[IMC-Editorial] Op-Ed Submission: Smashing Windows for Peace

[ARI Media]

Dear Editor,

Please consider this Op-Ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute. For
your convenience, you can download this Op-Ed from:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/smashingwindows.shtml

SMASHING WINDOWS FOR PEACE

The So-Called Peace Protests Substitute Force for an Argument

By Robert Garmong

The attack was well-choreographed. Moving in successive waves, they
executed a perfect assault. Some moved to cut off their enemies' supply
lines, seizing control of crucial bridges and roadways, while others
worked to surround and besiege key command and control buildings.

No, these were not U.S. commandos on a mission in Baghdad. They were
anti-war protestors on Mission Street in San Francisco.

There, as elsewhere across the nation, well-planned demonstrations
targeted not the military or the government, but the financial
districts, the commuter roadways, the schools and universities. Their
goal was not to advocate, but to disrupt.

Both protestors and their detractors have agreed on one thing: that
these protests are examples of freedom of speech. "This is what
democracy looks like" is the common refrain.

But these protests are not a benevolent manifestation of the freedom to
express ideas. They are an attempt by a small gang of protesters to
"express themselves" by forcibly imposing themselves on others.

Freedom of speech is the right to communicate ideas, information and
values. It includes, in the words of the First Amendment, the right to
"petition the government for a redress of grievances" and to assemble
"peaceably" for that purpose. Freedom of speech protects debate and
dispute. It does not protect coercion, nor does one person's freedom of
speech authorize him to force others to listen. No one has the right to
violate rights.

Yet that is precisely what the anti-war demonstrators have done.
Declaring their desire to halt "business as usual" in America,
protesters have chained themselves across major thoroughfares to block
rush-hour traffic in New York, Chicago, San Francisco and other cities.
They have blockaded office buildings, smashed the windows of police cars
and squirted red paint on Republican Party headquarters. In San
Francisco alone the cost of the first day's protests--counting only
physical damage and police overtime, not lost wages and productivity for
the besieged--was estimated at half a million dollars.

The goal of the protestors is to impose their anti-war tirades on a
public that does not agree with them, and to do so by forcibly
disrupting the lives of commuters, office workers, government officials
and political opponents. They spread their message not through
persuasion, but by blocking roadways, shutting down classes, besieging
office buildings, smashing property. So much for their alleged goals of
peace and brotherhood.

The issue is not merely that some protestors have resorted to outright
violence and destruction. Just as wrong are such acts of "non-violent"
coercion as imprisoning workers and commuters by obstructing public
streets. There is a fundamental difference between rational persuasion
and coercive interference, whatever form the interference may take.

The crime of these protestors is not that they are wrong about the war.
In advocating their political views, they violate no one's rights. But
there is a crucial distinction between ideas and actions, between
holding obnoxious views and forcibly imposing them on others.

Nor is "civil disobedience" inherently wrong. There are cases, such as
the Montgomery bus boycott, in which protests are a justified and even
heroic measure to defy and confront injustice. But truly peaceful civil
disobedience consists of the refusal to support unjust practices or
comply with unjust laws. It does not consist of a refusal to respect the
rights of others.

In their insistence that vandalism and blockades are protected by the
principle of free speech, the demonstrators turn this idea on its head.
For them, freedom of speech becomes not a right to debate, but a right
to violent disruption. For them, "democracy" becomes what it meant in
its origins in Ancient Greece: the absolute right of the screaming
masses to dispose of the individual's life, liberty and property.

The fundamental basis for freedom of speech is a respect for the
rational mind, which requires the freedom to weigh the evidence, to
dispute and debate, without fear of coercive interference. By their
reliance on chanted slogans, forcible blockades and the brute physical
intimidation of mob gatherings, the so-called peace protestors show
their contempt for the mind. It is confession of intellectual and moral
bankruptcy, a confession that, for them, rational argumentation does not
matter: all that matters is that their opponents are cowed into
submission.

The banner of free speech is reserved for those who respect the rights
of others and offer arguments addressed to our minds. It does not
protect the mindless rabble who clog the streets of our cities
proclaiming a fraudulent "right" to smash windows for the cause of
peace.
________________________________________________________________________
_________
Robert Garmong, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a writer for the Ayn Rand
Institute (www.aynrand.org/medialink) in Irvine, CA. The Institute
promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas
Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Send reactions to reaction at aynrand.org

If you plan to use this Op-Ed, please send an email to media at aynrand.org
with your publication's name and the expected date of publication. Thank
you.

David Holcberg
Media Department, Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (949) 222-6550 ext. 226
E-mail: davidh at aynrand.org

If you wish to have your email REMOVED from this list, please hit reply
and type REMOVE in the subject line. Thank you.