PDA

View Full Version : The tactic of sit-ins good/bad ?




LibertyWorker
03-24-2009, 01:39 PM
A sit-in or sit-down is a form of direct action that involves one or more persons nonviolently occupying an area for a protest, often to promote political, social, or economic change.

sit-ins good or bad tactic ?

StudentForPaul08
03-24-2009, 01:43 PM
Bad.

It was done during the civil rights movement to make a point, and was done because certain groups of people were not aloud to sit in certain places. For our purposes, we are not being barred from places. Doing this will just anger the public if it disrupts their day, in whatever way.

LibertyWorker
03-24-2009, 01:49 PM
(Note to self) When trying to save a nation we should not disturb the public’s day to day activity.

Epic
03-24-2009, 01:50 PM
when college kids do sitins for living wage i want to shoot myself.

In general, it's often trespassing and not a good libertarian civil disobedience strategy.

Kludge
03-24-2009, 01:50 PM
(Note to self) When trying to save a nation we should not disturb the public’s day to day activity.

Arguing for non-aggression by government is laughable when its own "supporters" aggress upon the same people they're trying to "save".

LibertyWorker
03-24-2009, 01:58 PM
So if any form of protest that bothers anyone intimidates anyone or is inconvenient to people is bad?

StudentForPaul08
03-24-2009, 02:00 PM
(Note to self) When trying to save a nation we should not disturb the public’s day to day activity.

Not my point. I am saying why choose a tactic that will just get the public mad at you? Try something else. rallies/protests/sign waving/book clubs/C4L/etc. etc

There is more than one way to save a nation.

Kludge
03-24-2009, 02:02 PM
So if any form of protest that bothers anyone intimidates anyone or is inconvenient to people is bad?

Yes. However, if the movement were on the verge of a violent revolution (it is not), non-violence would be a far better bad tactic.

LibertyWorker
03-24-2009, 02:17 PM
Yes. However, if the movement were on the verge of a violent revolution (it is not), non-violence would be a far better bad tactic.

Yes I agree .But the tactics being used on us is one of Incrementalism over the course of years and tens of years so it never seems as bad as it is. There for we never act to stop it .

Kludge
03-24-2009, 02:33 PM
Yes I agree .But the tactics being used on us is one of Incrementalism over the course of years and tens of years so it never seems as bad as it is. There for we never act to stop it .

Honestly, I don't think we're at that point, yet. The United States is still a great place to live in. Almost everyone in my neighborhood has secure assets, and isn't likely to die any time soon due to government intrusion, nor is their spirit crushed.

Perhaps, too often we look at what we cannot do or are forced to do, due to government, as opposed to what we still can do, which gives us our negative feelings. I don't believe it ethical for government to deprive us of privileges, but is it really worth imprisonment, and potentially the loss of life were it to escalate? The Founders thought so... I disagree, and will never give my life to this cause so long as it is worth living.

Bossobass
03-24-2009, 02:57 PM
Sit-ins (and not-so sit ins, lumping all physical protests into the same bag) stopped the Nixon administration from using nukes in Vietnam (which has recently come out that they wanted to do) and eventually resulted in Nixon's 180 on Vietnam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtghBEvK4mM


Many people don't know it, but Nixon was considering using nuclear weapons in Vietnam. At that time, Nixon was also repeatedly saying that he didn't care what the American people thought about Vietnam, and that he was going to escalate the war anyway.

However, according to a biography by a well-known historian, when Nixon saw hundreds of thousands of protesters on TV, he dropped his secret plan of nuking Vietnam.

Remember, Nixon dropped those plans even though he said he didn't care what people thought.

Many believe that Nixon was forced out of office because of his unilateral actions to get out of the war, Watergate being the tool that was used.

Bosso