My friend William Gillis writes to me:
For over a decade I’ve frequented The Red & Black Cafe in Portland – an IWW, explicitly anarchist, worker-owned coop – and over the years they’ve faced all the sort of police harassment and surveillance you’d expect for a venue catering to radical activists.
Recently a uniformed police officer entered the cafe ostensibly to buy a cup of coffee – I can only imagine the horrified looks – and was politely asked to leave by one of the workers/managers. PDX police have recently committed more than a few outrageous murders and the worker explained with infinite patience that a cop made his clientele feel like they were in danger.
For some reason this seems to be setting off a shitstorm of national-level outrage with coverage on major news networks and blogs. I have good friends on staff and their phones are ringing off the hook with death threats. Mainstream conservative and liberal pundits have talked of showing up with weapons to start a confrontation. Frankly my brain clouds over with rage every time I read the fractally idiotic comments or threats.
My friends could really use some support; in this environment some kind words or awareness from those who aren’t fanatical devotees of the police state would go a long way. I’d really appreciate it if you could use the magical reach of your blog.
Here are some links that don’t directly send me into a rage-coma: 1, 2, 3
I have nothing to add except ditto. Please let’s do what we can to support the Red & Black Café against this crap.
Why support them?
They’re foolish..
Fact is, these people complain, cry and whine about being harassed, singled out and discriminated against, by police.
Then, they turn around and do the EXACT SAME THING THAT THEY PROFESS TO NOT LIKE HAVING DONE TO THEM! Simply amazing… What’s more amazing is, they somehow believe it is within their rights to discriminate against people and that they should be protected for doing so. Sorry, as a Japanese-American, my family did not fight in WW2 ON the side of the U.S. for this kind of thing to continue.
I’d also like to point out, anyone and everyone who enters that establishment is a member of a race or group of people that has had a dark chapter in history. Would it be fair to deny these hypocritical, self-righteous, pompous individuals services in any other part of the city? Likely not, they’d whine about it!
Ah, hypocrites, can’t live with them, can’t seem to get them out of your life though.
Being a police officer is not an ethnicity one is born into. One has to choose to sign up to become an enforcer of an oppressive regime.
{Cringing} To wear a uniform necessitates the enforcement of an oppressive regime? As if officers lack the ability to honor conscience prior to man-made law?
I may only be 41% anarchist, but that position resonates as 0% anarchist with me.
The cops that exercise their ability to honor conscience before law tend to, you know, get fired. And generally it’s people who want to enforce the laws as they exist (or just plunder and bully people under color of authority) who sign up for the job in the first place. That’s what the job is. Why else would one sign up for it?
It’s not the “uniform” (anyone can wear a police costume; it means nothing), it’s the occupation.
{Eyes closed; deep breath} It is the “uniform” in the Black and Red Cafe instance. The officer was discriminated against not because of his actions as an individual but instead because of the Cafe’s patrons’ snap-judgment of his motivations. If anarchy means anything, it means the capacity to perceive beyond the surface of a situation. The inability to do so signals reverse-authoritarianism — not principled objection.
Imagine a Red and Yellow Cafe in which the officer was allowed to purchase products on the condition that he engaged in civil discourse — lending his ear to the concerns of the patrons and representing their voice within the enforcement community. Just imagine it.
Now tell me why that prospect is intolerable… {ahora: abre los ojos}
MBH: Tyranny enforcement is a crime. If you do not agree to this, and clearly you don’t, then I can understand that you’re splitting hairs over individual differences and actions. Sure. But there’s a baseline of tyranny, and that baseline is represented by the uniform, and that’s why it’s correct to discriminate against the Police.
Tyranny enforcement is a crime.
All the more reason to present that case to the officer — not reason to give him the boot.
…I can understand that you’re splitting hairs…
Um. Distinguishing between what someone’s clothes represent and their character is splitting hairs? I’m growing increasingly tired of the way you so-called anarchists fuel everything that you despise. Back out of yourself for one goddamn second.
