You can get a permit to protest. Also, there are venues that are more suitable than others. If you are part of a strike, things become different.
But assuming all of the above is invalid, don't you think protesting an issue like segregation is worth getting people upset about their delayed commute?
Personally, I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of my convenience to support people protesting an issue that is important. In a way, it's the price I pay for not joining in on the protest!
> Personally, I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of my convenience to support people protesting an issue that is important.
Even at the height of the civil rights movement, the vast majority of the country was apathetic to hostile. That is simply the nature of fighting for these things.
As someone who has lived in dictatorships for most of my life, I strongly disagree with this statement. I guess it's the kind of thing that only someone who lives and breathes democracy would say.
On a related note, I'm always amused by people who are strongly against weapons research and manufacturing, especially in the US. It's easy to say "we don't need weapons research" when you are living in a country that possesses the most advanced weapons tech in the world, or even in a country that is a member of the EU or NATO.
When your country can't even manufacture an assault rifle and has to rely on potential future enemies to supply it with arms, that's when weapons research becomes necessary.
Weapons research and weapons manufacturing are different. If a country is just manufacturing weapons to defend themselves then fine (aside from nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, the spread of those weapons should be held back, they're too dangerous) but weapons research is unnecessarily extending the misery of war. Don't we have enough ways to kill each other? Why do we need any more?
No, I disagree: weapons research and weapons manufacturing are very closely coupled.
How do you choose when to "stop" researching better weapons? And how do you define "enough"? Did we have "enough" in the 1600s? How about the 1800s? Or the early 1900s?
Another point you are somehow overlooking is that we don't live in an ideal world, so if you decide to stop weapons research, someone else (likely an enemy) will ramp it up and eventually have better weapons than you do. The arms race is, by definition, a never ending one, and weapons research is a key part of that process.
If you argue that everyone should agree to stop research, then who gets to decide when to stop? The country with the most advanced weapons?
Finally, with better technology come more precise weapons. Now, we've seen that drones aren't really as "precise" as expected in practice, but they are leaps and bounds less destructive than older tech. We can only improve if we continue researching.
> "How do you choose when to "stop" researching better weapons? And how do you define "enough"? Did we have "enough" in the 1600s? How about the 1800s? Or the early 1900s?"
I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day. How much quicker at killing each other do you want us to be?
> "If you argue that everyone should agree to stop research, then who gets to decide when to stop? The country with the most advanced weapons?"
Yes, the country with the most advanced weaponry needs to be the country that leads the process to slow down the rate of weapon research. The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position, and if they did so with enough conviction they could cause a economic downturn in military equipment companies, slowing down progress further.
> "Finally, with better technology come more precise weapons. Now, we've seen that drones aren't really as "precise" as expected in practice, but they are leaps and bounds less destructive than older tech. We can only improve if we continue researching."
What we're almost certainly going to see is war that can be conducted remotely. You see the start of it with piloted drones, but this is just the start. When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war?
> I would say around the 1970s. At that stage, with the maturity of ICBMs, it seems that we would have the weapons to wipe out the human race in less than a day.
Nuclear bombs were developed in the 40s. Why not stop there?
> The USA leads the world in military spending by quite a way, they could easily slow down without risking their geopolitical position
Slowing down is not the same as stopping, my friend. My argument is against those who claim that weapons research is categorically wrong and must stop. Trust me, I have seen many people who hold this view in the US.
But let's assume that the US eases the world into stopping completely. From a game theoretic standpoint, can you ever truly ensure that all countries have ceased weapons research? The answer is simply no. Heck, we couldn't even manage to do that with nuclear disarmament: Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Libya, and NK have all illegally (and covertly) developed nuclear weapons at one point or another.
> When war can be conducted with minimal human involvement in the military, do you think this is going make it easier or harder for a government to decide to go to war?
I'm sure that the rules of engagement and warfare will develop as technology improves. Wars could reach the point where both sides operate unmanned vehicles that are only allowed to target each other. The primary goal would then be to cripple your enemy financially and strategically by destroying and/or disabling their unmanned weapons. In other words, targeting human soldiers/operators could become a war crime.
Don't get me wrong: I am against warfare in general. But I am also a realist, and from what I have read and seen, both history and human nature tell us that war will never stop.
What you mean is that the status quo doesn't need protests in support of it. When the status quo is unpopular, protests are certainly important, especially in support of popular positions.
> "Personally, I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of my convenience to support people protesting an issue that is important."
Okay, but what if what is being protested is important to the protestors but not important to you? What if that protest interferes with your day-to-day life? Would you still be supportive of their right to protest?
I agree. You can get a permit to protest. I don't think the politicians listen anymore. They might if you are a corporation funding their campaigns. Protests appear to be losing power over time. Politicians seem to be less and less reachable. We do have a problem here.
Indeed... I'm beginning to think that many protests now are meant to distract the most engaged people from the fact that they have no control. Different circus, same bread.
But assuming all of the above is invalid, don't you think protesting an issue like segregation is worth getting people upset about their delayed commute?
Personally, I wouldn't mind sacrificing some of my convenience to support people protesting an issue that is important. In a way, it's the price I pay for not joining in on the protest!