[gruez]

>anything that takes that long to make an argument seems to not have a specific point

Is this what twitter has turned discourse into? If you haven't made your within one or two tweets your whole work is dismissed as "not have a specific point".

Anyways the "point" of this article is that the government is punishing their enemies by locking them out of the financial system. This is bad because of how much we rely on the financial system for every day life, and that the action is being done without the usual due process (ie. right to a trial). You might be in favor of this action because the targets happen to be your enemies, but this could easily be flipped next time around.

[colburnmh]

The protesters are locking the government and many US and Canadian systems out of the ability to travel between the countries or engage in many types of free commerce. They haven't confiscated the money, they have simply frozen the accounts, effectively saying "block our commerce, we block your access to money to support your actions."

I don't find that to be an unreasonable reaction given the scope of the daily business and economic disruption being caused. If the Canadian government actually confiscated the money or kept the accounts frozen after the situation resolves, that would be government overreach.

[gruez]

>The protesters are locking the government and many US and Canadian systems out of the ability to travel between the countries or engage in many types of free commerce.

If you think those actions are illegal, the correct course of action is to prosecute them under the normal judicial process, not to shut them out of society "nosedive" style. Murderers and rapists do worse but even then we give them due process.

>They haven't confiscated the money, they have simply frozen the accounts, effectively saying "block our commerce, we block your access to money to support your actions."

As was stated in the OP and my previous comment, the argument here isn't that "this protest is legal and should be allowed", it's "if the protest is illegal, the government should go through the normal legal channels (ie. courts) to shut it down, rather than having the executive branch unilaterally dish out punishments.

[xupybd]

It's the lack of due process. If a court were to find them guilty of this then fine.

[8note]

I'm not clear that twitter is the right tool for the job. Perhaps writing a book or essay is proper.

All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.

[gruez]

>All the same, you should be able to fit your thesis and list your key arguments in a couple of sentences.

Well luckily OP posted a "tl;dr" at the end. I agree it'll be better if it was at the front, but posting tl;drs at the end seems to be pretty common for whatever reason.

[klyrs]

> You might be in favor of this action because the targets happen to be your enemies, but this could easily be flipped next time around.

Well, that's the irony right there. Conservatives are all about this authoritarian garbage, have been for decades or more. Now that it's been flipped around on them, it's all hue and cry. If the cops had treated this like any other protest, they'd have violently shut it down 3 weeks ago. The federal government declared it a national emergency because the cops decided not to maintain order. Sure, this is bad. But if it's somehow news to you, you just haven't been paying attention because you didn't like what the protesters had to say. Let's change the law already. But let's make sure the cops are respectful of everybody's freedom to assemble while we're at it.