MBH — Well, once again, suppose a Klansman in full regalia entered a black-owned store. Would you insist he be served, on the grounds that he doesn’t lack the ability to honor conscience prior to the demands of the Klan?
I grant that he doesn’t lack the ability, but putting on Klan robes is an effective announcement that he doesn’t intend to exercise that ability.
If most laws, and police enforcement of them, were legitimate, then it might be fair to suppose that a cop would enforce only the legitimate ones and follow natural law in other cases. But given that, from a libertarian and/or anarchist perspective, the vast majority of laws — and police enforcement thereof — are illegitimate, so that it’s impossible for a police officer to do his job without violating rights, this “presumption of innocence” doesn’t make much sense.
…[S]uppose a Klansman in full regalia entered a black-owned store.
Your example is not analogous. Klansmanship intends to dehumanize. Nazism intends to dehumanize. Law enforcement intends to protect humanity.
The consequence of all three may be the same. But to make judgments by purely consequentialist logic is not a move you allow anyone else to make. Why are you an exception to your own rule?
JOR: It’s not the “uniform” (anyone can wear a police costume; it means nothing), it’s the occupation.
MBH: It is the “uniform” in the Black and Red Cafe instance.
No, it isn’t. He was asked to leave because he was a cop and his being a cop made people uncomfortable. If he were wearing the suit but were not, in fact, a member of that profession (say he’s one of G.O.B.’s Hot Cops friends), I doubt that he would have been asked to leave.
In any case, you’re acting as if the cop were the only person whose feelings mattered. He is not. The people who you have silenced are the people who could not enjoy the use of the space while an armed stranger who was advertising his criminal profession was standing around in the shop in full battle regalia. Their comfort matters quite as much as the cop’s — more, since they are the people who the space was opened for, not for government law enforcers. Perhaps their comfort wouldn’t matter if the attitudes behind their discomfort were unreasonable or invidious. But if you think that it’s unreasonable for Anarchists to fear or distrust armed police officers, you’ll have to give some reason why that’s unreasonable; you certainly haven’t yet. Given the profession he participates in and was advertising his participation in, the other folks in Red and Black had every reason to be uncomfortable with his presence. And given that he was making other folks in the shop uncomfortable, the Red and Black collective had not only the right, but also every reason to ask him to leave.
MBH: Your example is not analogous. Klansmanship intends to dehumanize. Nazism intends to dehumanize. Law enforcement intends to protect humanity.
You have a lot of italics in your assertion here, but no evidence. Where did you get this revelation as to the intentions of law enforcement? Last I checked, many law enforcers are perfectly happy to dehumanize, and reveal through their actions that they have little practical interest in protecting large swaths of humanity. They’ve revealed these preferences repeatedly in how they’ve handled my friends and comrades. Even at the level of mission statements, last I checked, law enforcement institutions stated that their primary purpose was to enforce the laws; when the laws are dehumanizing, they proceed to dehumanize, and when the laws don’t protect any identifiable victim (as most government laws do not), they will happily assault and imprison “humanity” in the name of the law, without any compunction about protecting anybody.
Well, if we’re just going by officially announced policies, the Klan describes its goal as protective (of white people) also. But they’re committed not just to this supposed goal but to a fairly specific implementation policy that involves aggression.
Likewise, even for those cops who genuinely care about the goal of protecting humanity, by becoming a cop they’re committing themselves to a policy of enforcing at least most laws (what would it mean to become a cop but refuse to enforce most laws?), and since most laws are in fact unjust (and even the proposed enforcements for the just ones are usually unjust), the cop and the Klansman look pretty analogous to me.
Of course some initially well-meaning but insufficiently reflective person might become a cop because they’ve unthinkingly swallowed pro-cop propaganda and really think they’re just being protective; but I’m sure that also describes some people from sheltered racist backgrounds who’ve been fed drivel about nonwhite conspiracies to wipe out the white race and so join the Klan. The only difference is that one set of false beliefs is in the mainstream and the other isn’t.
