| | |
|
AnatoleFrance 3 - 06 Feb 2010 - Main.DevinMcDougall
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Inequality" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | -- NonaFarahnik - 05 Feb 2010
A few years ago, I read an Anatole France quote that challenged me: "La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts." Rough translation-- "The law, in its majestic equality, makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges [of Paris]." By defining the class that commands power as "the owners," our focus remains on the acquisition of wealth and property as the means of control. The France quote reflects the concept that the powerful class manipulates our institutional and legal structures to favor themselves. Examples in our society today abound. Is Eben's "owner" distinction too limiting? We can always have policy arguments about why we might forbid sleeping under bridges, but to what extent do our laws reflect power's goal of maintaining perpetual inequality?
\ No newline at end of file | |
>
> | I think that's a great quote. If I understand you correctly, you're making the point that power in our society is not just based on ownership of wealth, but also comes from an ability to manipulate institutions. I think that's true, but that ability to manipulate institutions is often associated with and enhanced by wealth. Not always, though. To paraphrase Marshall Ganz, David sometimes wins. Brown v. Board is an example.
Some other thoughts on the France quote...
I think France’s line is definitely a bon mot, and it highlights how equality before the law can be rendered meaningless by economic inequalities. In Civ Pro last semester, we discussed how disparities between litigants’ resources can affect trial outcomes, despite both sides having the same procedural rules.
But from a functionalist view, I think the law, even if textually majestically equal, is rarely equal in its application. To use Holmes’ terms, I would not predict the public force to fall with equal vigor against rich and poor violators of this or other laws.
An example comes to mind, from our coverage of the Reconstruction amendments in Con Law. Preston Brooks walked up to Charles Sumner, in the US Senate building, and beat him with a cane until he was unconscious. Sumner was injured so badly he couldn't return to the Senate for three years, and Brooks was never arrested. I think a similar assault by a less privileged member of society probably would have been met with significant public force. |
|
|
AnatoleFrance 2 - 06 Feb 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Inequality" |
|---|
| | |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Inequality" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | -- NonaFarahnik - 05 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | A few years ago, I read an Anatole France quote that hit me like a ton of bricks: "La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts." Rough translation-- "The law, in its majestic equality, makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges [of Paris]." By defining the class that commands power as "the owners," our focus remains on the acquisition of wealth and property as the means of control. The France quote reflects the concept that the powerful class manipulates our institutional and legal structures to favor themselves. Examples in our society today abound. Is Eben's "owner" distinction too limiting? We can always have policy arguments about why we might forbid sleeping under bridges, but to what extent do our laws reflect power's goal of maintaining perpetual inequality? | >
> | A few years ago, I read an Anatole France quote that challenged me: "La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts." Rough translation-- "The law, in its majestic equality, makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges [of Paris]." By defining the class that commands power as "the owners," our focus remains on the acquisition of wealth and property as the means of control. The France quote reflects the concept that the powerful class manipulates our institutional and legal structures to favor themselves. Examples in our society today abound. Is Eben's "owner" distinction too limiting? We can always have policy arguments about why we might forbid sleeping under bridges, but to what extent do our laws reflect power's goal of maintaining perpetual inequality? | | | \ No newline at end of file |
|
|
AnatoleFrance 1 - 05 Feb 2010 - Main.NonaFarahnik
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="Inequality" |
|---|
-- NonaFarahnik - 05 Feb 2010
A few years ago, I read an Anatole France quote that hit me like a ton of bricks: "La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts." Rough translation-- "The law, in its majestic equality, makes no distinction between rich and poor; both are forbidden to sleep under the bridges [of Paris]." By defining the class that commands power as "the owners," our focus remains on the acquisition of wealth and property as the means of control. The France quote reflects the concept that the powerful class manipulates our institutional and legal structures to favor themselves. Examples in our society today abound. Is Eben's "owner" distinction too limiting? We can always have policy arguments about why we might forbid sleeping under bridges, but to what extent do our laws reflect power's goal of maintaining perpetual inequality? |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |