8 ms·

The broad and vague ruling that enables the TSA to do anything they want in airports[0] can (and will) be applied to just about any public event. It's probably

• jmspring 14y ago
  A public that is passive and follows "the rules" enables this, unfortunately.
  • gasull 14y ago
    In 2011 and 2012 we had Occupy Wall Street and Anonymous. Probably the broadest protest movement online and offline in a long time, if not ever. And the politicians won. Wall Street won. The TSA won. They all have more power than 2 years ago. If the broadest peaceful protest couldn't make it, what possibly can?
    • eru 14y ago
      Perhaps a more narrow and focussed protest can?
    • cgag 14y ago
      Violent protest.
      • sneak 14y ago
        You really, really don't want to be resident there ifwhen it actually comes to that, brother. Consider emigrating. It's much better, safer, and more effective than violence.
    • sneak 14y ago
      You could not be more correct. I took this photo yesterday: http://i.imgur.com/ilLp1.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ilLp1.jpg
    • jrogers65 14y ago
      A Ghandi-style peaceful protest would fare better than what the occupy movement did. I went to the one in London and saw that the protesters were following police orders to, for example, stay in one place. This is not the way to make your voice heard and it's not what Ghandi did. You can have an active, non-violent protest. This entails disobeying any and all orders from the authorities (e.g. blocking major roads and refusing to move unless taken by force), blocking access to important buildings, blocking access to police and government vehicles, using smoke bombs - anything which causes chaos but does not physically hurt anyone. The point is to cause as much of a problem as possible without enacting bodily harm to another. http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-39/ch18.htm http://www.crvp.org/book/Series01/I-39/ch18.htm > An avowed pacifist, he saw non-cooperation as a training in self-sacrifice. In Gandhi’s dictum, non-violent, non-cooperation was "a method of search for social truth." > He cautioned that non-cooperation does not apply to service under private individuals. Its efficacy lay in voluntary withdrawal from the affairs of the State, an expression of popular discord, causing discomfort to government. > "Satyagraha literally means insistence on truth."
      • viraptor 14y ago
        > blocking access to police and government vehicles, using smoke bombs - anything which causes chaos but does not physically hurt anyone Do you really recommend becoming a terrorist in the US right now?
        • jrogers65 14y ago
          By that metric, the police are terrorists for using tear gas and blocking roads.
          • ynniv 14y ago
            I'm fairly sure this is indeed where we are now. To be fair to the police, they are being controlled by federal organizations.
        • sneak 14y ago
          It would appear that that's exactly what he's doing. It's not a bad tactic, though costly, and only effective if you can get dozens and dozens of thousands to participate.
    • smokinjoe 14y ago
      None of the movements had any leadership or organized goals whatsoever. In a world where so many have so much access, those that took part in the protests were essentially cut off from many people who wanted to learn more about them.
  • sneak 14y ago
    c.f. Milgram experiment. It's human nature. Germany is way more rule-following and is way more free than the USA.
• sneak 14y ago
  The headline should read "everywhere _in the US_". Your comment should read "all public gatherings _in the US_". There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA. (This has the added benefit of your productive energies no longer helping fund the TSA, as well, for incomes below about $92,000.) A dozen countries have a similar standard of living as the US, and many of those are substantially more free.
  • amirmc 14y ago
    > "There is indeed something you can do about it. You can go live in a country where there is no TSA" In other words, give up? I find it ludicrous (and terrifying) when statements like this are made. This isn't some web-app whose terms of service you don't like, it's a nation state. People throughout history took to the streets to win freedom/voting right/etc. If no-one's left fighting back then expect to get trampled. Soon there'll be nowhere left to move.
    • kelnos 14y ago
      Agreed. And to take it a step further: the US is still a powerful force in both world politics and military might. If all the people in the US who care about these issues simply give up and leave, do you really think the remainder of the US will simply let everyone else in the world live they way they want to? We can already see the effects of this trend in how the US tries to "harmonize" copyright/patents/etc. law in other countries with its own. Any time I'm in an airport in a country where the US deems security insufficient, there's extra security at the gate for flights to the US. These things spread slowly, but surely.
      • sneak 14y ago
        I believe that it has to get worse in the US before it can get better, and I refuse to use violence to accomplish my goals. Therefore, it will take several years, and will require the vast majority of the people who comprise the US's competitive advantage over other countries leaving, first, before the true change really starts. You don't undo things like the NSA's global wiretapping efforts with a direct, frontal assault. If they cared about the fact that it is blatantly, totally illegal, they never would have begun it in the first place. You have to attack the roots, and that's the economy, and the tax base. This will likely not be solved in my lifetime, unfortunately.
• ataggart 14y ago
  Few men want to be free; most just want fair masters.
• AutoKorrect 14y ago
  exercise your 2nd amendment rights