He was asked to leave because he was a cop and his being a cop made people uncomfortable.
Yeah. I’m sure if he wore jeans and a t-shirt, then everyone in the cafe would have freaked out just the same.
In any case, you’re acting as if the cop were the only person whose feelings mattered.
You’re acting as if I base my objection on feelings instead of the dictates of natural law.
Last I checked, many law enforcers are perfectly happy to dehumanize…
No doubt. But the difference between law enforcement dehumanization and klansman dehumanization is the difference between many and all. You’re distorting the argument by overgeneralizing. And I think you know that.
Okay, then, give me just ONE example of a police officer who doesn’t use his or her power to commit serious crimes of aggression (as defined by natural law) .
Well, if we’re just going by officially announced policies, the Klan describes its goal as protective (of white people) also.
I think it’s pretty clear that protecting all races and creeds within a land boundary is much more benign than protecting a single race.
[W]hat would it mean to become a cop but refuse to enforce most laws?
To cop the cops. Isn’t that the purpose of your message? Why can’t it be done as a cop? (I’m not interested in a venture like that, but some might be. Regardless, to rule out the possibility is illogical.)
I don’t know. They both involve picking out a morally irrelevant category (whites, Americans) to protect. At any rate, it seems relevant to consider the implementation they’re committed to, not just the goal.
Sure, and someone could likewise join the Klan to subvert it from within (though, just as with the cops, they won’t last long unless they start actually participating in Klan intimidation activities, at which point they become part of the problem). But do you really think a black shopowner ought to take the bare possibility that an antiracist might be infiltrating the KKK as a reason to welcome white-hooded Klansmen into his store?
The uniform and equipment do matter to the extent that it advertises one’s profession, loyalties, and intentions. Since we don’t have access to another world where the dude they asked to leave wasn’t actually a cop, I’d say charity calls for us to give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether it was his clothing or his advertised profession that made them uncomfortable.
The chances that any given cop is an Oath Keeper or a member of LEAP or some other practically useless “dissident” or outreach group are slim. The chances that any given cop listens to conscience before law and procedure and just so happens to have never encountered a conflict between them until it comes time to beat down some anarchists for no reason are almost nil. The chances that any given cop is actively and successfully subverting the LEO profession by compromising his principles for the greater good are less than nothing (if you find this too non-consequentialist, note my qualifiers: he has to be successfully subverting the profession for it to begin to be worthwhile). And let’s be honest what that compromising entails: he’s committing, or very directly enabling the commission, of robbery or kidnapping or assault or murder or vandalism against the occasional hapless colored person, or drug user, or hell, even the occasional clean, white boy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
In other words, even if the cop is (successfully) subverting his tribe of blue-clad gangsters, his day job requires him to do things that rightly would make anyone (especially anarchists) nervous, and even if they knew about his ultimate aims, they’d be perfectly reasonable to not want him around.
MBH: Yeah. I’m sure if he wore jeans and a t-shirt, then everyone in the cafe would have freaked out just the same.
If it was obvious that he was an armed police officer? Yes, I think that would make the other folks in the shop equally uncomfortable. Of course, if he went undercover, people wouldn’t feel particularly uncomfortable; but that’s simply because they’d be lacking the relevant information about the thug’s criminal profession. The reason the uniform makes people uncomfortable is because of what it reliably signifies about the profession.
MBH: You’re acting as if I base my objection on feelings instead of the dictates of natural law.
I presumed that you were basing your objection on a deliberation about fairness and kindness (in which balancing people’s feelings does matter). If your claim is about “the dictates of natural law,” then your claim seems to be obviously idiotic. Red and Black has no obligation whatever under natural law to produce any further reason for expelling the cop than the fact that they didn’t want him on their property. Cops do not have a right to barge in where they are not invited.
There’s a further ethical question, beyond the question settled by the natural right to throw out trespassers, as to whether Red and Black ought to evict the cop. I thought you were considering that. If not, then all this stuff about whether or not they were overgeneralizing or jumping to conclusions or whatever is a bunch of pointless nonsense: shopkeeps have a perfect natural right to overgeneralize and jump to conclusions in their own damn shops.
