|
OurOwnMyths 21 - 15 Feb 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="LawContempSoc" |
|---|
I don't know what 'refactor' means, | | | If one truly believes that injustice is being done, doesn't one have a moral imperative to act if possible?
-- AaronShepard - 14 Feb 2009 | |
>
> |
- No, that's the same error from the other direction. That would leave everyone with an impossible heap of competing "imperatives."
| | | |
|
|
OurOwnMyths 19 - 14 Feb 2009 - Main.MichaelHolloway
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="LawContempSoc" |
|---|
I don't know what 'refactor' means, | | |
- Suddenly everyone is an anarchist. This proposition is hardly self-evident.
| |
>
> |
- I agree that this came out as a gross generalization at best. But it's not fair to assume that it reflects a major philosophical shift based on ideas I'd never come across before enrolling in this course. I don't see any grounds for that assumption.
| | | 4) If my goal is to do justice, (2) and (3) together present a problem: my efforts to implement positive justice, if they meet with any success, might only lead to new and unforeseen injustices.
- There's no evidence offered for this proposition, and if one
| | | any client if one had a supervening duty to prevent unforeseen
harms to everyone else. | |
>
> |
- Point taken. But if unforeseen harms are a problem worth taking seriously, I'm not sure how to proceed.
| | | I wouldn't so readily equate being a critic with staying on the sidelines, though. In our society, the tendency is to frown on people who criticize the way things are without offering solutions of their own. But I don't think that's fair; simply complaining about injustice can serve some useful purposes. It lets others feeling the same way know that they're not alone, and can show the injustice to others who hadn't thought about it before.
-- MichaelHolloway - 14 Feb 2009 |
|
|
OurOwnMyths 18 - 14 Feb 2009 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="LawContempSoc" |
|---|
| |
<
< | I don't know what 'refactor' means, but since this has grown frustrating and confusing, I'm replacing the entire thread with a straightforward summary that does not resort to referencing Wikipedia, historical analogy, Poland in the 50s, Robspierre, or any other pretensions. I never meant to write anything complicated or argumentative. | >
> | I don't know what 'refactor' means,
- "Refactoring" is a word drawn from the practices of computer programmers. In wiki communities, to refactor a wiki page is to reorganize the ideas it contains to increase the usefulness of the page to readers. Using wiki the way we use it, to start topics of conversation that are intended to reach greater clarity or insight into the ideas we discuss when we are together, refactoring usually involves removing discussion and replacing it, as you did, with clear restatements. Because every version of every page is always available to all readers, removing the conversation doesn't mean that it's lost. The convention of refactoring is to take the page, remove discussion leaving a summary of what has been concluded and what remains in disagreement, followed by a list of the names of contributors to the discussion being summarized.
but since this has grown frustrating and confusing, I'm replacing the entire thread with a straightforward summary that does not resort to referencing Wikipedia, historical analogy, Poland in the 50s, Robspierre, or any other pretensions. I never meant to write anything complicated or argumentative. | | | 1) I am not writing about what Arnold thought. I am writing about what he made me think of.
2) From Tuesday's class I took away the following: according to EM, the libertarian argument that TG and LS gave for not saving Lehman (government cannot or should not interfere) was a myth covering their corrupt efforts to save AIG and benefit their own interests. | |
<
< |
- Apparently I did not make myself clear. Geithner and his predecessor, Paulson, made a legal argument: that they did not have statutory authority to prevent the collapse of Lehman. This is pretty generally agreed to be false on its face.
| >
> |
- Apparently I did not make myself clear. Geithner and his predecessor, Paulson, made a legal argument: that they did not have statutory authority to prevent the collapse of Lehman. This is pretty generally agreed to be false on its face, and is inconsistent with their other behavior in the same period.
| | | 3) We should be and will be encouraged to a state of outrage when confronted with situations like #2 (and any number of similar miserable human events). | | | I think your assessment of my main idea is largely accurate; it's an approach for someone who's concerned above all else with avoiding committing injustices of his own. "First do no evil" is the idea I have in mind. | |
>
> |
- This can't be the standard applied to private practice, because one could not possibly give zealous representation to any client if one had a supervening duty to prevent unforeseen harms to everyone else.
| | | I wouldn't so readily equate being a critic with staying on the sidelines, though. In our society, the tendency is to frown on people who criticize the way things are without offering solutions of their own. But I don't think that's fair; simply complaining about injustice can serve some useful purposes. It lets others feeling the same way know that they're not alone, and can show the injustice to others who hadn't thought about it before.
-- MichaelHolloway - 14 Feb 2009 |
|
|
OurOwnMyths 17 - 14 Feb 2009 - Main.MichaelHolloway
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="LawContempSoc" |
|---|
I don't know what 'refactor' means, but since this has grown frustrating and confusing, I'm replacing the entire thread with a straightforward summary that does not resort to referencing Wikipedia, historical analogy, Poland in the 50s, Robspierre, or any other pretensions. I never meant to write anything complicated or argumentative. | | | 2) Andrew suggested that these notions form for each of us as reactions to the injustices prevailing in our particular time and place; their variety reflects the variety of our formative experiences. I think he's right. | |
<
< | 3) Andrew also suggested, on a related note, that the all political states depend at bottom on oppression, i.e., injustice. I pointed out that this is true of most non-state organizations as well. | >
> | 3) Andrew also suggested, on a related note, that the all political states depend at bottom on oppression, i.e., injustice. I pointed out that this is true of many non-state organizations as well. | | |
- Suddenly everyone is an anarchist. This proposition is hardly self-evident.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|