On Property Destruction

I found this interesting post on r/anarchism which argues AGAINST the destruction of property, and it makes some good points.

First the author defines property destruction and its impact

What do we hope to achieve by destroying property? I take this tactic to be a way of criticizing private property and its expropriation and misappropriation by the powerful. By breaking a window you both contest that the private property right of the “owner” of that window is legitimate, and you inflict a cost upon her as retribution for her oppressive use of private property.

Next, he/she goes on to critique the effectiveness of property destruction

I claim that such destruction further legitimizes and entrenches private property. Consider what the alternative is to private property: some sort of system where property was communal and shared amongst the people (us). In order to successfully challenge private property, we must try to recast property in such a way as to emphasize that it ought to be held in common rather than appropriated by the powerful. Destroying property does not do that.Why? Because the message we want to send is that this property is ours: it does not belong to the banks, it does not belong to the wealthy, it does not belong to the bureaucrats. But if this is the case, why are we destroying our own property? If this property was truly ours, we would maintain it, take care of it, and distribute it according to need. No, it is the private property of othersthat you destroy because you know that it will come at no cost to yourself and you care little for their well-being. Property destruction only makes sense within the context of private property. If in our protest we want to act as though we were free from the coercive regime of private property, destroying property is counterproductive.

And proposes an interesting alternative

Anarchists should, instead, do what I call Property Management. Dressed in Black Bloc attire, they enter a big box store in the vicinity of the protest march and hang an anarchist banner over the entryway. Inside, they go to the cash registers and kindly explain that they are temporarily taking control of the store. They then “sell” the store’s goods at dramatically reduced prices, saving the money they collect to later publicly give away to a charity assisting those most harmed by capitalism (e.g., the Against Malaria Foundation, one of GiveWell’s top-rated charities).

Finally, a technically unaffiliated anarchist organization arrives the next day to assist employees in restocking, cleaning, etc. In this way, anarchists truly treat the property as though it was theirs and also as though it belongs to the people. We take not only control of the property, but also ownership of it. And then we show that we are willing to bear some of the costs of maintaining and distributing that property.

A commenter makes an interesting point as well

Just to add to the overall anti-property destruction argument. Two of the main reasons that I hear regarding the justification of property destruction in the current climate are; 1) It causes financial damage, and 2) It’s a symbolic act against capitalism.

To address the first, yes it causes financial damage, but breaking a few windows does not cause damage that is significant enough to have any meaningful effect. Windows are insured. All it achieves is a minor inconvenience for employees, the CEO and shareholders of Starbucks are completely unaffected.

As for the second, this is rooted in the idea of perception. We, as anarchists understand the symbolism behind the Black Bloc, and subsequent property destruction that may arise, to us it is a symbolic act against Capitalism. To the outside group, the average person - it’s just perceived as an act of vandalism (One that usally results in “God, we need more police to stop this happening again”, instead of “Fuck the police”). There is no political motivation behind it to them. This perception is of course based on a number of factors, what they read in the media, their ignorance surrounding Anarchist theory and social norms.

If, in the event that there was a change in perception and the public came to perceive use of property destruction tactics in the same manner that we perceive it, I certainly would have no problem in advocating it.

The issue is that people do not perceive it in this manner, which I doubt even the most ardent proponent of property destruction can disagree on. In the mean time, I believe that we should look to other tactics until public ignorance is lifted, or the general consensus is that smashy-smashy is an acceptable pastime.

To ‘smash’ capitalism, we must build counter-hegemony and seize control of the means of production. Destroying property does neither.

In otherwords

tl;dr Property destruction only makes sense if we grant the legitimacy of private property. It would be better to reappropriate that property and distribute it to the community.

Israel vs Palestine?

anticapitalist:

jusjac asked:

Lmao :L Your addition to my post :L
So you support Palestine? You support the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah drop bombs on Israeli schools, homes, and school buses? That’s sick.
Regarding them stealing land from the Palestinians. Well. How uneducated can you get? - There NEVER was a Palestinian state. After the Turkish empire collapsed, the area became the British Mandate for Palestine. (Please note here that Turkish people are NOT Arab people.) - Israel was formed from the British Mandate.
So before you go dishing out abuse, actually educate yourself of the situation before coming to pathetic conclusions.