MBH: But the difference between law enforcement dehumanization and klansman dehumanization is the difference between many and all.
You think people didn’t have all kinds of different motives for joining the Klan? The point is that you just made a wild, evidence-free claim about the intentions of the police (as individuals? as an institution?). The fact is that police constantly act in such a way as to falsify this claim. Even if we are only talking about “many” police rather than “all” (which I don’t concede — I said “many” before as a lower limit on the number, not an upper, and the fact is that all police routinely enforce unjust laws, or directly collaborate with those who do), it would still be perfectly reasonable for Anarchists to distrust a cop who they had no other knowledge of besides his profession. Because the cop is quite likely to be a dangerous thug, and his profession gives him ample opportunity to exercise his thuggery at any moment.
If land boundaries are only legitimate for “morally relevant” groups, then wouldn’t Red and Black be justified in extending their cafe into the “private” property of morally irrelevant groups? Does your logic encourage that move? And if so, is that always a good thing?
I’m guessing that that’s a response to me, since my comment above was the only one to use that phrase. But what on earth are you talking about? I never said anything about land boundaries being legitimate only for morally relevant groups. I’m not even sure what that would mean.
As for your reference to extending the cafe into the property of morally irrelevant groups — huh? Anyone who belongs to a morally irrelevant group (such as whites or Americans, to use the earlier examples) also belongs to a morally relevant group (persons), so whose property exactly is being affected?
If all property titles that enforce tyranny are likely illegitimate, while property titles that obey natural law are certainly legitimate, then why stop at protecting legitimate property titles? Doesn’t your logic call — equally — for forcibly overtaking illegitimate property titles?
Well, it depends what you mean by “property titles that enforce tyranny.” Can you clarify?
Well, it’s certainly permissible to do so — as per Rothbard. Whether or not it’s prudent depends on circumstances.
Well, it depends what you mean by “property titles that enforce tyranny.” Can you clarify?
I would imagine we measure that differently. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume it just means “property titles that would be moot if not for state monopolized violence.” Would you suggest overtaking those property titles?
Well, that’s ambiguous too. It could just mean “property titles that would never have come to be were it not for state monopolized violence,” and that’s certainly going to be too broad.
My general approach would be similar to Rothbard’s here and here, though on the one hand I would favour a statute of limitations (one of gradual diminishment of claims rather than a sharp cutoff), thus disallowing some restitution he would allow — while on the other hand I would favour letting groups and not just individuals be claimants, thus allowing some restitution he would disallow. But more work needs to be done on this issue.
It strikes me as disingenuous when libertarians talk about defending legitimate property without expressing the logical flip-side to that position: violently attack or arbitrate against property perceived to be illegitimate. The former is often put into action; the latter is just too messy to stomach for even the loudest libertarians. I think you’re aware there’s a good bit of compartmentalization going on here and anticipatory media is going to highlight “the crazy” in “thinkers” like Rand Paul and, by default, all those that call themselves libertarian until they own the totality of their ideology. Explicit calls for defense of property will be met with questions about the implicit calls for retaliatory aggression and arbitration. The “libertarian” desire for civil war is bubbling up. No wonder Rand Paul is hiding out on fox news.
You’re family is irrelevant to this discussion.
That’s is marvelous! Statist rightists like you are now against possession rights. Are you a commie?
I am a bit skeptical of this as well, it’s not as if the cop came in and started harassing people, questioning them, etc, it says he just wanted a cup of coffee. Unless he was threatening people in any way this seems a bit silly. What will people think of anarchists and “free-thinkers” if we adhere to the same dogma and rigid collectivism of those we oppose?
A cop walking into an anarchist outfit is like someone walking into a black restaurant wearing a Klan outfit, or walking into a Jewish deli wearing a Nazi uniform. It’s offensive and intimidating.
It’s too bad the ‘rage’ coma you almost suffer from….isn’t permanent.
