Logically, the next best deterrent against violation of the right to assemble is to get the police to weigh the risks they incur by choosing to use violence. Oddly enough, I have seen quite a few people over the years who are very convinced that open carry of firearms during a protest is going to cause all sorts of problems. Every time I have seen this idea put forward, tons of people come out of the woodwork warning the rest of us of the doom that awaits, or at the very least, how it “won’t make any difference.”
The “forbidden question” is usually the thing that should demand our attention the most, because it is deemed “forbidden” for a reason. Criminals, perverts, con artists and all sorts of depraved people have a few things in common, and one of them is that they do not want, under any circumstances, for an open, no-holds-barred examination of what they are doing.
I totally disagree with the notion that the people who are laboring, who are creating the products, moving the products and providing the sheer sweat driving the economy are doing so only because they are too “mediocre” to be the managers of others. Many people simply want to earn a living doing something that they love to do, or have invested years of training learning to do. And no one should disparage them. No one has basis to disparage them: they are the foundation of the entire system…
Tucker’s assertion that religious fundamentalism is “another obvious form” of Brutalism is going to get many people hammering on the keyboard, spittle peppering their monitor in between howls of indignation. The space beneath the essay is already full of comments accusing Tucker of being a “purist,” a “fraud,” and “disruptive.”
But methinks they doth protest too much.