Very Important Question...

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ok, here is a biggie - by what right do we make our laws? I mean, what gave the *right* to a bunch of farmers and city boys to throw the British troops out of America? By what right are people calling themselves 'the 99%' and demanding that those who earn more money that average pay more taxes insisting that they should?

The corporations did not set the police onto the Tea Party protesters who showed up with guns, did they ? So, by what right do the cops use baton rounds and pepper spray on the unarmed protesters who Occupy Wall Street?

I mean, who exactly is defending your US Constitution here - is it Scott Olsen, or the cop who shot him with a baton round ? You Americans, you tell me.

My take,if you want it, is under the cut.

In spite of the fact that I'm British, i have a great admiration for the citizens of the USA who fought against the forces of King George. " No taxation without representation "? Sounds quite reasonable to me. But George, it seems, was not being reasonable- at least, his government wasn't.

And the Americans argued that they had God Given Rights. Well, you may not believe in God, but you may still feel that humans have a right to certain things by virtue of being human. I think that people have a natural longing to have self determination, some control of their own destiny. I am all for democracy and free expression.

But is it the rule of Force, or the Rule of Law? to me , it is a false dichotomy. It was guns that freed the American people from British Domination, but the principle that inspired them was the natural right to have their own say in their own destiny.

Government is based on the consent of the governed. Unless we , as a society, keep the law, the law cannot be enforced. If the people of the USA decide to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, I think they are wrong to do so, but have the right to make that law. however, if it cannot be upheld by popular support, then they have the right to repeal it. And I note that they did.

The law forbids the citizens of the UK to carry weapons in self defence. To me it seems unjust, however, oe may cary a walking stick, and use it if attacked. One cannot carry a knife , however, or adapt anything for use as a weapon. So, if you feel you have the right , and the law says otherwise, what then ?

I would say that the case is that one should always act for the good of the whole group. it may make lif easier for the bosses if the workers do not form trade unions and organise strikes for higher pay - bu does this benefit the workers? And it may hurt the bosses interests to be told that , no- he can't put 10 yr olds dwown the coal mines, or pay women less, but here is where the interest of a small group is weighted against a larger group. I do not support the idea of Americans colonists having to subsidise the British ruling class, nor do I support those who want to exploit women and children.

Since children went to school , and women got equal pay, the ruling class got more profit because they got more productive workers. Everyone was happy. Those who argue that they support the rights of women to sell themselves out for less are offering women what they manifestly did not want. And it seems to me at present that the majority in America do not want the bosses to be getting bonuses while the rest of the country get laid off and take cuts to pay and social services

I guess that some will say that the OWS people do not have majority support. But did the chaps who organised the War of Independence? Mark my words, reform in the UK only happened after blood was spilled. people died for Unions , and we got them . People died for votes for women , and they got them . people may well die in the fight for a more equal society, but I am glad to see that this fight started in America , and has gone Global. Americans , ordinary Americans, once again, have made their country a beacon of hope, a bastion of Democratic freedom. I believe that Scott Olsen is a true freedom fighter, and not some social parasite as that Rush Limbo guy tries to portray him.

The right to assemble and protest is clearly stated in your U.S. Constitution. Someone should charge the cops with Unconstitutional Activity here. The Terrorists are now wearing NYPD uniform, people. The servicemen and women of America are siding with civilians against the politicians and the corporations. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. To me, its is about _society as a whole_, not any special interest group, that decide 'right' from 'wrong'.

But I digress. Whose side are you on, and why?

Do Corporations have the right to pay CEOs 300 times what they pay an ordinary worker? Or do the workers have the right to complain? is it about who has the guns and the money to hire the gunmen , is it about 'The rights of Man', or about something else? You tell me.

Comments

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Who's setting the rules? Good question.

Basically, whoever prevails with whatever means they have at their disposal.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Leave the gun on the table, loaded, and see who grabs it.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

So, if you feel you have the right , and the law says otherwise, what then ?