Taking the side of the powerful and mocking the defenders of the oppressed? You must have a very robust soul, wylee jim, to risk piling such burdens upon it.
Yes, Ryan, it was just everyday, run of the mill discrimination. They asked him to leave solely due to a personal trait he was born with & not at all due to the fact that he was carrying a gun. I’ve never been there, but I get the feeling they’re totally okay with that.
Sorry, can’t help.
The officer did nothing to warrant his ouster. He was in a place he was legally entitled to be, and had been greeted and was in a pleasant conversation with a patron, until your sandal-booted thug decided (based solely on his own prejudice) to eject him.
I hope your ‘friend’ feels powerful, attacking a person he does not know and who cannot fight back. I’m sure that when something bad happens at r&b they will either expect the best efforts of the PPB or will claim that the PPB is biased against them.
I truly wish that another anarchist group, like the hell’s angels or the jokers pays them a long term visit.
To repeat: do you think a Klansman in a black store or a swastika-garbed Nazi in a Jewish store would have done anything to warrant his ouster? If not, then — in light of the long history of police violence and intimidation directed against anarchists — how is this different?
So the government has authorized its armed enforcers to trespass on anarchists’ property, and this makes it all right?
Doesn’t take long for the violent fantasies of cop-supporters to bubble to the surface. And you wonder why anarchists don’t greet your gang with open arms. (The groups you mention have nothing to do with anarchism, by the way.)
Officer Mark: The officer did nothing to warrant his ouster.
Please. You don’t have to do anything to “warrant an ouster.” Red and Black has every right to refuse service to anybody.
Cops don’t have some kind of special right to insist on being served by folks that don’t want to serve them.
Officer Mark: I’m sure that when something bad happens at r&b they will either expect the best efforts of the PPB or will claim that the PPB is biased against them. I truly wish that another anarchist group, like the hell’s angels or the jokers pays them a long term visit.
This is a particularly stupid argument from intimidation.
Really, seriously, if you will stop forcing us to pay cops’ salaries against our will, stop directing violence against us, and stop attempting to enforce arbitrary laws on us that we never agreed to, most Anarchists will be more than happy to arrange for our own self-defense, and will not complain if you don’t show up if we tried to call.
Our only demand is to be left alone.
I applaud you Roderick, both for this post, and for your response to the previous commenter. Sometimes you do need to get a bit wrathful with the “unwitting fifth columnists” of the statist mind virus.
[...] national and the Conservative/Liberal Statists are up in arms. William Gillis, in a letter to Roderick Long, describes the impact on the Café: “I have good friends on staff and their phones are ringing [...]
More info at the pingback.
The response to this really suprises me. People sure do love their cops and their troops. How did we get to the point where we automatically give so much deference and obeisence to these professions? How are they any more important than the other dangerous things people do for money?
You can thank our government-run educational system for that indoctrination.
And how did you get to the point where you automatically hate someone in these professions?
Don’t be so open-minded that you become close-minded.
It’s the profession we hate, not necessarily every person in it.
And how many klansmen do you not automatically hate, Katie?
I have no grounds to suspect this is anything more than a conspiracy theory, not being familiar with the cafe, portland culture, etc… but this smells a little like a police PR stunt to me, one that might dovetail nicely with the Rand Paul/Civil Rights Act Brouhaha.
I’d like to add that the cop was served before he was told he was making people uncomfortable and asked to leave. I don’t want people to get the impression that he was turned away.
So. . . they took his money before kicking him out? Wow, that makes it so much better!
He was on his way out of the cafe after he was served when a mother and daughter stopped to talk to him. People, workers and clientele, were uncomfortable with his presence and one of the workers asked nicely if he could leave. But with people like you who get overtly emotional over the situation and write blogs twisting and turning the story. He wasn’t kicked out he was asked politely to leave.
I’m sorry, who do you think I am? I have written no blog story on this.
I am not overtly (did you mean overly?) anything.
