Giving govt a graceful line of retreat during civil dis?

[Dave Ridley]

Here's a thought:

Gandhi said that for civil dis to be effective it must provoke a response from the authorities.  By this he meant, I think, a negative response in the form of arrest, assault, etc.

On the other hand Ian thinks it's okay if the govt. backs down or ignores an act of civil dis.

Sun Tzu says you should always give your enemy an easy line of retreat. 

I wonder if we can build on Gandhi's approach by adding the Ian / Sun Tzu approach.   

How would that be done?   And should it be done?  What kind of line of retreat would we give the government?

One thought would be giving them more options than just "arrest me or ignore me"

Maybe you could say something like "i will continue doing X in front of your office until you arrest me or until you promise that you will stop doing such and such."

Maybe the demand could be a very reasonable one even by their standards.

Thoughts?

[error]

It depends on the particular issue being addressed.

[Kat Kanning]

It seems that they were willing to drop your IRS pamphlet case until I posted about it in the KFP.  That wasn't giving them a graceful line of retreat.  I think they would have continued to ignore it if I hadn't put something in the paper.  If you wanted it dropped, giving them a graceful line of retreat would have been good.  If you wanted to keep pushing it, you might want to give them to retreat. 

Feel bad about maybe having brought this down on you. 

[TackleTheWorld]

The easy retreat is for the govt to ignore the CD.  This is also a win for us, remember how we got to burn the UN flag in '05 even though the Parks and Rec guy wanted to forbid it? 
Attack us or ignore us.  Keep it simple.  Adding wiggle room by proposing a third option destroys your moral certainty.  I'd say you would lose nobility points if you proclaimed,
"I am breaking this law to prove how unjust and immoral it is,
but if you sign this disclaimer I'll stop".

[TackleTheWorld]

Feel bad about maybe having brought this down on you. 

Here's a message from Dave that may cheer you up

[KBCraig]

 

[Kat Kanning]

Cool video! 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Looked like he was wearing a 'Free Russell' shirt

[Dave Ridley]

thanx lauren

[Dave Ridley]

I think it's possible to overrate the importance of us printing an article or writing a nice note...in terms of what they decide to do.   Maybe it's provoking them; maybe it's not.   Either way is good and bad.

With something like this, they are probably in some ways kind of like a machine, operating more out of pre-programmed responses than thought.

And besides you're assuming my goal is for them to back off...maybe I want them to continue this bizarre assault, or maybe I'm cool with it either way.

We can't get into a pattern of tailoring what we say just because it might have this or that impact on their decisions to carry on prosecution.

[David]

If the goal is to reduce or end enforcement, (essentially making law a suggestion rather then something to be afraid of), then providing them a line of retreat is a brilliant idea.  They will not likely stop enforcement until there is pressure to do so.  Example, without the vocal minority that became the civil rights movement, much of this country would still have gov't enforced jim crow laws. 
The arrest me or ignore me response would be most useful only in relatively private situations.  Maybe talked about privately, but not broadcast.  Certainly, any identifiable info that may reveal who the enforcer is should be unmentioned, this way the gov't cannot retaliate against the enforcer. 
However, that is only the response if the gov't ignores me.  If they enforce any Victimless laws against me, they should then be protested against quite publicly.  Of course no person, even gov't enforcers should be criticized when arresting a victimizer. 

[dwhiteside327]

Write a letter notifying the government officer of their unconstitutional action (denying you due process is a violation of their oath of office.)

Demand a response.

When they don't respond, write them notifying them that they are in violation of their oath of office. CC as many other government officials as you can (DA, ADA, Governor, Senators, Reps, etc.) notifying _them_ that now that they have knowledge of the malfeasance on the other official's part, if they refuse to take action against it, then they _too_ are in violation of their oath of office.

Demand that the first government officer step down for violation of oath of office, treason, and sedition...

This has been very successful against judges in New Mexico.

http://www.citizensoftheamericanconstitution.org/overview.htm

I'm happy to help in any way I can (I wish I could attend...but Denver is a bit of a hike...)

Good hunting
Dan

[lildog]

Gandhi said that for civil dis to be effective it must provoke a response from the authorities.  By this he meant, I think, a negative response in the form of arrest, assault, etc.

On the other hand Ian thinks it's okay if the govt. backs down or ignores an act of civil dis.

For your arrest to actually mean anything you would need to matter.  Let's face it, no one on this forum matters enough that getting arrested is going to mean jack squat.  The government arrests people every day for every number of things and nothing comes out of it.

An arrest is if anything a side effect, not the aim or goal.

What causes effect is the discussion and debate that spurs from any act.  Government is not going to change it's ways because Dave, Russ, Ed Brown or any one person protested and got themselves arrested.  They WILL change if that protest caused discussion by the general public which in turn caused enough public support to force the government to toss the public a bone and change its ways.

[Raineyrocks]

Gandhi said that for civil dis to be effective it must provoke a response from the authorities.  By this he meant, I think, a negative response in the form of arrest, assault, etc.

On the other hand Ian thinks it's okay if the govt. backs down or ignores an act of civil dis.

For your arrest to actually mean anything you would need to matter.  Let's face it, no one on this forum matters enough that getting arrested is going to mean jack squat.  The government arrests people every day for every number of things and nothing comes out of it.

An arrest is if anything a side effect, not the aim or goal.

What causes effect is the discussion and debate that spurs from any act.  Government is not going to change it's ways because Dave, Russ, Ed Brown or any one person protested and got themselves arrested.  They WILL change if that protest caused discussion by the general public which in turn caused enough public support to force the government to toss the public a bone and change its ways.

I've made up my mind that if I ever get arrested I'm going to write a book while in jail.  Going upon the basis of what the general public is interested in and what would get me noticed more is not to write a book about the judicial system's failure but honestly it would be a book about losing weight while in jail. 
Seriously, that would sadly get more attention.  I will name it the The Jail House Diet, what do you think?  I'm really serious don't you think that would get more attention than the "true" matters at hand with the mentality of the general public?  Here's a second title, (considering how long I'd be locked up), Exercising in Small Confined Spaces.

[Tom Sawyer]

Gandhi said that for civil dis to be effective it must provoke a response from the authorities.  By this he meant, I think, a negative response in the form of arrest, assault, etc.

On the other hand Ian thinks it's okay if the govt. backs down or ignores an act of civil dis.

For your arrest to actually mean anything you would need to matter.  Let's face it, no one on this forum matters enough that getting arrested is going to mean jack squat.  The government arrests people every day for every number of things and nothing comes out of it.

An arrest is if anything a side effect, not the aim or goal.

What causes effect is the discussion and debate that spurs from any act.  Government is not going to change it's ways because Dave, Russ, Ed Brown or any one person protested and got themselves arrested.  They WILL change if that protest caused discussion by the general public which in turn caused enough public support to force the government to toss the public a bone and change its ways.

You are making assumptions.

I have seen the effect that some of these arrest have had. Both on the activist community and the government's employees. The problem is folks think that unless you can get thousands of people doing something it isn't worth it. That is the paradox, how do you get thousands of people to do something? Talk to them? Or show them "action"?

Russell was contacted by one of the jailers who quit his job and was apparently very much effected by Russell's incarceration.

I have tried to present libertarian ideas to family and friends for years and never had as much impact as when telling them about Russell's or Lauren's incarceration.

The only thing that gets attention is "action". Even if the effect is small there still is an effect that wouldn't be otherwise.

The only reason I participate in this forum is because Russell went to the airport. To start a fire you need a spark.