There is a certain type of so called anarchist doesn't believe in rights, they want what they want and don't really give a damn about who they hurt directly or indirectly through their cowardly actions. Thusly I brand them criminals.
There actions speak louder than any words. I live near Seattle, WA and in 1999, I watched these criminals deliberately destroy or deface private property, assaulting the peaceful protestors who tried to stop them, and incite riots during the WTO protests.
What I found to be particularly interesting was their excuses for their actions. Like the excuse for assaulting those protestors who tried to stop them from destroying private property, "I assaulted them because they were interfering with my freedom." Or, their reason for destroying private property, "No one has the right to property so I can do anything I want to that property, and if they interfere they are interfering with my right of freedom of action."
I kid you not folks, they honestly believe they can do anything, which is true, but in my opinion what they are over looking is the fact they are responsible for their actions. From my point of view, what they honestly believe is that being held accountable for their actions is a violation of their right to freedom.
Another clue to their lack of responsibility and not wanting to be held accountable for their actions lies in the fact that instead showing their faces, they wore masks to keep them from being identified and held accountable for their actions. Thusly I will not only brand them as criminals, but ethical cowards.
You might ask "What about the other protestors who were getting arrested and committed acts of civil disobedience? Aren't they criminals too?" The answer is yes, but they took responsibility for their actions, they wanted to be arrested. As a matter of fact many of the peaceful protestors, who went out of their way to get arrested went as far as to warn the police, where and when they were going to commit their acts of civil disobedience and went to great lengths to protect private property. Though I do think the I-5 stunt could have serious backfired if it has caused a fatal accident instead of the traffic jam it did cause.
While I will freely admit that I didn't agree with many of the peaceful protestors messages and beliefs, I give them high marks for at least taking responsibility for their actions.
What about the ones that generated the trouble? Well, they are more or less self-correcting. Or, more to the point, they are their own worst enemy, because they will eventually run into someone who will teach them a lesson in responsibility from the business end of a firearm, I doubt very much if they will survive an encounter with someone who vigorously defends their rights.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 8
Before I go any further here, let me clear up something here, I am not and never will be a fan of the WTO.
I don't have a problem with peaceful protesters, I may not agree with various groups, but I am not going to deny them their right to protest. Where I will draw the line, is the willful use of force and the willful destruction of property, because that point you invalidate your message.
Not that unlike the Islamic Terrorists that use a long history of human rights deprivation by the most powerful world systems to turn just some of it back on the system by some destruction of the "symbols" of that system ...
As 'evil', 'criminal', or whatever 'term' one uses 'against' them, they are the honest and natural reaction to the original action ... that is the law of the universe.
I didn't buy that argument when I was a kid back in the 70's when the bleeding heart leftist liberals were puking it out then and I don't buy it now.
It comes down to this, no one has the right to INITIATE force [and this includes the government] to deny the individual their rights to life, liberty or property.
Governmental "force" comes in many shapes and sizes, not all of it is even physical ... when the rich are greedy and use their wealth to deprive others from opportunity, then there will be the poor in the streets revolting ... if you deny that, then you must be one of those far right neoCON wanna-bees
of billions of humans by chasing some imaginary and at its roots mystical "Greater Good." More importantly 'Authority confers no right to beat people up and
kill them, which at its core, is what law and government is all about under
any system of analysis.
Now to get to the meat of the subject at hand. The choices we make in life determine how we turn out. I have stated before, the end must justify the means used, not the means justifying the end. I know without any shred of doubt goodness is not enough, goodness is never enough. A hard, cold wisdom is required, too, for goodness to accomplish good. Goodness without wisdom invariably accomplishes evil.
Now these jokers who call themselves 'anarchists' made a choice to be destructive idiots, and thusly criminals. They consciously made the decision to violate other peoples rights to life, liberty and property through the initiation of force. How they got to that point, doesn't matter nor does it excuse them from suffering the consequences of their actions.