Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
the status of private property arguments as over against the rights to political protest IS the issue.
my personal attitude toward private property is not.
what you're ducking is the actual argument that i'm making, ace. you duck it by trying to avoid the position property relations have in this argument. my contention is that they are functions of the legal system, which is an extension of the political system. political protest is directed against the political system itself. so it follows that property relations, which are internal to that system, cannot be used to limit protest directed against the system itself.
|
Political protesters want to change "the political system" and private property is a part of "the political system" restricting political protest, I get that. But the issue of private property is like a force field or like a mote, developed by "the political system" to protect "the political system". If the protesters can not deal with "the force field" (which they traditionally have not done very well since the 60's), their cause is lost. Civil disobedience as a strategy for political change has been made irrelevant. Is that fair, is it Constitutional? Has the pendulum swung too far? Those are my questions.