I have to wonder what went through the minds of those policemen. Who raised them and where were they educated that they lack a basic internal sense of justice or the sanctity of liberty? How could their souls not rebel at what they were doing. What made them into sociopaths more loyal to a paycheck or more obsessed with their own power than the basic rights of other people?
I realize that bicycle policemen have shrunken genitalia and are in constant pain and danger of castration because of their tight polyester shorts. They look silly and feel emasculated and that presumably fills them with rage. But I do wonder how they were trained, where their common sense was, and whether someone really gave them an order to do the one thing which would make them look like unreasonable thugs. They could easily have looked the other way and the protest would have been forgotten minutes after it happened by anyone but those directly involved. Instead, their arrests and bullying behavior got the protestors local and national media exposure and hundreds of thousands of hits on YouTube.
What this incident highlights is the institutional indifference and arrogance of a government which puts the rubber stamp of a bureaucrat on a permit ahead of the fundamental rights of individuals. If you need a permit for free speech or free assembly then it is no longer free and it is no longer a right. It has become a privilege granted by the government which can also be taken away by that government. This is not what Thomas Jefferson intended at the founding of this nation and it is not what is written into the Bill of Rights.
We should be arresting the bureaucrats and letting the protesters go free as true representatives of the principles on which this nation was founded.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Bob White
One course of action would be to bombard the office of the bureaucrat with requests for permits and for requests for information about permits, etc. A larger crowd might have gotten away with it, say a choir singing "God Bless America".
2 - William
Just saw the video and I'm really rather puzzled by it all. I would characterize the actions of those arrested (that is, those actions which got them arrested) is quite silly. And that's about it. I would characterize the response of the 'authorities' as childish. Absurd might be even better. This commenter is nowhere near an anarchist, but I wonder, Mr. White (commenter before me) if we'll be monitored for a bit for our comments in support. The Patriot Act was just renewed. These comments are probably worrisome enough for the powers that be.
3 - El Bicho
Can it really be well spoken when the speaker shows they don't understand the subject matter they are dealing with?
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Dave -
You know I normally disagree with you on pretty much everything...but this is an exception to the rule. I agree with you - they might be silly, but it's still a matter of freedom of speech.
5 - Christopher Rose
To see what has happened to the former land of the free over the last ten years is really depressing.
It is outrageous that people need a permit to protest and to be arrested over something like this is scandalous.
6 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
Wasn't that one of bin Laden's goals? Along with bankrupting us by getting us into an unwinnable war?
7 - Dave Nalle
Bin Laden is certainly laughing at us from Gehenna.
Dave
8 - Aristides
Overall, a very even-handed article, but I know some of the protesters and you might be surprised at just what these "anarchists" believe. Some of the people simply believe in a very limited constitutional government, as the Founders envisioned (unfortunately, something considered to be a very "extreme" position in modern America). Some of the others could be described as "anarcho-capitalists" and are influenced heavily by economists like Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe. Anarcho-capitalism is not a belief in a chaotic society without governance. On the contrary, the philosophy advocates a strong system of law and order, built on Lockean principles of unalienable rights (which were the foundation of our Declaration and Constitution), and administered by the free market (instead of though coercive taxation). It sounds far-fetched until you take the time to really study it. The theoretical models for such a society offer very plausible solutions to all of the functions normally performed by "The State," including courts, police, roads, and national defense. I would recommend checking out the Mises Institute website if you don't mind putting in some time to learn about economics and political philosophy. The media section has literally hundreds of hours of free audio and video lectures from the Professors at the Mises Institute (don't worry, not all of them are anarcho-capitalists). They may not convince you of the benefits of a stateless society, but they will definitely open your eyes to the wonders of the free market and the impoverishing nature of government bureaucracy. You don't know what fiscal conservatism is until you've studied "Austrian School" Economics.
9 - Cannonshop
Free Speech includes people being stupid. It is, in fact, one of the seminal virtues of permitting that freedom-that the stupid, the fanatical, and the foolish will reveal themselves as such in public, thus neutralizing their ability to control or manipulate the debate.
Of course, the dim-witted and the power-addicted arrogant dislike it, dislike it and, if allowed, would curtail it in the name of "Public Order".
This situation, and others of its kind, are why so many of us see our 'civil Servants' as wishing to be 'civil masters.'
There is NO right NOT to be Offended or to not see something that offends you. None, it is nowhere in the Constitution of any individual STate, nor in the Constitution of the United States, nor is it in the charter documents of our nation's Capital.
Abuse of power is rampant, maybe it is time to demand that the power be restrained.
10 - Lemmie
9# "Abuse of power is rampant, maybe it is time to demand that the power be restrained."
Should we consider the police enforcing Park Service regulations (put in place so that everyone who visits can enjoy the experience) as an abuse of power, or should we consider the actions of the "anarchists" as an abuse of the 1st?
It seems to me that these "dancers" were only concerned with their right to "show off", and had no consideration for anyone but themselves.
But, hey, maybe they're right. ANYONE should be able to demonstrate at the Jefferson Memorial WHENEVER they see fit.
I'd love to see a couple of flash mobs show up at the same time to demonstrate WITHOUT police interference. The first, anti-abortion protestors; the second, pro-abortion protestors. Might be good for some chuckles!
Just sayin'
Lem
11 - jeff
Well, this is my belief also that free speech should be practically unlimited unless it borders on harassment. In this case which I just learnt of now, it seems pretty clear that in a country such as the USA no one should come even close to being harassed for expressing quietly ones opinions. This is indeed counter to the principles on which the USA were built upon.
