What is the libertarian solution to Tamil protesters scrambling onto the Gardiner Expressway and blocking traffic? Who should have exclusive right over the road, the protestors or the drivers?
The whole point of a protest is that it has to be a credible threat of aggression. It’s not a question of ownership.
I do side with the drivers. If the protesters are unhappy about the government they should go lynching some (or all) politicians. Of course, it seems that in order to get attention it’s easier to upset the daily lives of people who you’ve never met…
The legal side of it is, I think : the protesters have no right to block the road. If they ‘own’ it, so do the drivers. And roads are meant to be used as…roads…not playgrounds.
did they haz permit? if not then tits or GTFO
please tell me what the protesters were hoping for the canadian goverment to do?
What would be your response to the left-libertarian claim that public property was analogous to unowned property, that anyone can homestead legitimately? After all, since the government is just a gang of theives it would be more just to remove it from their possession than to let them continue to use it.
That is based on a misunderstanding, and I suspect in some circles, a deliberate lie.
Pubic property is stolen property, not unowned property.
From another article I read (don’t remember where), they want the Can-Fed-Gov to press sanctions against Sri Lanka. I’m sure they 'ld also like some humanitarian aid. Probably would like a peacekeeping force too.
Well, I’m not sure if the left-libertarians have only one position on that. I’m not even sure who the left-libertarians are =]
My take is that public property is owned by the taxpayers. But I admit it’s not self evident how such principle is to be applied.
At any rate, blocking a road, which is an action somehow analogous to kidnapping the people who use it, is not homesteading is it ?
I think that’s true and something all libertarians would agree with ? But in this case it doesn’t mean some people can prevent other people from using the road ?
Whoever has the power to enforce their claim.
I would say the protesters. They want their voice to be heard.
So, if riot police rushed them and beat them, they would have the power to enforce their claim and you would have no objection?
So, if someone wants to be heard, they should be allowed to obstruct whoever they want?
What happens if one of the protesters shows up in a car, or a driver chooses to protest? [:D]
What if a protestor gets in a car and wants to drive home? [:)]
I never said I personally wouldn’t have an objection.
I’m just saying, from the standpoint of “who ought to be allowed control over the road?,” there’s really no answer, other than whoever has the power to enforce their claim.
Ok, I see. Amoralism.
Whereas I do not support disrupting traffic in protests any more than damaging private property, I would prefer in general to see people NOT begging the government for permission to assemble. Laws requiring permits are the death of a thousand cuts to liberty, and ought to be broken all the time.