Depends on the type of person you are, I suppose. Personally, if I don't feel a law is just, I have no qualms about breaking said law (if I'm not likely to get caught, of course).

the majority in America do not want the bosses to be getting bonuses while the rest of the country get laid off and take cuts to pay and social services

This competitiveness for "talent" is looking more and more like a bubble that is destined to burst.

Someone should charge the cops with Unconstitutional Activity here.

The cops weren't the problem in this case, it was the mayor who ordered them to crack down on the protesters. Some of their methods might have a bit too extreme, and they may want to investigate whether the actions of certain policemen were disproportionate to the resistance they were facing. But the responsibility lies solely on the mayor (for which she has since apologized and allowed them to re-Occupy).

Do Corporations have the right to pay CEOs 300 times what they pay an ordinary worker? Or do the workers have the right to complain?

Yes, to both. I think the only reasonable way to combat this awareness. Publicly out the companies who are giving their CEOs bloated salaries and stock options. Organize boycotts against these companies. Steer people toward companies that treat their employees fairly and have just wages for all employees. Wal-Mart is a good example of this. Sure, lots of people still shop there, but I think more people are aware of their business practices and the effect they have on society. I'm sure it's caused people to re-evaluate where they shop.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Point the first-laws are made by whoever most effectively uses the greatest force to declare them so.

Point the second-the Patriots were neither farmers nor city boys but the party that favored the existing elite over the prospect of the rule of the Empire being transformed into something that might actually mean something instead of being theoretical at most.

Point the third-cops are brutal and will always be brutal as a matter of course, and are allowed legally to lie to people to get confessions. This is what it is, and brutality against peaceful demonstrations is how things have generally worked in the USA. If OWS didn't consider this might happen at the start, they certainly haven't paid much attention to mass civil disobedience in practice.

Point the fourth-for all the flowery rhetoric about the Constitution and rule of law, most people in the USA wouldn't be able to tell the Constitution from an auto manual and most people in the USA favor rule of law when politically active when their faction's out of power and when politically inactive they don't give a shit.

Point the fifth-the government of King George was asking the colonies to help pay debt for a war they'd started, requiring them to act in good faith to allies that had helped win said war, and actually expanding the concept of religious freedom. Naturally when asked to adhere to the ideals the USA claimed it always did the reaction was to get the muskets and start shooting.

Finally, real life sees morality and justice coming out of the most efficient uses of force. What we term morality is just the fashion in which we allow force to be used, whether covertly as in the USA most of the time, or overtly as in say, Russia most of the time. Similarly rule of law exists insofar as the penalties for breaking the law outweigh the financial and otherwise gain that comes with ignoring the law for fun and profit. While this sounds a bit Nietzchean/nihilist, the difference I have with that ideology is that I like a society that's very covert about this and at least tries its damndest to translate the ideal into practice. Unfortunately the USA is not and never has been and is unlikely to be in the near (as in in my lifetime) future this kind of society.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

regarding your 5th point - run it past me again . It take it u mean that the Brits started this war, and wanted American cash to fight it.
Now, exactly what were American colonists getting out of the deal ? Protection from the French across the border in Canada?

or do u really mean the colonists had started this war somehow, and the Brits were fighting it with US money ? And how does religious freedom come into it? I was under the impression that the Brits were fighting the French for purely British reasons - and Upper class reasons to boot.
So, you tell me what I missed there.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Point the fourth-for all the flowery rhetoric about the Constitution and rule of law, most people in the USA wouldn't be able to tell the Constitution from an auto manual and most people in the USA favor rule of law when politically active when their faction's out of power and when politically inactive they don't give a shit.

Oh so true, and we are suffering the consequences of this.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'The corporations did not set the police onto the Tea Party protesters who showed up with guns, did they ?'

The display of a weapon is not itself illegal in the US. You can openly carry in most any locale.

'So, by what right do the cops use baton rounds and pepper spray on the unarmed protesters who Occupy Wall Street?'