Yes I support palestine because I support peace. 

A simple google search could show you that Israel has killed far more people than palestine. 

Okay, the “state” of palestine was mandated officially by the British Mandate. However, that area was called palestine since 450 BC. I didn’t know that rich white man had to sign pieces of paper before an area is recognized to have humans living in it. 

Then rich white people came along and took part of the land that these people were living and said that jewish people and others could live there. They essentially signed away palestinian land.

Before you go around accusing others of illiteracy, you should realize Israel has killed countless more civilians than palestine, and stole palestinian lands.

but in case you are too dumb/lazy to educate yourself, I’ll cite some statistics:

 

At least 6,430 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis
have been killed since September 29, 2000.

Source: B’Tselem (Click chart to enlarge.)

 

124 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and1,463 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information)

9,226 Israelis and 45,041 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Sources & More Information.)

During Fiscal Year 2011, the U.S. is providing Israel with at least $8.2 million per day in military aid and $0 in military aid to the Palestinians. (View Sources & More Information)

Current Number of Political Prisoners and Detainees

1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while5,935 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Sources & More Information)

Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes
1967 - Present

0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 24,813 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since 1967. (View Sources & More Information)

Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates

The Israeli unemployment rate is 6.4%, while the Palestinian unemployment in the West Bank is 16.5% and40% in Gaza. (View Sources & More Information)

Israel currently has 236 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land. (View Sources & More Information)

Who is uneducated now?

This post is relevant once more.

Cop Arrested After Pulling Gun On Cop Who Photographed Him

abaldwin360:

Fellow officers thought it would be funny to photograph David Davis, a Connecticut railroad police officer, sleeping at his desk while on shift.

They probably didn’t expect Davis to wake up, pull out his gun and point at the officer who had just taken his picture.

“No one’s taking pictures today,” Davis told John Freeman.

According to the Connecticut Post:

Freeman yelled at Davis to put the gun away, but Davis continued to track his movements with the gun pointed at Freeman’s head and his finger on the trigger, police said. After Freeman yelled at Davis a second time, Davis put the gun back in its holster, police said. Freeman then left the office.

Police said Freeman reported the incident to MTA Internal Affairs. Following an investigation, Davis was suspended for two weeks. However, Freeman subsequently pursued the matter and the case was turned over to Bridgeport police.

The incident took place in February. He was arrested Friday.

Davis, 51, a Metro-North Railroad police officer, is now facing first-degree reckless endangerment charges.

source

So, I suppose the only way for a cop to get into trouble for this kind of bullshit is if they do it to another cop.

Being against the death penalty does not make you racist.

Being against the death penalty does not mean you’re restricting people’s emotional reactions. It means you are against the death penalty.

It does not mean you are “erasing a culture”… It means you’re against execution.

Stop it, tumblr.

How Mass Media impacts the Iranian Peace Movement

Media began its growth as a social tool in 1439, when Johannes Gutenburg invented the movable-type printing press. In 1594, the first printed periodical was produced in Latin. Print media became the tool of the time and set the basis for political propaganda. In 1868, the first commercially successful typewriter was made, which expedited the writing process (i). Coupled with the development of the radio in the late 1890s and early 1900s, the world saw more revolutions and populist uprisings than ever before (i).

When the television and internet were invented, there was an explosion of political participation worldwide. The average family could come home from work, turn on their computer and join in the political discussion (ii). Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” (iii). The internet’s endless supply of knowledge allows us to fulfill Jefferson’s wishes. The internet is the “new” media and it is changing the way people think and act.

Read More

On The Death Penalty, Deterrence, And Killing Innocent People

letterstomycountry:

Some fellow Tumbloggers are having a discussion surrounding the Death Penalty and George Zimmerman.  The discussion is largely centered around the deterrence value of the Death Penalty.  MohandasGandhi notes recent studies that indicate the Death Penalty doesn’t deter the crimes it serves to punish (as well as the racially disproportionate manner in which it is levied against minorities).  Dank-Potion notes a series of studies reported by WaPo that indicate that the Death Penalty does have a deterrent effect (though she points out that they do not support the Death Penalty nor wish it for Zimmerman).  Some previous thoughts of mine on George Zimmerman and punishment can be found here and here.