Yes, he was on his way out, after spending his money in the cafe. My question to you was how did it make it better that the R&B saw his money was okay to take, but his presence was not?
I think you’re nothing really and I was referring to the woman in particular who wrote the blog (http://www.corneliaseigneur.com/where’s-a-portland-police-officer-to-get-a-cup-of-coffee/). I should’ve put people who overtly absorb information without looking into the full story of what happened. My question to you is, was it their intention to get his money and kick him out of the store? My answer to your question is the people in the store felt uncomfortable with the policemen’s presence and felt that the officer should leave because of the recent harassment of activists and why go to an anarchist cafe in particular when there are other cafes to go to? Honestly, why?
If an anarchist carrying pamphlets went into a cop bar he would be treated the same way, and it wouldn’t make the news.
Wrong. The anarchist would likely have his head bashed a bit or at least be threatened with force or arrest.
@Benjamin:
As a former Alaskan, I can tell you that fishing is both more dangerous and more useful to our society than police work.
I have been to your shop in the past and there is a new one opening near where I live, but after how you treated a guest in your establishment mid-May – a upstanding officer and a military veteran, there is no way in the world I will every spend money at your facility. I could understand it if it was some thug or drugged out looser, but really, an honest-working, taxpaying, decent citizen. You are crazy.
First, Dr. Long doesn’t own Red & Black and if he did who am I to judge him for refusing service to a cop. Secondly, the cop purchased a coffee from the cafe and as he was about to leave a women and a daughter stopped to talk to him. Third, the people who are customers of R&B as well as the workers felt uncomfortable with a cop there probably because of the recent harassment people in Oregon (Homeless, minorities, activists ect…). The worker politely asked the cop to leave and didn’t threaten him with violence. And finally, nice ad hominem attacks. Makes you a real man.
You say
upstanding officer and a military veteran
Then you say
I could understand it if it was some thug
So I don’t see the source of your discontent.
Also,
honest-working [...] decent citizen
Does not jive with
upstanding officer and a military veteran
Thank you for your hilarious comment.
Free [sic]: after how you treated a guest in your establishment mid-May – a upstanding officer and a military veteran, there is no way in the world I will every spend money at your facility
Man, if you think that being an “upstanding officer and a military veteran” is the sort of thing for somebody to be proud of being, what in the world made you think that you’re the sort of customer that a revolutionary Anarcho-syndicalist collective is trying to reach?
“upstanding officer” ? Those are about as common as married bachelors.
Maybe “free” really meant to say “upright officer”, in contrast to the familiar knuckle-dragging variety.
Remember, the police force of a capitalist society certainly are the armed forces functioning to limit the needs of the workers and other related oppressed classes. However, the police are members of the proletariat, mercenary forces doing the dirty work for the reactionary oppressers . Their brutality will be eventually judged. Those who did their job without commiting crimes against the people
may, eventually be the peace officers of a socialist state.
Hey Joe: Those who did their job without commiting crimes against the people may, eventually be the peace officers of a socialist state
Indeed. Which is a good reason not to want a socialist state: because they’re still going to be employing government cops, and because they’re going to be run by people who imagine it’s possible to be a police officer without committing moral crimes.
As an anarcho-capitalist, I oppose almost everything these people stand for. Nonetheless I will defend their right to discriminate against anyone they like, including government enforcers.
The pigs are all scum, every single one of them. Every pig enforces unjust laws. Every pig takes stolen money in every pay packet. Every pig is a rapist, murderer, thief, and assailant, or knows someone else in a pig uniform who is one or more of those things. They all lie, cheat, and testi-lie for each other.
Not only would I not willingly serve a pig as a customer, I would not be polite about asking one to leave. Pigs in Houston broke eleven of my bones in January 2004. They can all die as far as I care.
If a dozen pigs were dying in a fire, I would not stop to urinate on any of them. And I would laugh.
How can you say that ALL of any group is something?
Are all anarchists stupid, uneducated, worthless, and drenched in the stench of patchouli oil? That would be the general impression that mainstream society has, but wouldn’t it be wrong of me to just assume that you are all sitting behind your computers plotting government overthrows and forgoing deoderant?
