Like with Camp Casey/CS, remember the legal hassles? A War Memorial that’s a protest of war isn’t actually a Memorial, sez the City and the College. Thus it was a code violation, having people dwelling on a spot that was not zoned for Residential.
But then there’s the Movie Campers, at a mall, waiting to be first in line for the screening of the new Hairy Pot-Head movie “Half Blood Prince”.
The Mall Keystone Kops would ordinarily run off anybody who pitches a tent on Mall Property and just starts basically Living There.
So, Then, (thought I) Why would they allow people to do it for a movie?
The Hideous Thought then struck me… The “fans” camping there, what if they’re actually Agents Provocateurs, as it were, for the movie? Paid to camp at the theaters, and the Corporate News (television Broadcasting is typically owned by the same people who own Movie Production companies) dutifully reports it as “Nutty fans, camping out to see This Fantastical Wonderful Marvelous But We’re In No Way Advertising It For Free And Disguising It As ‘legitimate news’ Movie!!”
See, that would be deemed Legitimate by the Pigs. Camping to memorialize the Dead and protest the illegal war that got them killed, that’s Tabu, Big Wrong, Bad Evil, Supreme No-No!!
Camping to survive, same thing.
Camping to promote a Commercial Enterprise, even though the Theaters aren’t in any way zoned as Residential, that’s legit.
Maybe if Camp Casey had a couple of signs up that if somebody stayed overnight he would get a discount on a Toons Video order?
I am against “zoning” any private property which prohibits the owner from using their property for whatever purpose he chooses. So, in my opinion, if the city (or any government body) uses “zoning laws” to prohibit legitimate protest “because it isn’t zoned for residential” is laughable , at best, and criminal , at worst. This offense is compounded, if the government body prohibits this protest on “public property” where ,presumably, the lland belongs equally to the people who are protesting.
copycat
Those are the same ordinances used to justify the Ludlow Massacre and other Anti-Union Police Brutality.
And to jail homeless people for the crime of not being wealthy enough to afford “liberty” and basic human rights.
>>Those are the same ordinances used to justify the Ludlow Massacre and other Anti-Union Police Brutality.
I had to look this up, and there appeared to be no justification whatsoever for the brutality that occurred. I am against the use of violence to advance a political agenda, and i found no indication of who “shot first” in this incident, But I seriously doubt that the miners would have risked their families’ safety by shooting first. That being said, I believe they were defending themselves, and were victims of the mining company.
>>And to jail homeless people for the crime of not being wealthy enough to afford “liberty” and basic human rights.
This is why I am against public ownership of property. In my opinion, any publicly owned land should be open to any member of the public for any purpose, whatsoever. It does , in a sense, belong to everyone. That being the case, there is, literally, no just way to allocate the use of that land among all the “owners”, and the land winds up getting used in a way that the majority of the people wish. This violates the property rights of the minority opinion holders to use their land as they wish, including sleeping there if they have no where else to go.
I am interested in what you consider to be “basic human rights”. I believe we could have a very rewarding discussion on this topic.
copycat
Property rights… ah… now you’re getting a little closer.
There’s a coup being attempted in Honduras right now over “property rights”.
Foreign ownership of Honduran property, and the property in question is owned by those foreign (U.S. British and Canadian, mostly) by reason of that property having been seized, at public expense, by the United States Military.
Which would be ANY property within the borders of the United States as well.
I published here about 3 years ago that there was a Historical Society in Texas who said that not accepting the John Wayne version of how David Crockett died at the Alamo was treason, because it would undermine the morale of The Troops as they march forth to take on the dirty, little, foreign, dark-skinned victims of the so-called Global War on Terror.
There’s more. General Antonio Jose y Maria Lopez (de Santa Ana) the supposed Dictator of Mexico, did as Chavez did, Castro did and the “dictator” of Honduras did, he nationalized “Private property”. Never mind that the “private property” had come into the possession of the Corporate owners by force of arms.
