Fabian_CH

Ok, you are right. But the law cited does not convince me. Is this objective law? I do not think so. "The effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers"? What does that mean? If I am wearing a shirt with a Jefferson quote, and someone asks me about it, am I drawing a "crowd or onlookers"? If I have with me some of my Swiss friends, who do not know who Thomas Jefferson is, and I explain to them who he is and why I admire him so much, am I drawing onlookers? What if other people stop to listen because they find my arguments worth hearing? Furthermore, "religious service"? If I pray silently to thank God for Jefferson and what he has done, and others join me, am I creating a crowd? Am I drawing onlookers? What if I simply read the quotes on the wall in "vigil"? The fact that common sense tells me I am not "demonstrating" does not change the equally true fact that this law, strictly read, says I am - or may say so, depending on any one person's whim in interpreting it. Furthermore, as I said above: a law that manages to define and outlaw personal behavior that is in no way offensive or obstructive or even out of the ordinary cannot be justifiably called "objective". Whether or not I had any intent to protest (Adam Kokesh and his group did, the girl did not, from what I understand) cannot spuersede the fact that I did not, by any justifiable, clear definition of that term. Oh, and lastly, of course I am not under the impression that in a fully capitalist society there will be no force. I am not even primarily criticizing the force used by the police officers (though it did seem to be excessive, since they were mostly just passively not cooperating rather than actively resisting - except in the case where the one guy grabbed his friend's arm). I am primarily criticizing their unjustifiable initial decision to arrest them.

Legally insofar as the law on which it is based (if any) is non-objective, and can therefore not legitimately be acted upon in anyway, including arrest. Mainly morally, though. Laws can't (legitimately) contradict morality anyway. In regards to whether or not they were "protesting", of course their intent was protest; my point was that no objective law could define what they were doing as "protest". Intent can't supersede action in judging this. If they weren't bothering or obstructing anyone, there is no legitimate basis for arresting, let alone prosecuting them. The proper behavior I suggested is indeed based on my opinion of what the law should be; but also, as I said above, the fact that no objective law could justify interfering in this case in the first place. Would you similarly say that a corporation had it coming if they are indicted for predatory pricing? There can be no other intent in lowering prices than to outcompete others, so intent is certainly given. The problem is that the law as written is non-objective, undefinable, and therefore not legitimately enforcable in the first place. Following that line of thought, no police could then "decide" to enforce or not enforce such a law, since it is, repeating myself, not enforcable in the first place. Edit: Just to reiterate, my main point here is that this: "Police officers should not determine on an individual level which laws they will or will not enforce" simply does not apply to a case such as this. If the law is not objective then it can't be enforced in any other way than by whim. The only proper thing to do for a police officer then would be to ignore that law, not to give up and decide by whim that this time he will "enforce" that law.

This is a somewhat old thread but I think that I have a significantly distinct opinion here that warrants commenting. First, there was the accusation that this was a poorly picked battle, that they should have focused on something that "hurts the country" more. I vehemently disagree with that analysis. What hurts the US, or any country for that matter, more than non-objective law? And is it not the epitome of non-objective law if a judge decides that the decision of a random police officer trumps the law, that a police officer may decide to arrest a girl for doing something that no law prohibits her from, and that this constitutes law? I am relying here on CapitalistSwine's characterization of the background of this case. Further, it was said that the police were justified in arresting these people, if not the girl in the original case, because they were protesting on public property without a license. Again, I disagree. Any kind of objective law could impossibly define "protesting" in such a way as to include behavior that antagonizes no one (I did not see any signs or shouting, which would kind of defeat the whole purpose of "silent dancing", also as outlined by Adam Kokesh himself), and obstructs no one from using those facilities. This is very much different from the kind of protest that blocks public roads etc., where it is correct for the government to break it up so long as it's "public property". What would have been proper behavior if the police were aware that an unlicensed protest was going to take place, in my opinion? This: to stand by, watch, and interfere if and when this "protest" reaches a level that can be properly termed a "protest", rather than unobstructive private dancing. Lastly, it is simply revolting to see that such an abomination took place (and remember, the place wasn't chosen at random, it was the place that the original case took place at) in the memorial to Thomas Jefferson, of all people. For that reason alone it was not a poorly picked battle.

Oh! How silly of me not to realize

Hm, what's your nickname in chat?

Hi everyone! I've been on chat a couple of times, but I haven't written in here yet... I live in the north of Switzerland, right by the German border. I'm turning 20 next month (July). I've been a student, and I've got one more year of school ahead of me - then mandatory military service (I don't mind doing it, though I don't like being coerced of course). Then University. My dream is to work in filmmaking, specifically as a screenwriter and director. I've always been fascinated by filmmaking in general and Hollywood in particular. I spent an exchange year just outside of Washington, DC in 09/10 - I love America I haven't had much of a history with Ayn Rand or Objectivism yet; I just got interested in her this spring, and started reading her books. Which, I guess, turned me from a libertarian to something more mature - though not an Objectivist (yet). Hm, I guess that's all I can think of to say right now. Any more questions - ask! Fabian