This discussion is timely, given that a recent report released by Columbia law School found that a man named Carlos Hernandez was wrongfully executed in 1989, due inter alia to incompetent investigation. But the point that I think is being missed here is that we needn’t have a conversation about whether the death penalty deters in order to oppose it  (See Below).  

Regarding deterrence generally, if you want compelling evidence that the death penalty doesn’t deter, you might look at the fact that homicide rates in Europe, where the Death Penalty has been abandoned, are much lower than in America, and have been for some time.  That means one of two conclusions are possible: a) softer justice systems work in aggregate to deter serious crimes more effectively, or b) America is uniquely “evil” and culturally requires harsh punishments to deter people from committing homicide.  The latter conclusion strikes me more as black comedy than a serious policy position.

But all of this goes to the wayside when you consider the fact that we know with a statistically significant degree of certainty that innocent people are executed.  In order to support the Death Penalty, you must support the killing of innocent people.  That alone is grounds to oppose it.  We can’t have a conversation about whether the Death Penalty is justified without bringing this up.

Some might argue that the number of innocent people saved by execution is worth putting a comparably smaller number of people to death.  The WaPo article in the links above notes how this “salvation of innocents” calculus plays out:

Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

In other words, we have a statistical spread in these studies that varies by a factor of six.  However, if we take these studies at face value, it nonetheless remains a fair conclusion from these studies that there is some deterrence value to the death penalty, even if we don’t exactly know what that value is.

Let’s grant it for argument’s sake.  Let us grant that the death penalty deters between 3-18 murders for every convicted killer executed.  We are now left with a dubious moral calculus: the law review article I linked above notes a factual wrongful conviction rate in capital rape-murder cases of 3.3-5% (i.e. 3-to-5 out of every 100 people convicted are innocent).  According to the DPIC, there were 52 executions in 2009.  If we use the low figure, we can safely assume that  156 homicides were prevented.  Meanwhile, roughly 2 people were wrongfully executed in order to prevent those homicides.  Sounds great!  Kill 2 to save 156?  Why not?

But here’s the problem with these numbers: WaPo notes that “In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions.”  So if there was a reduction in executions, we would expect the number to rise, correct?  As noted above, in 2009, there were 52 executions.  The Disaster Center, using FBI Uniform Crime Report data, notes that there were 15,399 murders in 2009.  Meaning that even though the number of executions decreased when comparing ‘05 and ‘09, the number of murders went down by 1,300.  The DPIC notes that the long term trends indicate the same relationship: “[T]here was a 12% decrease in executions in 2010 compared to 2009 and a more than 50% drop compared to 1999.”  In 1999, there were 15,522 murders.  And in 2009?  15,399.  Reducing the number of executions by half over ten years not only failed to result in an increase in the number of homicides, it actually decreased.

Now there’s a whole bunch of other problems with these numbers too.  It’s entirely possible, for example, that there were other mitigating factors that need to be taken into consideration.  Indeed, that’s why the studies indicating deterrence have been roundly criticized.  WaPo notes:

Some [critics] claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment.

Economist Justin Wolfers was rather blunt:

We just don’t have enough data to say anything…[and] [t]his isn’t left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it’s too hard to tell…[w]ithin the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it’s still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished.

So we return to the familiar conclusion that there is no conclusion as to whether the Death Penalty deters.  Which in turn brings us back to the original question: Is the Death Penalty justified?  In answering this question, what we do know is that it is empirically unjustifiable to make a positive claim that the Death Penalty deters people from violent crime.  It is not empirically unjustifiable, however, to state that over the past decade, as we’ve executed less people, less people are being murdered.  We also know that in the European Union, which has abolished the Death Penalty, homicide rates are significantly lower than they are in America.  Correlation is not causation.  But if the evidence proves anything, it shows that the “salvation of innocents” calculus supports abolishing the Death Penalty rather than retaining it.

In light of all this, should George Zimmerman receive the Death Penalty if he is found guilty of 2nd degree murder?  No.  If Norway can accept punishing Anders Brevik with 21 years in prison for killing and/or injuring 100+ people, we should be able to accept a modest sentence for George Zimmerman if/when he is found guilty.  And, for that matter, every person after him who may face the justice system.