Statues, Monuments, and When to Take Down or Leave Up Ones Dedicated To Flawed Historical Figures

[OldGimletEye]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But they dont. It's a neat concept, but it is clear that they absolutely do not apply to everyone equally. And when that happens, you get corrections until it starts being better. 

You know though there are certain elements of the left that piss all over the concept of rule of law. But, if these same people were to ever  gain power, woe to those that would break their dictates and commands.

I'm not going to cry about the statues of columbus or confederates being torn down. But, what irks me is the refusal to state what the limiting principle is. Some want to play a game of calvin ball. And if you start playing calvin ball, then others will likely feel they are entitled to play that game too.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

But they dont. It's a neat concept, but it is clear that they absolutely do not apply to everyone equally. And when that happens, you get corrections until it starts being better. 

Dont want the corrections? Dont fuck up your practice of law. 

 

Not perfectly no.  If you believe law is insufficient what ideal would replace “law” with?

[Ran]

Quote

And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Not perfectly no.  If you believe law is insufficient what ideal would replace “law” with?

This is a false equivalence. You replace the incredibly shitty, unjust laws (and more importantly the processes that are behind a lot of them) that exist with better ones, and if people refuse to do that then you start ignoring the laws because they are not useful anyway. 

The people advocating "no laws, ever" are a silly strawman. As the old joke goes we are simply haggling over the price. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This is a false equivalence. You replace the incredibly shitty, unjust laws (and more importantly the processes that are behind a lot of them) that exist with better ones, and if people refuse to do that then you start ignoring the laws because they are not useful anyway. 

The people advocating "no laws, ever" are a silly strawman. As the old joke goes we are simply haggling over the price. 

Inkdaub said:

 

Quote

The rule of law is created by the powerful to serve the powerful.

While not explicitly stating Inkdaub wants to eliminate the rule of law it strongly implies Inkdaub believes the rule of law exists only to serve the powerful.  Which leads to my question, what does Inkdaub want to replace the rule of law with.  If Inkdaub doesn't want to replace law with something else Inkdaub is free to state that isn't where Inkdaub was going when Inkdaub wrote that sentence.  

I appreciate that you do not want to eliminate the rule of law.  What specific changes to our existing structure would you suggest to more effectively distribute power amongst all members of our society?

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

And when conflicts arise that cannot be successfully mediated how do you propose resolving those conflicts without resort to “law”?

You are saying that the law -- codes, judges, legislators, courts, councils, etc.,  and the  police are the same thing, which surely you know is not the case.

To turn this around then, how do you deal with cops rolling up to a guy's home, where, inside he's doing gladiator costume play, and they taser him to death.  And no codes, judges, legislators, courts, councils will even engage with this, much less pass judgment on the cops who did this?

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 minutes ago, Zorral said:

You are saying that the law -- codes, judges, legislators, courts, councils, etc.,  and the  police are the same thing, which surely you know is not the case.

To turn this around then, how do you deal with cops rolling up to a guy's home, where, inside he's doing gladiator costume play, and they taser him to death.  And no codes, judges, legislators, courts, councils will even engage with this, much less pass judgment on the cops who did this?

 

We need better laws, more accountability for police, and an elimination of “qualified immunity” for police to facilitate that end.

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Ran said:

The problem with this thinking is that it's the same thinking that has justified a lot of very illiberal things over the centuries, and certainly in modern times.

Democracy may indeed be the worst form of government, except for all the others.

 

Eh, you can cite any kind of thinking or method of affecting change and say it has been used for very illiberal things over the centuries, including democratic legislation.

*And certainly in modern times

[Ran]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Eh, you can cite any kind of thinking or method of affecting change and say it has been used for very illiberal things over the centuries, including democratic legislation.

Hence the second sentence.

But speaking of democracy vs. ochlocracy, Lincoln gave an address on the subject in 1837 which was prophetic in its time   and, sadly, still seems relevant to this day. 

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 minute ago, Ran said:

Hence the second sentence.

But speaking of democracy vs. ochlocracy, Lincoln gave an address on the subject in 1837 which was prophetic in its time   and, sadly, still seems relevant to this day. 

 

Maybe post a video of his speech and I'll watch it instead of trying to bury me in paperwork

[Ran]

Just now, larrytheimp said:

Maybe post a video of his speech and I'll watch it instead of trying to bury me in paperwork

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LTI,

Why are you laughing?

[Larry of the Lawn]

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

LTI,

Why are you laughing?

I was being irreverent in my request for a video.  A video of Abraham Lincoln.  Giving a speech.  

 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Why are YOU liking @Ser Scot A Ellison??????

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Why are YOU liking @Ser Scot A Ellison??????

[DireWolfSpirit]

I got your Abe video right here!

 

[Inkdaub]

17 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, if “the rule of law is created by the powerful to serve the powerful” what alternative do you offer to the “rule of law”?

Yeah that sentence is pretty vague.  I was fixated on the specifics of the statues honoring slave owners who were powerful people.  It was a quip I'm not sure my sleepy brain really thought out.  I got a They Live clip out of it, though. 

What I was thinking about is that the rule of law cannot exist independently from the populace.  It is a living, breathing ideal that requires participation to have any meaning whatsoever.  So I was thinking that if statues of abhorrent people are protected by the rule of law then our participation should result in forcing their removal regardless.  Tear them down whatever the legality.

Speaking generally, yes, the rule of law heavily favors the powerful.  I think it's fair to call it a broken system.  I would say it needs fixing but still has value. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

33 minutes ago, Inkdaub said:

Yeah that sentence is pretty vague.  I was fixated on the specifics of the statues honoring slave owners who were powerful people.  It was a quip I'm not sure my sleepy brain really thought out.  I got a They Live clip out of it, though. 

What I was thinking about is that the rule of law cannot exist independently from the populace.  It is a living, breathing ideal that requires participation to have any meaning whatsoever.  So I was thinking that if statues of abhorrent people are protected by the rule of law then our participation should result in forcing their removal regardless.  Tear them down whatever the legality.

Speaking generally, yes, the rule of law heavily favors the powerful.  I think it's fair to call it a broken system.  I would say it needs fixing but still has value. 

No question it needs work.  The hard discussion is what work would fix it in a way that doesn’t make things worse than they already are.  

Ran’s link to the speech from Lincoln and his quote from “A Man For All Seasons” both illistrate the problem very well.  Law that only protects those we find worthy of protection is easy to twist into something very dangerous and that is ripe for abuse.

[Inkdaub]

27 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The hard discussion is what work would fix it in a way that doesn’t make things worse than they already are.

I have to admit I'm pretty concerned about it.  I'm not sure what you say above is possible.  I think it needs fundamental changes...sea change level stuff...that would be devastating in the short term.  

The good news is there are people much smarter and much more optimistic than I am working on solutions to this and other problems.  Theoretically.    

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Inkdaub said:

I have to admit I'm pretty concerned about it.  I'm not sure what you say above is possible.  I think it needs fundamental changes...sea change level stuff...that would be devastating in the short term.  

The good news is there are people much smarter and much more optimistic than I am working on solutions to this and other problems.  Theoretically.    

I’m curious to hear what their hypothesis are.  Any links?