Philosophy Now Forum

My letter to the editor was published this morning in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Here it is:
Disruption

Regarding Rashad Turner seeking a seat in the Minnesota Legislature ("Black Lives Matter leader to run for House seat," Nov. 28), the voters should be aware that Turner approves of disruption by mob action as a political tactic to achieve his goals. That disruption by mob action is an inherently anti-democratic tactic is evident. It most frequently occurs when the mob shouts down a speaker with whom they disagree. Would Turner, if elected, disrupt the speech of a conservative Republican lawmaker on the House floor?

Would it be prudent for the voters to give political power and influence to a candidate who may use disruption at his whim? I think not.

Thomas J. Bieter, St. Paul

Here is Turner's announcement:

http://www.twincities.com/localnews/ci_ ... -minnesota

What is interesting is that Turner, a Green Party guy, intends to challenge the incumbent, of the Democratic Party, who is the only black member in the House. Apparently, the seat occupied by the incumbent is a safe seat for black candidates. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/member ... p?id=15356

As a good conservative Republican, and to protect the House as an institution, I'll send an email to the incumbent advising her how to use Turner's approval and use of disruption as a political tactic against Turner.

then he couldn't complain if he gets lynched

-Imp

If people had never been prepared to disrupt and agitate, we'd all be living still under the power of the Power and the Monarchs that he controlled all over Europe.

If there are bad laws then it is necessary to break them. If there are laws that are supposed to protect the people that are not being enforced then it is necessary to demonstrate lack of confidence in the governing forces, and disrupt the smooth execution of their power until they obey their own laws.
The state is supposed to operate for the people, not for itself.

Impenitent wrote:then he couldn't complain if he gets lynched

-Imp

He should not be surprised to get plenty of votes.

tbieter wrote:My letter to the editor was published this morning in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Here it is:
Disruption
.

I don't think you are telling them anything they are not already well aware of.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If there are bad laws then it is necessary to break them.

and those who say that will, should they gain power, insist that their laws are good - and therefore those who break them should be punished

so to translate into plain english: some people do not have power and that makes them angry so they want power. they will always claim that they want the power for good

Kayla wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:If there are bad laws then it is necessary to break them.

and those who say that will, should they gain power, insist that their laws are good - and therefore those who break them should be punished

so to translate into plain english: some people do not have power and that makes them angry so they want power. they will always claim that they want the power for good

Maybe. But people breaking the law for political reasons don't always seek power, like the Dutch family that protected Anne Frank; like thousands of ordinary black people that defied pass-book laws and were killed by the South African government.

to be fair the family that sheltered ann frank were living in an illegal occupied territory

they broke no dutch laws and no other laws were relevant

wishes of heavily armed thugs are not the same thing as laws

Kayla wrote:to be fair the family that sheltered ann frank were living in an illegal occupied territory

they broke no dutch laws and no other laws were relevant

wishes of heavily armed thugs are not the same thing as laws

You are talking bollocks as usual.