Discrimination is discrimination. And it’s wrong. And I would have hoped it was beneath and institution that claims to be a safe place for all. . . all that fit into their definition of deserving it, I guess.
I don’t see how this is any more discriminatory (meaning not at all) than telling a census worker to take a hike. We pay them out of our tax dollars so we we ought to be able to give them the boot any time we want.
It is illegal to fail to respond to the census, not discrimination.
It is illegal to fail to respond to the census
No, it isn’t, though the government enforcers pretend it is and will occasionally (though not very often) punish non-respondents.
Actually, it is illegal and you are subject to a $500 fine for not responding.
Will the government actually pursue it? Unsure, but it is a legal requirement per the constitution to comply.
I don’t regard the Constitution as legal (its legality is supposed to rest on the consent of the governed, but no living person has actually consented to it), but assume for the sake of argument that it is:
Please cite for me the passage in the Constitution that authorises the federal government either:
a) to ask any questions above and beyond a head count, or
b) to compel people to answer any questions at all (since forcing people to answer a question under threat of violence is not a “necessary and proper” requirement of asking it; Pew and Zogby manage to conduct polls without resorting to threats of violence).
Katie: It is illegal to fail to respond to the census
Well, so? You say that like there’s supposed to be something wrong with breaking the law.
Let’s grant that this effort by the government to force peaceful people, who were just minding their own business, to snap to and divulge personal information on command to government officials, is legal. If so, then the law is a pointless exercise in petty tyranny.
There’s nothing wrong with exercising your moral right to break tyrannical laws. There is something wrong with government agents using violence against peaceful people in order to see that those laws are enforced.
So it’s not okay to discriminate against known murderers? There is a huge difference between discrimination based on race or sex and discrimination based on a group or individual’s actions. This is important distinction to make.
If someone voluntarily joins a group of armed enforcers for the government, it’s safe to assume that they are an enemy of the stateless, voluntary society that anarchists are working for.
Not all anarchists have computers. But plotting government overthrows, yeah, that does seem safe to assume.
Would it be okay for an abolitionist cafe to turn slavecatchers away? Would you object that they “didn’t know anything about that particular slavecatcher”?
I will say that your response made me laugh! No, really, it did, the part about the no computers and government overthrows made me think that I would probably enjoy getting a cup of coffee with you if we agreed to keep this topic off limits.
Although, seriously? Where would one find an abolitionist cafe? Or a slave catcher? Is it down the street from the R&B? Do I make a left or a right?
Why does it matter that they existed in the 19th century rather than today? The principle is the same. Do you think an abolitionist cafe in antebellum America should have been required to serve slavecatchers?
Nice appeal to emotion, hasty generalization and ad hominem attacks. I guess it’s safe to say that you aren’t the sharpest tool in the box either. You have a good day troll.
Ah yes, you don’t make any generalizations, do you. . . oh, well, now wait: all police officers are bad. That’s one.
Because I disagree with you, I must be stupid. There’s another.
And I have not been offensive or insulting in my responses here. You might want to check the definintion of terms before you use them incorrectly. Calling me a dull tool and a troll would be the fallacy, the ad hominem, if you will.
I never said all officers are bad. But thank you for strawmanning me.
“Are all anarchists stupid, uneducated, worthless, and drenched in the stench of patchouli oil? That would be the general impression that mainstream society has, but wouldn’t it be wrong of me to just assume that you are all sitting behind your computers plotting government overthrows and forgoing deoderant?”
I did and this is what I see and if you want to pull that card then hey I have a card similar to that as well.
You kids are rude children yelling at mommy and daddy, knowing that mommy and daddy will still protect you.
I hope the police keep you safe until you outgrow your tantrums.
lol Troll, troll, troll. Hmmmm…. analyze the situation of what happened instead of bringing light weight comments on here.
Mark is a good boy who does what Daddy and Mommy say is best for him. That’s how you grow up to be a man. By doing what you’re told.