What do you suppose would be the One Class of “private property” seized without compensation in the 1830s that would Piss Off the Jackson-Polk White Southern Slaveowners enough that they would take up arms and invade a foreign sovereign nation ummmm…. “have a populist revolution against a Foreign Dictator”, yeah, that’s the ticket, a “Revolution”…?
Here’s another Clue for you all (the Walrus was Paul)
You know how the John Wayne movie made a point (a $250,000 worth of screen time point) of mentioning that Colonel Bowie freed his SLAVE Moses just before the Swarthy Culture-warrior Hordes burst in and killed him in his bed?
Mighty White of him, but under Mexican law, Moses was free as soon as he was transported into Mexico. Oh, I’m supposed to say “Texas”.
See, that ties in mightily with the “Safeway and King Soopers Wants You To Scab” thread, and the posts YOU made defending the corporate actions.
Why should a Corporation own the labor of “THEIR” workers? Would not that labor be the bodies of the Workers themselves? Why wouldn’t the Workers own their own selves, and have every bit as much property rights over their own bodies as the Corporations claim?
And the rights to negotiate fare compensation for their “Property” being nothing more than their own selves.
Including the maintenance of their property, like food, clothing, shelter, education for their children, a standard of living comparable to that of those who make their money from the Labor of the workers?
Why would I have to accept a lower standard of living than that gained By Others from My Labor?
>>Why should a Corporation own the labor of “THEIR” workers? Would not that labor be the bodies of the Workers themselves? Why wouldn’t the Workers own their own selves, and have every bit as much property rights over their own bodies as the Corporations claim?
That is what I have been saying. The worker owns himself, and his labor.
>>And the rights to negotiate fare compensation for their “Property” being nothing more than their own selves.
>>Including the maintenance of their property, like food, clothing, shelter, education for their children, a standard of living comparable to that of those who make their money from the Labor of the workers?
“fair compensation” should be determined by the worker (individually, or collectively) not by the government. If the business owner is unwilling, or unable to pay the resulting “market value” of that labor, then he will be forced to close his doors, or perform the labor himself. If the business owner Is able to find people who are willing to work at a rate he is willing to pay, then the “market value” of the labor is the rate that is actually paid for the labor, not what other workers “would like to be paid”.
>>Why would I have to accept a lower standard of living than that gained By Others from My Labor?
If the “others” you are speaking of are workers doing the same job, then whatever the lowest wage paid for that labor, that is the “market value” of that quality of labor. If you are more skilled, you may be able to command a higher wage, for the extra quality.
If the “others” you are speaking of is the owners of the store, then they have “bought” your labor at a particular rate, which you both agreed upon before you started giving your labor. If that wage is not enough to “maintain” your property (that being your self) it is not the fault of the owner.
An extreme example would be:
Let’s say that you hired a man to mow your yard for $100/week.
He mows your yard, and then demands $30,000 a year, because he cannot survive on $100/ week.
Do you pay him a “fair” wage of $30,000/year, or do you pay him the $100/week you agreed upon? Whose responsibility is it to make sure that man eats, or has shelter, or can support his family?
Even if you COULD afford to pay him $30,000, should a court force you to pay him any more than the $100/week you both agreed upon?
>>Why would I have to accept a lower standard of living than that gained By Others from My Labor?
Here is another example: Let us say that you buy some land, believing that it MIGHT have gold on it. you buy equipment to dig, and hire a guy to do the digging. He digs for a month, and you pay him for his labor. Now, from that labor,which you have already paid for, you get 1000 times the value in gold that you paid for the labor. Do you owe the worker who did the labor any more money?
Let us say that he digs for a month,you pay him, and you find no gold. Does he owe you any money back, because you gained nothing from his labor?
The business owner is compensated more for the risk he takes than the labor he provides. The risk of losing his property (the money he used to buy the land and equipment) .
In answer to your question:
You must accept whatever standard of living the “market value” of your labor and skills provide. That value can only be determined by what someone is willing to pay for it.
copycat