Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

commondreams.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 37 posts

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#21

Post by [deleted] »

redthrowaway wrote: post #15
bugsy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for him either, but I'll speak for those of us who are against destroying the environment but won't use the word environmentalist as it, like the word organic and the word christian, have been co-opted by evil bastards with corporate control agendas. Screw all that. It is impossible to take "environmentalism" seriously as a movement when you have people like Al Gore respected, and the Goldman Sachs cont…

Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wron…

[deleted]

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#23

Post by eazolan »

bugsy wrote: post #19
redthrowaway wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is libertarianism defined by Ayn Rand? Is capitalism defined by Donald Trump? Let's put Gore aside for a minute, and focus on the core issues. An environmentalist is someone who, fundamentally, sees the protection of the environment (for practical and/or idealogical reasons) as one of our most serious responsibilities. To say that certain people who identify with the movement are wrong, therefore the movement is wron…

The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings…

I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development.

When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#24

Post by traldan »

eazolan wrote: post #23
bugsy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings…

I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development. When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.

Wait, what? Why would environmentalists build oil wells? That's precisely the opposite of caring about the environment. Unchecked human development is recklessly irresponsible. But growth and development aren't necessarily evil - far from it. Understanding the ENTIRE impact of ones actions, rather than just the portion that affect you, is (imo) the most important tenet of protecting the world we live in. From that perspective, you can make intelligent decisions and grow, but not at the expense of everyone around you.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#25

Post by brianleb »

cube13 wrote: post #13
wisty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using illegal methods to disrupt illegal activities is not legal. You can't shoot a guy to stop him running a red light. There are rules about Citizen's arrests, but they are pretty specific. On the other hand, making a nuisance bid at an auction (especially when you are forthright about your actions, which he claims he was) doesn't seem like a serious criminal act.

He didn't just make himself a nuisance, though. He did two illegal acts: 1. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for the drilling rights. 2. He was unable to pay for the bids he won. Both of which are pretty cut and dry fraud charges. Those are what he was found guilty for. If he had just broken into the meeting and annoyed the people present, I would have a different opinion about his p…

Tsk tsk, you didn't read the article.

> 1. He misrepresented himself by saying that he was a legitimate buyer for the drilling rights.

"The entire basis for the false statements charge that I was convicted of was the fact that I wrote my real name and address on a form that included the words “bona fide bidder.” When I sat there on the witness stand, Mr Romney asked me if I ever had any intention of being a bona fide bidder. I responded by asking Mr Romney to clarify what “bona fide bidder” meant in this context. Mr Romney then withdrew the question and moved on to the next subject. On that right there is the entire basis for the government’s repeated attacks on my integrity."

> 2. He was unable to pay for the bids he won.

"The other number suggested in the government’s memorandum is the $166,000 that was the total price of the three parcels I won which were not invalidated. Strangely, the government wants me to pay for these parcels, but has never offered to actually give them to me. When I offered the BLM the money a couple weeks after the auction, they refused to take it."

> If he's serious about this being a case of civil disobedience, he should accept the consequences of his actions. Trying to avoid the consequences just defeats the entire purpose.

"Despite my strong disagreements with the court about the Constitutional basis for the limits on my defense, while I was in this courtroom I respected the authority of the court. [...] disagreement with the law should not be confused with disrespect for the law."

It's really a very good speech, you should read it in its entirety.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#26

Post by Retric »

eazolan wrote: post #23
bugsy wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The deal with this is that I am an environmentalist in the traditional sense. I have an extremely low "carbon footprint" but not because I believe in the Goldman Sachs propaganda of doom. However, far less that 5% of "Environmentalists" I have ever met practice what they preach. It is a religion of mass hypocrisy, just like "Christianity", which likewise has almost nothing at all to do with its defined core teachings…

I stopped caring about the environment, when I saw that being an environmentalist meant stopping any and all human development. When environmentalists get together and start building power plants and oil wells, then I'll know they're serious about saving the environment.

Umm, plenty of environmentalists do build power plants, solar wind etc. However, I can't see any way that drilling for oil is 'good' for the environment.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#27

Post by brianleb »

This is an excellent read, although not initially recognizing his name I was expecting it to be about Anonymous/LulzSec, DDOS, digital sit-ins, etc. It is long, but extremely well constructed. It should also be taken as a lesson in how to respond to governmental oppression. Non-violent, not inflammatory, well reasoned, passionate, and maybe most important of all, not disrespectful of the law itself. By respecting to your opponent, it speaks volumes about your character.

DeChristopher is obviously a well-spoken man and he sounds like an absolute stand-up guy. In his speech he seems to address every pertinent matter of the case, use the evidence available to question their validity, and to any sensible person defend himself completely and utterly. Unfortunately, court does not appear to have been sensible on this day.

If we can see a silver lining, it's that this story will get more press because he's going to jail, and the more people that read this, the more people will be inspired. I think this essay will do exactly what DeChristopher wanted it to.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#28

Post by sixtofour »

bugsy wrote: post #12
ryanpers wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not so, he was able and willing to pay for the land, but the BLM doesnt allow people to buy land w/o drilling for oil. So he was charged with "disrupting a lawful government activity" - even though in fact those BLM auctions are NOT lawful.

Wow, thanks, I didn't realize he even had the money but the issue was that he wanted to buy the land without drilling on it and that was enough to got to prison for two years. That is pretty amazing.

Yeah, even though oil companies bid for drilling rights and then sit on those rights, don't drill, and bid for more rights.

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#29

Post by sixtofour »

vonSeckendorff wrote: post #20

I don't agree with everything DeChristopher has to say, but that was a good read. I find it really scary that lobbyists have the ability to destroy an individual's life if instigated. At least that's the impression I got.

Money greases the wheels of justice. Oil money is particularly greasy.

EDIT: spelling

Re: Modern Civil Disobedience - Tim DeChristopher

#30

Post by brianleb »

Cushman wrote: post #11
dushan42 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't speak for dublinclontarf, but personally I'm not too concerned for the environment simply because I'm fairly indifferent as to whether mankind makes it or not. The Universe has been doing quite well without us for billions of years and will continue to do so if we are too dumb to keep our little rock habitable (which I suspect may be the case). Oh and we're not planning to have kids :)

Whether "mankind makes it" in the end matters or not, our not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering. It's a little hard to care about anything without caring about that, which I think is what your parent was getting at.

> not making it would involve millennia of avoidable human suffering

This premise assumes that in the situation where we "don't make it," the total amount of suffering by the end of the human race would be more than one in where we "do make it." Given that human suffering is caused by everything, I would say that if the race were to survive, there would be infinitely more suffering because we would have more time to inflict it. The premise seems to take for granted that the only way humans suffer is through harming our environment, which is of course not at all accurate. The only way to avoid human suffering is to immediately get rid of all humans; being in favor of existence, I have to argue that this is a fruitless position.

Likewise, if animals can suffer, then the existence of animals causes suffering. Animals attack each other, eat each other, steal each others' food source and offspring. The only way to prevent animal suffering is to have no animals. If plants can suffer, then the existence of plants causes suffering as they compete for sunlight and nutrients and the 'losers' wither and die.

I suppose my point is: any argument that involves potential existence causing suffering must ultimately come to these conclusions. I don't believe there is any other choice. Plants will never stop competing, animals will never stop competing, and humans will never stop competing.

Also, if the crux of your argument is avoidable human suffering, then I would be very interested to know what defines unavoidable human suffering.

[Just enjoying my Saturday morning by carrying out some debate]

Post reply on HN