So, how’s that liberty working out for you Mark?
Mark –
If mommy and daddy kept beating up or killing your siblings, would you be so enthusiastic about obeying them? Context, man. The idea that police are in the habit of keeping anarchists safe is a laugh.
When people who aren’t your mommy or daddy, and who have a long history of child abuse, start pretending they are your mommy or daddy, you’re supposed to yell.
You should seriously do a Google search on “John Timoney” and his role in the police riots during the 2000 GOP convention in Philly, and during the anti-FTAA demo in Miami. You should also look into the consistent tactics of local police forces in all other American venues (not to mention Genoa) that were the scene of anti-globalization demos. Preventative detention on trumped-up charges, planted evidence, illegal surveillance… thanks a lot for “keeping us safe,” Officer Friendly.
P.S. I’m sure Abner Louima and Katherine Johnson send their thanks, as well.
Portland officers can’t open their mouths without sounding ignorant, racist, and oppressive. Last February they shot an unarmed black man in the back. (http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2010/02/rally_protests_fatal_portland.html)
So naturally, when questioned about his feelings about the Red and Black, the officer in question says this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6AM3QHnP0Y
All solidarity with the Red & Black.
Although, Roderick, I’m not sure your Klansman in a Black restaurant analogy holds up. Mostly because cops aren’t a race, but a chosen social group.
Also, it would have been a bit more consistent to refund the cop’s money before kicking him out.
Maybe telling him he’s welcome to stay as long as he leaves his badge and gun outside would have been a good move as well. Most of the “criticism” I’ve seen of this fails to distinguish between a person and their office. If they’d made it clear that the officer wasn’t welcome, but the human was, it would clear it up.
Also I rather like the idea of putting the choice to the cop and seeing what kind of cognitive dissonance that might have engendered.
And R&B’s apparent “no making people uncomfortable” makes me a bit queasy. I’m not making an argument here, just thinking out loud.
I’m not sure I understand your point. The KKK is likewise not a race but rather a chosen social group.
I have to agree that accepting the officer’s business before asking him to leave complicates the whole pure-to-anarchist-principle side of the story.
If he was so morally opposed to state police–not that he shouldn’t be–he should have just flatly refused to serve him in the first place. (In fact, I have to chuckle at the irony. Could his fellow anarchists accuse him of being a greedy capitalist for accepting the officer’s money first?)
Complication aside, I have to admire the owner’s zeal.
It seems to me that they were not as concerned about a Law Enforcement Officer getting something and leaving. It was when he was staying that they were concerned. Thus, I don’t take issue with their taking the money and serving, as it may not have appeared as if the Law Enforcement Officer would linger.
I’m sorry. The KKK, a race? The analogy does stand, because I’m not part of the KKK and it IS a social group that you choose to be part of. Thank God.
My bad. The perils of reading and writing in haste!
I support the bookstore’s decision, just as much as I support any individual citizen’s decision to exercise their rights. If a cop comes up to me and I tell them that I want to speak to my lawyer, that is within my rights. If a cafe asks anyone, even a cop, to leave, that is within their rights.
Red and Black, we stand with you, good for you!
[...] to Roderick. As for the cafe itself, I’ve never been to Oregon, but I could get behind the coffee if I [...]
Well I couldn’t get much information from the provided links, the reddit one for example had a broken link to the story. It’s completely different if they served him coffee and then afterward asked him to leave because he was making people uncomfortable. The way the original post was phrased, it was like the cantina scene in “Star Wars” where the rough-spoken buy behind the counter points to Luke’s droids and says “We don’t serve their kind in here!”
I’m not sure why it makes a difference.
It’s not like droids wanting to be served in a cantina, it’s like slavecatchers wanting to be served in an abolitionist cafe.
The debate has been, in many ways, pretty discouraging. Building safe spaces and promoting tolerance is hardly ever an exercise in black and white. But the Red and Black crew have really been models of restraint in all of this, and I know where I’m getting a cup of coffee this afternoon.