[andrewflnr]

If you want to destroy civilization, this is a pretty good start. Good practice anyway. But if you want to make positive change, forcing police to resort to brutality to restore order for people who are just trying to live their lives is stupid.

Edit: instead of downvoting, try to explain why this is a good idea.

[nerfhammer]

This was Martin Luther King's basic strategy.

He tried organizing in Albany, Georgia that went uneventfully and without getting much attention or building momentum. So he started holding protests in jurisdictions in the South where he knew the local authorities would violently overreact, thus ensuring heavy national media coverage and a counter-reaction of horrifying the public at their treatment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albany_movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_campaign

[barrkel]

Your argument seems to be that anything other than obedience of authority means destruction of civilization, and sounds hyperbolic and reactionary. Apply that principle to apartheid, British Raj, Tahrir, etc. and see how it looks.

[andrewflnr]

Non-violent resistance to injustice is one thing. Indefinitely evading police for little other purpose, that I can see, of getting in the way is another. I'm not quite sure where the line is, but this kind of thing scares me.

If a person or group deliberately incites law enforcement to escalate the level of violence in the performance of their duty, are they not partially responsible for that violence? Are their goals worth having that responsibility? They seem to be doing it specifically to get a "PR loss by the police department". What purpose does that serve, in the long run, except to undermine people's respect for the government?

Civilization hangs on a fine thread of voluntary compliance to the government. It is supplemented by force/violence in various degrees, but most of the time it's only conditioning and conscience that keeps people in check. The restraints of force and conditioning are swept aside by just such measures as these. The article frankly uses military terminology. These are the tools of governmental overthrow, and I believe they are being used recklessly.

[ldh]

> Civilization hangs on a fine thread of voluntary compliance to the government.

That sounds pretty much exactly backwards from any society I want to be a part of. I don't exist in service of a government, but can choose to tolerate a government that provides value to me.

[andrewflnr]

I think you misunderstand me. I'm not talking about how to design a society, I'm talking about a necessary aspect of the relationship between government and the governed. Simply, the government cannot force you to do what it wants all the time. It's impossible, even for brutal totalitarian governments. A few slip through the nets.

For a light example, think about speeding, or carpool lane compliance. Most of the time, there is actually no one to stop or punish you for speeding or driving in the carpool lane with the wrong number of people. Most people do the right thing anyway. This is good.

So any compliance with its laws is largely voluntary, based on, among other things, the value provided by the government and the obvious benefits to everyone if everyone follows the law.

[barrkel]

I think you'll find that obeying such things doesn't come from deference to authority, but rather peer pressure combined with a recognition of the justice of such regulations. The reason I don't speed in urban streets isn't because I want to obey the government; it's because I'll look like an ass, endangering other road users.

I think there's a deeper issue. I suspect you have confused mechanism with purpose. Government coercion is a mechanism for enforcing system goals, where hopefully those goals are agreed upon in a democratic or enlightened fashion. But it is not the government coercion that is good; it is the goals. It is right that government coercion be resisted when the goals are not noble; and doing so does not risk society falling apart, because it doesn't attack what makes society work.

It's not mere "conditioning and conscience" that keeps people in check. The biggest thing that keeps people in check is actually social norms and risking the disapproval of your peers. And those are surprisingly strong forces.

And if you think the kinds of disobedience we're talking about here risk government overthrow, you haven't seen what governments are capable of doing to stay in power. It's humorous to read about Americans thinking their second amendment right to bear arms defends themselves from the excesses of government. Governments are a lot more resilient than that. The real risk to governments comes from military avenues: mutinies, coups, invasion. A government with nuclear arms (i.e. MAD deterrence of invasion) and in control of a loyal military will not be overthrown by its citizens.

But I do agree with you that what we're seeing is corrosive to trust in government. But the answer isn't to bow one's head, go home and be a good little consumer. The answer is to demand that government changes. In a democracy, a big part of that publicity-seeking actions. Ideally, we'd be seeing dialogue and debate, not riot police and polarizing denunciations.

[andrewflnr]

I guess I include peer pressure in "conditioning". It's not that I think Occupy Portland will result, directly, in the overthrow of the United States government. I said they're the tools of government, but they're not being used forcefully yet, just waved around in the air by people who don't seem to know what they're playing with. "Corrosive to trust in government" is a good way of putting what bothers me about this.

We do need to demand change in our government. If we're going to act in unison, that's where we need to do it. I just don't see the games described in the article as being anything but destructive.

[ldh]

Well said, thank you.