[kennywinker]

> if their protest escalates into significant economic damage or other types of harm. That's when it graduates from protest to terrorism.

First of all, look up the definition of terrorism. It’s not “thing you think is bad”. Pretty integral to terrorism is violence. No violence or threat of violence, no terrorism.

Second, all protest causes economic harm - successful protest causes significant economic harm. Your line of thinking would have you condemn friggin’ Gandhi, a globally renowned and much celebrated peaceful revolutionary. His entire non-violent protest movement relied heavily on inflicting economic damage.

E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_March

[csee]

When I said "other types of harm" I basically meant violence which is why I said that that constitutes terrorism.

Regarding economic harm, I agree that this isn't terrorism. But there is clearly a limit beyond which the protestors need to be arrested. They cannot be allowed to block trade between two countries, for example.

We should make a distinction. Is the point to cause economic harm (e.g blocking a trade route)? Or is the point to get exposure (e.g protesting in the middle of the city) which has a side effect of some economic harm?

[kennywinker]

So was it wrong for the Montgomery bus boycott to intentionally cause economic harm? Was it wrong for gandhi to break the salt monopoly, causing economic harm? It seems like either you’re applying different standards because you feel different about the causes - or you oppose the actions of some of the most celebrated icons of the past 100 years of social change - unless there’s a third position i’m missing

[csee]

I don't think it was right or wrong. That is the wrong lens. I just think we need to arrest them after a certain threshold of harm. Here's a reductio ad absurdum of the position that all economic harm should be tolerated: Should we allow a small group of 5 protestors to blockade the tarmac of an international airport and shut it down for 10 years? On what principle would you prevent that if you have declared support for protest irrespective of economic harm? Clearly this rule of yours doesn't work. The protestors need to get arrested at a certain threshold of economic damage and every thinking person should agree with that.

[kennywinker]

Ok, let’s roll with that. Should we allow a small group of 5 protestors to blockade the tarmac of an international airport and shut it down for 10 years if their cause has the support of 51% of the population.

Because i’d say yes we should allow that. We in the us and canada have governments that are proven to be unresponsive to the will of the people without the people giving the government a shove from time to time. If the majority supports a cause, the government should act - if it doesn’t, let the economy suffer until they do.

I also believe a different test applies when we’re talking about indigenous land. I.e. it’s no longer about a majority of the population - it’s about a majority of the people who’s land it is.

[csee]

Well then we just disagree. If you think an unlimited amount of economic harm is acceptable for any protest objective (not just those with majority support, no idea where you got that assumption from), this is simply naive and dangerous.

I don't want to pay tax and therefore I will shut down all international trade forever in order to protest my views on the matter, and you will support my right to do that? That's a reductio ad absurdum of your position. It is not workable.

[kennywinker]

What? If the majority of people support your desire to not pay taxes, a _functioning_ democratic society would quickly pass the "2022 csee tax exemption bill". While you'd probably start bleeding support for your cause if you shut down all international trade, basically any measures are justified at that point because the government is no longer being responsive to the will of the people. If the government is allowed to go ahead and arrest people for that, that's the literal definition authoritarianism.

If the majority does NOT support your demand, then yes your right to protest can be limited by others right to go about their lives. The more disruptive your protest, the less room there is to tolerate it. But a simple threshold of harm as you argued for is not the right test for this. Harm and public support. If 40% of people support your cause, a democratic society would not enact that cause - but it would tolerate more economic harm than a cause supported by 0.4% of the people.