I’ve been getting a bit salty at laws recently, especially those that are very explicitly targeted at keeping people in-line with the status quo that is defined by the rich.

There are two things I’m annoyed at:

1. Laws against strikes
2. Laws against agitative protest

My stance is that laws on strikes are anti working class, and the working class are in the majority for fucks sake. If the working class is striking to any capacity its because their economic relationship between them and their bosses has become unsuitable, and everyone in the union wants things to change. Workers know what their company is capable of. They know when they aren’t being paid adequately. There should be no laws restricting this economically hostile negotiation.

My stances on protests is that they should start peaceful, but the agitative nature should be the point. We protest at first to show those in power how many people care about a certain thing, and how passionately. The expectation is that if no-one organises a counter-protest of equal size, then this is the opinion of those who want change and everyone else doesn’t care, silently supports, or silently rejects, and those people’s opinions don’t need to be listened to because they’re not willing to actually do anything.

Protests as a display are then a threat. This is how many people care. If you do nothing, this mass of people will do anything in their power to change it themselves. Either the target of the protests responds, or the protests start taking violent action. So long as no-one is physically hurt, there is no harm done, and there are cases where harm done is warranted. I’m sorry, I’m a radical, that’s what being a radical means.

To oppose this with state violence is to oppose the people willing to do something to change society and to enforce the status quo. It’s my stance that if the police try to inhibit the will of protesters then it’s within protesters (moral) right to fight back.

And the caveats of this are the purpose of protest. If I am to remain morally consistent, then I should say that right-wing protests and violent action should not be hampered by the police. I don’t really disagree, it’s on the community as a whole to stop right-wing fucks.

I believe protests are right if they champion love and tolerance, but tolerating intolerance is intolerant. Philosophy tube said it and probably quoted someone else but fascists want me dead - I only want the fascists silent. I want freedom, they want conformity. Most people want freedom, it’s just if they’ve been convinced that conformity is freedom and that the liberation movement is actually limiting freedom by the media buckos.

So I say let people protest, no matter their political leanings: and when the majority of us speak louder than the minority of us then we will have freedom: it is just a matter of if we can motivate ourselves to do something.

Nothing happens unless you do it.

I think that philosophy is why there is so much power in being rich, because you can pay people to do things, and when motivation is low and you need money to live people only do things if they’re getting paid.

I know it’s a bit circular, but we need to do things regardless of if we get paid because otherwise they won’t get done - and this includes act out on our beliefs.