[IanDrake]

You're absolutely right.

Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion. Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right, it certainly is not freedom.

We are not more free if people can block your path because they're unhappy...which is what some here are arguing.

[vacri]

Blocking someone's ability to navigate on public property is coercion, it is not a right

What magic gives you as an individual more right to a given parcel of public property than any other individual (or collection thereof)? You want to use the road. They want to use the road. Seems to me like a classic first-come-first-served sort of freedom.

If you want them to stop using the public property they're on so that you can use it, you'll be appealing to authorities to coerce them off it. That doesn't sound like freedom either.

[IanDrake]

>You want to use the road. They want to use the road.

No, I want to use the road, they want to block the road.

It's not magic. As a society we have come together, formed a government, and agreed upon how land should be used. The majority agreed we should tax everyone (essentially) and build roads and sidewalks as a means of navigation. There is even a permitting process to use roads for other purposes, such as parades, legal protests, and road races.

Blocking the road isn't using it, nor is it legal, nor is it relevant to their cause.

[vacri]

The problem I have is that you're making arguments of semantics ('coercion'? Really?). So I'm responding with arguments of semantics.

So, what happens to your argument when a majority of people want the protest? Anyone can claim the silent majority for themselves.

What happens when the person approving the permits refuses to give it out because they don't feel like it? Do you wait the months it takes to take the government to court? What if you have no money? Is everyone just supposed to wait around until the judge supplies a court order?

Ultimately the issue is this: bad shit happens from time to time, and people feel the need to make themselves heard. In a healthy society, they should be allowed to do so. If that sort of action carries on impeding everyone else for a while, then sure, then it's time to say it's gone on too long. But the idea that you should never even be slightly inconvenienced because of someone else's issues is somewhat... inhuman.

I say this as someone whose transport home is a tram that goes right down my city's favoured protest route (it leads to the parliament house). Whenever there's a protest, permitted or not, my ride home gets severely delayed or I have to find alternate transport ($$ taxi). But you know what, that's part of life. Shit happens. And ultimately, most people are protesting in some form or another for an increase in civil liberties, and to be frank, most of the "screw those people for getting in the way" brigade are either ambivalent or oppose the broadening of civil liberties.

[orbitur]

I feel like there's something terribly wrong with your viewpoint.

If you want to protest, go stand in front of our government houses, go stand in front of the people whose jobs affect our lives.

As it is, some people like to believe that standing on a highway will change something. What does it accomplish? Do highway blockages win people over or just alienate more people who should be on the side of the protest? I'm sure in some cases, people get annoyed enough that they finally give in to whatever is demanded (see France).

Occupy Wall Street happened in a park, and on already highly congested streets. People were there for so long that it acually made the news, and it stayed on the news for weeks. Just imagine what the protestors could have accomplished if they had a single unifying goal or message!

It seems the only purpose for blocking automobiles is to annoy people until they can't take it anymore. Instead of effecting real change.

[Retra]

All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.

[DSMan195276]

> All you have here is an argument of semantics. Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.

I feel like you missed the point. For obvious reasons I'm not allowed to park my car in the middle of the freeway, and that is arguably a Good Thing. Protesters blocking the freeway aren't much different then that. We built roads with the intention of people using them to get from place to place, people seeking to impede other peoples use of roads to accomplish that goal are obviously going against the main intention of the road.

What they're doing is comparable to blocking the doors to a library instead of simply standing outside and protesting, it's just they would get much less sympathy if it was a library. Both still prevent people from using public property for it's intended use by the public.

[Retra]

I'm not missing the point, I just think there are better ways to make it. The road is being used to protest. Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.

The objection is not really that the road is being blocked, but that some group of people care more about their protest than they do about other people's convenience, and that just cannot stand. People should be only allowed to protest if people who wouldn't protest aren't bothered by it.

I don't think this has anything to do with the difference between blocking or using, or 'intended use' -- whatever that philosophical quandary is supposed to mean. This is about efficiency and cost. At what cost should a protest be illegal? "At the inconvenience of a small public" is what I'm hearing.

Addendum: "Intended use" is not a data point. It is not something that an intelligent person can use to make decisions. "Actual use", yes. Things in really are actually used. They are never "intendedly used," and talking about it as such is a moratorium on creativity. Those protesters certainly intended to use the road as a platform for protesting. Are they not voting citizens of their country who also helped pay for those roads? Intent is the least important thing in the world.

[DSMan195276]

> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.

Except it doesn't, because cars can share the road as long as all the cars keep moving. Of course, if you add too many cars people start to slow down, but that's an issue of the road being to small. This honestly isn't really much of a debatable point because there are lots of freeways that have minimum speed limits, meaning that if a car is blocking the road by going to slow (or stopped), it's breaking the speed limit and thus breaking the law, only for the reason of going to slow. Thus, it is illegal to block the road in such a way. The only times that it would be legal is if it you applied for a permit (Which they didn't do here).

Again, we come back to the library example. Is it legal for people to stand and block others from entering a library? Yes they're legally allowed to stand in-front of the library doors, but at what point does it infringe on the rights of others to use the library and become illegal?

The entire thing reminds me of this quote:

> "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins."

  - Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[orbitur]

> Driving on a road also blocks other cars from driving on it at the same time.

Uh, no. You still seem to be missing the point.

Roads are designed for cars to be moving, and in some cases, foot traffic is explicitly prohibited except under specific circumstances (like highways). People are legitimately in danger if you have a posted speed limit of 60MPH or 100KPH, and you have a car simply stopped in the road. Or in this case, a crowd of people on foot.

[IanDrake]

>Blocking and using are not mutual exclusive categories of human behavior.

Huh? I suppose one could say, bathing, singing, peeing, blocking, using, and jazz hands are not mutually exclusive categories of human behavior.

All these people need is a tub full of water in the middle of the highway and they can do all those things at the very same time. So then, what the fuck is your point?

Because my point is that jazz hands are for Broadway, bathing is for your tub, peeing is for your toilet, and driving is for the road. Why would you argue with that?

[couchand]

Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking. Pedestrians have been ejected from the space that was rightfully theirs.

[IanDrake]

>Well, just a little while ago the roads were meant for walking

No. Just no. Am I being trolled at this point?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_road_transport

[Retra]

My post was for completely refuting your point. So I guess you are just plain wrong for not rolling over and having your point be refuted.

Why would you argue with that?

[dubfan]

> Freedom isn't the ability "to do" something or anything, it is simply the absence of coercion.

A profound point apparently lost on so-called intellectuals. Thank you for understanding.

[themartorana]

The "to do" part is the active preservation of and action against coercion. If the denial of a right is present, only action against that threat is likely to remove it.

Further, a freedom is likely to disappear without continued active exercise - which makes that freedom an action, contrary to your argument.

The idea that freedom is absent action or protection is absurd. Using the term "so called intellectuals" makes you sound obtuse.

[ldlework]

Thank you. My mouth was literally agape.