They were refusing to disperse. Under California penal code, if a gathering is unruly or out of order, an officer can order the people to disperse. If they refuse then the police escalate to irritants to force compliance.

'The right to assemble and protest is clearly stated in your U.S. Constitution.'

Yes, but all US rights end at the point of violating the rights of others. Disorderly conduct is not a right.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

" they were refusing to disperse"

And does it not say that had a right to assemble ?

in what way were they 'disorderly' ?

Re: The Rule of Law is the Rule of Force

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Your third paragraph is an argument proposing that just because rights can be infringed therefore they are groundless and do not exist. Non sequitur.

But only because I can't yet force them to shut up...

No, it is because you cannot change their minds by force.

Some may think that, but I have personal ideals that I consider on an order higher than that of law.

Now you've just contradicted yourself. Either "might makes right" or else there are higher criteria but these are mutually exclusive propositions. Pick one.

And I think "that which I tolerate" is about as pragmatic a definition of rights/non-rights you can get.

Ah, I see. Whim. Well now, at least we're clear where you stand.

The end result of this pragmatic definition is that you can't simply declare something as appropriate simply because it is/is not a right.

Now back to ambiguity again... Make up your mind. Which is it? Let's ask a more fundamental question: do you acknowledge an objective existence which can be perceived?

I can pontificate to no end how it is unjust for a bear to eat me, but that doesn't actually help me in that situation.

People are not bears and from that wellspring the discussion of rights originates.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Do Corporations have the right to pay CEOs 300 times what they pay an ordinary worker? Or do the workers have the right to complain?

The answer is, of course, both.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

"I mean, who exactly is defending your US Constitution..."

It is I, CAPTAIN AMERICA!!!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I kinda wanna see it.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

As good as all that sounds - in this country, when it's you against the police - especially in the court system - you lose.

Exceptions are rare. If you have video proof that you are in the right, and they are in the wrong - and you can afford one of those lawyers that plays golf with the judge, I give you a 50/50 chance - and that's being generous.


How does this play out?

If you want something, and whoever has it or has the power to give it to you doesn't want you to have it - you aren't getting it without hurting them. This could mean hurting their money supply, or hurting their reputation. It doesn't necessarily mean violence, but doesn't exclude it either.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

When I make law, I justify it by Divine Right of Kings.

If I recall correctly, it was a teargas canister that hit Olsen in the forehead.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of the 'Scumbag' riot scene from Akira when I think about it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mMLJV695f4
At :18 and throughout.

Re: If I recall correctly, it was a teargas canister that hit Olsen in the forehead.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Ah - it was a tear gas canister , not a rubber bullet. So this is OK ?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

Someone should charge the cops with Unconstitutional Activity here.
If you don't believe that laws should be enforced, whether a law is constitutional or not becomes a moot point.
The servicemen and women of America are siding with civilians against the politicians and the corporations. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Military coups are always interesting, but sometimes unpleasant.
To me, its is about _society as a whole_, not any special interest group, that decide 'right' from 'wrong'.
Society as a whole elects the politicians who make the laws. The occupiers are a small, fringe group. Between the two of them, who is the special interest?

"The Common Good" is a floating abstraction

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

I mean, what gave the *right* to a bunch of farmers and city boys to throw the British troops out of America?

You know, people have written whole entire books on this topic for centuries. Jefferson spelled out his reasoning in the Declaration of Independence. Lock put forward the same notions in his writings, most notably the Second Treatise of Civil Government. Pick some philosophy and agree or disagree with it, if you have any knowledge of the topic at all. Let's hear it.

Well, you may not believe in God, but you may still feel that humans have a right to certain things by virtue of being human.

That is a very imprecise formulation of the concept. Rights derrive from our nature. Like it or not, we are self-owners by nature. It is not about what we "deserve;" it is about what we are.

Unless we , as a society, keep the law, the law cannot be enforced.

Indeed. There are consequences for lawlessness, just as there are consequences inherent in the legislation and enforcement of bad laws.