However, there is no doubt that in general freedom in the US is clearly above the average. While it is important to fight any limit to freedom of speech it is also good to acknowledge the chance people living in such countries have.
I am also not sure the anger poured at the policemen is warranted. I assume they got an order from their superior. While it is a wrong order they have family also and making a statement by refusing to arrest those 8 protesters would have only attracted issues for them.
I loved the article and agree with it, apart from the attack on policemen which was not necessary in my opinion
12 - Clavos
Should we consider the police enforcing Park Service regulations (put in place so that everyone who visits can enjoy the experience) as an abuse of power...
Emphatically yes, even though I disagree with the protester's point.
See Cannonshop's trenchant comment #9 above.
13 - pablo
Good news! Soon we will not have to worry about these scum who dance in front of Thomas Jefferson without a permit.
Thanks to our beloved Homeland Security keeping the homeland free from complaining dissidents, they have devised a new plan for preventing such outrageous displays of contempt in the future.
It is called “Future Attribute Screening Technology (FAST). This program uses complex algorithms to interview all persons entering a public area (I do know that the federal gestapo judge ruled that the Jefferson Memorial is not public) and to be interviewed on cam and the data fed into the machine.
Thank you to our beloved Homeland Security Agency for keeping us safe!
Here is a video of it in action! God bless America!!
FAST Homeland Security to the Rescue
Have fun in your Police State folks!
14 - Lemmie
9# "There is NO right NOT to be Offended or to not see something that offends you."
I agree.
But, do I have a "right", while in a public place governed by specific, common sense rules concerning behavior, to not be disrupted by the actions of others who believe they have a "right" to ignore the rules?
15 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps, Lemmie. But defining silent dancing in place by a small group of people as "disruptive" is ridiculous.
Dave
16 - Lemmie
15# "Perhaps, Lemmie. But defining silent dancing in place by a small group of people as "disruptive" is ridiculous."
Dave, with all due respect, I can only agree with you IF the intent of the "silent dancer(s)" was simply to silent dance.
In this particular case it seems to me that the primary intent of the silent dance was to bring attention to the dancers and their cause. The result of this was the arrival of the park police. The actions of the police resulted in the disruption of normal activities at the memorial. The cause of the disruption was the silent dancing. This was, after all, an organized group who knowingly violated park rules, not simply some "Joe or Mary Average" who got caught up in the emotion of "God bless the U.S.A." on their IPods and started "moving to the beat".
In this case, the silent dancing was disruptive because it was intended to cause a disruption.
17 - Clavos
I disagree with you, Lemmie, and furthermore I think you (and Park police) tread perilously close to violating the First Amendment with that stance.
Had the dancers been making a ruckus, trashing the monument, or in some other way disturbing the peace, perhaps they would have been out of bounds (but I don't know if I even believe that), but if their dancing brought the cops, which in turn made the scene disruptive as you say, then the cops should have stayed the hell away. Those people had a right to do what they did; they were not, until the cops showed up (and then it was the cops, not the dancers), infringing on anyone's rights.
And it is specious for you to speculate on what the dancing was "intended" to accomplish -- you have no way of knowing their intentions.
18 - Cindy
"I have to wonder what went through the minds of those policemen."
...wonder if I'll get to shoot anyone today...
19 - Cindy
Aristedes,
How can anarcho-capitalism support a system of law and order? It doesn't make sense. It sounds like you are describing Libertarians not an anarcho-capitalists.
20 - Cindy
I am also not sure the anger poured at the policemen is warranted. I assume they got an order from their superior. While it is a wrong order they have family also and making a statement by refusing to arrest those 8 protesters would have only attracted issues for them.
Some-one has to make these bombs, drop those bombs, guard these people, torture those people...incinerate those people...
As a human being, using authority as an excuse to abuse your fellow human travelers is unacceptable. Stop defending that mindset and the world might have a chance.
21 - Cindy
...if their dancing brought the cops, which in turn made the scene disruptive as you say, then the cops should have stayed the hell away. Those people had a right to do what they did; they were not, until the cops showed up (and then it was the cops, not the dancers), infringing on anyone's rights.
Well stated, Clav.
22 - Dr Dreadful
This incident reminds me of the time my wife and I got into trouble for snogging on the Vittorio Emanuele Monument in Rome. And we weren't even protesting anything.
Well, we weren't up until the point when the security lady got all pissy about it, anyway.
23 - Lemmie
17# "And it is specious for you to speculate on what the dancing was "intended" to accomplish -- you have no way of knowing their intentions."
Specious perhaps had I not done a little background research on the person, Adam Kokesh, involved in this incident.
I adhere to my theory.
17# "Those people had a right to do what they did..."
Do we all then have the "right" to violate or ignore laws, rules, or regulations that we do not agree with? And lest this spiral out of control let's, if I may ask, limit our dialog to rules (etc.) governing common sense issues and NOT to those put into place specifically to protect us from physical harm (murder, assault); damage to, or theft of, property; or the irresponsible behavior of others (as in driving under the influence).
24 - Irene Athena
I thought only Hardshell Baptists had laws against dancing. Separation of church and state, Lemmie. Separation of church and state.
25 - Clavos
Specious perhaps had I not done a little background research on the person, Adam Kokesh, involved in this incident.
And what did you find that supports your stance? How about some links?