individuality or rights or consideration?

I didn't mean to imply what you suggest.  Someone without a gun still retains all the rights as someone with a gun; there is no difference.   The question is, how do we get others to recognize those individual rights? 

I pause here to make the point that some may say that we don't need others to recognize our rights. Our rights are inherent, and recognition is irrelevant.    In theory, that's true.  But we have to deal with the reality that we have a police state which impedes on our rights while claiming to protect them.  The recognition of individual rights seems like a good step towards freedom and liberty for all.   

By open-carrying, others are forced to confront their own misconceptions.  When police march back to a 'citizen' and say, "Sorry ma'am, but that person picking up trash on the street has a right to carry a gun", what do you think that citizen is thinking?  Personally, I hope they are thinking about the nature of individual rights.  They have at least gotten a lesson.  The gun, in this case, is not a defensive weapon, but an education tool. 

That's why I think that, even if you never intend on using your weapon, carrying one is still a good idea.

Side note:  I didn't even start thinking about open-carry issues until I saw some YouTube video of a small group of activists in NH doing it.

[Russell Kanning]

Part of it is discrimination. Many in the gun culture believe shooting a cop is excessive for a temporary kidnapping.

what would they shoot a cop for?
what if the cop demanding money before they let the person go?
do they only use guns on people who are less powerful or armed than them?

[Russell Kanning]

This is nutty! Trying to argue with someone who is not participating?

When you wrote this I was picturing a cop lecturing a noncooperative potential victim.
I think it can be good to be friendly with the cops, but I also think it helps to hold firm against their aggressions. Making cops feel uncomfortable doing their rotten jobs is my goal.

[Russell Kanning]

Even a gun won't protect you from the onslaught of the state.  But carrying a gun is a good idea because it reminds others that you are a individual with individual rights.  I think it makes people understand that their fear cannot impede on your rights.  It makes them think in less selfish terms.

Why not carry a sign that says "I have individual rights."?
Some people could feel they are "exercising their 1st amendment rights" and get out a message.
It is also possible a normal person or a cop could think you are just a gun nut ... not an individual with "rights".