To me it seems unjust, however, one may cary a walking stick, and use it if attacked. One cannot carry a knife , however, or adapt anything for use as a weapon. So, if you feel you have the right , and the law says otherwise, what then?

What then? Your society reaps the consequences. Home invasions, lawless thuggery, disrespect for the law...welcome to the consequences. Self-defense is the first law of nature and the most dangerous weapon in the world is the human mind. Believing that it is knives and "improvised weapons" is a ridiculous conceit. You can legislate against self-defense all you want, but the more strenuously a society attempts to countermand human nature the more severe the consequences become for everyone in it.

...no- he can't put 10 yr olds dwown the coal mines, or pay women less...

You cannot repeal economics either. Opportunity cost and that alone stopped what we consider "child labor." Children whose only job is to go to school (a term derriving from the Greek word, "schole," leisure) is a feature of societies that have the wealth to enjoy this luxury. If the capital base and the division of labor network were to degrade to the circumstances that obtained in the nineteenth century then child labor would inexorably return. Children will work, rather than starve and the attempt to prevent them from doing so will put you on very precarious ground with respect to their parents. If conditions were to degrade further than those obtaining in the eighteenth century or so, then chattel slavery would inexorably return. Philosophy alone will not and cannot hold these things at bay, and certainly not the collectivist philosophical stew of faulty premises you seem to be serving up. That is the very lifeblood of institutionalized slavery.

Re: "The Common Good" is a floating abstraction

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Wooosh!
Hear that, it's the sound of several arguments going right over your head.
Read the OP and read it as a rhetorical question, or a series of them.

Jefferson's famous Declaration was inspired by an Englishman , Tom Paine, who spells out his thoughts in the influential work " the Rights of Man".

Like it or not, we are self-owners by nature. It is not about what we "deserve;" it is about what we are.

Ok, so we seek freedom to choose - do we agree. Well, if some women choose to join a union and demand equal pay with men and demand the vote, are you going to stop them, support them, or just whine about the rights of the mill owners?

Philosophy alone will not and cannot hold these things at bay, and certainly not the collectivist philosophical stew of faulty premises you seem to be serving up.

Ok, yes, if WW£ bombs us all back to the stone age, kids will be digging up roots and scavenging for food , just like they did in the Paeleolithic era. However, we have a system whereby we can afford to put kids in schools, so why not take advantage of it?

And there are those ho accept certain laws , but not others. the question is not " what happens when we make self defence illegal?", sir, the question is " What does the just and fair citizen do when the law puts something in place that s/he thinks is folly ?"

Violent revolutions have a bad track record. I would argue for persuasion and reform. What do you suggest?

"The Common Good" is a floating abstraction (more)

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

I would say that the case is that one should always act for the good of the whole group.

There is no such animal. It is a floating abstraction that cannot be objectively defined. People gather in groups to exchange goods and services and divide labor; to further their self-interests. Respecting the rights of the individuals that comprise it is what the members of a group owe to each other. There is a collectivist delusion that everyone agrees on what the "common good" is but in reality each person who invokes the concept is merely expressing his own unique conception of what he thinks is good for the group "as a whole." People who invoke "the good of the group" the loudest are always the ones eager to sacrifice some subset of their asserted group for "the common good" of some other subset that usually includes themselves.

"What has made the State a hell on earth has been that man has tried to make it his heaven"
— Johann Christian Friedrich Holderlin

"Everyone who wants to do good to the human race always ends in universal bullying."
— Aldous Huxley

"Let go of all desire for the common good, and the good becomes as common as grass."
— Lao Tzu

"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
— John Stuart Mill

"Why did the humanitarian philosophy of 18th-century Europe usher in the Reign of Terror? It did not happen by chance; it followed from the original premise, objective, and means proposed. The objective is to do good to others as a primary justification of existence; the means is the power of the collective; and the premise is that 'good' is collective."
— Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine

"If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life."
— Henry David Thoreau

"From the day when the first members of councils placed exterior authority higher than interior, that is to say, recognized the decisions of men united in councils as more important and more sacred than reason and conscience; on that day began lies that caused the loss of millions of human beings and which continue their work to the present day."
— Leo Tolstoy

...are offering women what they manifestly did not want.

Who are you to overturn what individual women may want in the name of what all women want? Who died and made you spokesman for the female sex? Passing a law forbidding someone from taking a job at a given wage implicitly recognizes that the presumptive law-maker is overturning the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about what they truly want.

To me, its is about _society as a whole_, not any special interest group,...

Every individual is a special interest of one. Forced collectivism is a flimsy pretext for shabby tyrannies.

Do Corporations have the right to pay CEOs 300 times what they pay an ordinary worker?

Wrong question. The right question is: where did you get the right to dispose of wealth you do not own and did not create? Where did you get "Super Rights"? What makes you one of those animals who are "more equal than others"?

...Or do the workers have the right to complain?

They have every right to complain; they have no right to a job that must be provided to them by someone else.

Ultimately, the law IS about the rights of man, properly understood.

Re: "The Common Good" is a floating abstraction (more)

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Who are you to overturn what individual women may want in the name of what all women want? Who died and made you spokesman for the female sex? Passing a law forbidding someone from taking a job at a given wage implicitly recognizes that the presumptive law-maker is overturning the rights of individuals to make their own decisions about what they truly want.

Who are you to talk about ' individual women '? Where are these women who want to work for less, just so that they can have a job ? I am simply pointing out the salient fact that when women walked out on strike, they got equal pay, which was their demand . I simply say that I don't see women striking , or voting , or even asking for the Equal Pay Act to be repealed. Do you ?

The right question is: where did you get the right to dispose of wealth you do not own and did not create? Where did you get "Super Rights"? What makes you one of those animals who are "more equal than others"?

Fine let's ask it. Where does someone get the right to open a sweat shop, or a dog fighting ring , or a drugs making lab to process crack cocaine?

Ultimately, the law IS about the rights of man, properly understood.

Ah - my understanding is that there is such a thing as 'society'. Agreed, the UK is a legal fiction, but the UK exists. and I believe in it. and 'all its citizens' is a concept that i can grasp. maybe you don't, but this does not impair my ability to see my neighbour as my neighbour, and not a commodity to be exploited.

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

Not so long ago, in the way that other nations view history, us Americans had to confront another mass popular movement that tried to use the constitution to justify some of the worst horrors of property rights, religious fundamentalism and pagans (as in the opposite of a citizen not the opposite of a christian). That one was more horrendous than modern libertarians, but stemmed from the same excesses.

From that era we have an answer to rights versus force.

"Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty"

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The corporations did not set the police onto the Tea Party protesters who showed up with guns, did they ? So, by what right do the cops use baton rounds and pepper spray on the unarmed protesters who Occupy Wall Street? -- Are you for real?

We have something in this country called laws (say it with me now). Men and women in the United States go through various training exercises to become police officers to enforce the laws that exist in a city/town/village, county, state, or in a federal capacity. For example, when a person is raped, or when a business has their windows smashed or building vandalized, the police are called to investigate. This is really grade-school stuff. I'm surprised you don't know this already.

I think you can tell which side I'm on. Afterall, a member of the "99 percent" wouldn't allow me to enter their home and start smashing their possessions, so why should they be allowed to do that to a business or anyone else's private property? Just because some of them don't believe in property laws doesn't mean those laws don't exist.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

heh - I do know this stuff - don't pretend I dont . But whose property was Olsen on when the baton round hit him ? Wasn't he on the street, on public ground? Who was he physically attacking , and what was he doing apart from assembling and peacefully protesting, a right that the Constitution gives him as a US Citizen ?

[kardashev.livejournal.com]

If you ask me, we don't have any inalienable rights. Not even the right to exist. What we humans actually have are privileges granted by whoever has the most force at their disposal. Until those in power decide to revoke said privileges, of course.

[mintogrubb.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a reasonable analysis actually .