OK, so it's settled, the state has criminalised this form of peaceful protest, and those who continue it are criminals and may legally be bashed by riot police.
When are you joining the police, Starvid?
If you think this is ok, what other peaceful sabotage of government work is ok? Hiding your tax money on the Bermudas? Mailing shit-filled letters to social offices? Blockading mass transit so people can't get to work?
Watching the footage it looks like the police are using far more than a proportional amount of force, and it does look quite outrageous. However, the police actually doing their job is not outrageous. Their refusal to do it would be. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
That is the outrage. There was no need to use force for the police to carry out their work. They are using force in order to intimidate the protesters. The difference between them and brownshirts is only that they are employed by the government. Which is the core of Jake's criticism of the government in this connection. The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.
Seems like they've learnt from the Met police on how re-label the right to dissent and to protest as a criminal refual to compy with lawful instruction.
When "criminal refusal to comply with lawful instruction" was pretty much exactly what they were doing. This doesn't mean I believe they should have their heads smashed in, just like I don't think people who steal jewelry from stores should have their heads smashed in when the police arrive to deal with them. I considered it so obvious that I didn't even mention it, but to clarify even further: I think the police overreacted. Peaceful protesters can be arrested or dispersed without the use of nightsticks. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
I had read your comment as you intended it, but it is reassuring to read your further clarification. I agree with you and Migeru below that civil disobedience entails the commission of a crime legally speaking, even if the act is not a crime (indeed, is just the opposite) meta-legally -- i.e. morally -- speaking. The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
I wasn't familiar with the term "legal positivism", but from a quick about it, I guess I'm a "legal positivist", as that understanding of the law seems to leave open the possibility of evolution in the law in response to the changing behavioral norms and/or philosophical ideals in society; and one spur to such an evolution of the law is civil disobedience. Natural law, on the other hand, seems to imply that there are universal and unchanging principles of behavior, morality, justice, etc., and I am not comfortable with that notion. The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.
Laws against homicide are of the few 'morally absolute' laws - except of course in uniform. And even homicide is treated differently by different cultures - crimes of passion, honour, rebellion. You can't be me, I'm taken
An attempt was made to cooperate with the police in order to get rid of the heroin pushers, which was something many Christianites felt extremely uncomfortable about due to their anarchical tradition and the continuous clashes between Christiania and the police. Despite the shared feelings of distrust, however, some Christianites felt there was no other way to fix such problem, and supplied the police with a list of suspected hard drug networks. The intention of the Christianites' decision was made very clear: police were to concentrate only on hard drugs. This did not happen, and instead the police ignored the Christianites' requests and made a large crackdown only on the hash network, oddly leaving the heroin ring untouched. The police gave the names of "cooperating Christianites" to the hash dealers, and they had to leave Christiania for fear of reprisals. Feeling betrayed and bitter the Christianites decided not to cooperate any further with the authorities, and instead launched what was to be known as the Junk Blockade. For 40 days and nights the Christianites--men, women, and children--patrolled 'The Arc of Peace' and whenever they found junkies or pushers they gave them an ultimatum: either quit all activities with hard drugs or leave Christiania. In the end, the pushers were forced to leave, and sixty people entered drug rehabilitation.
An attempt was made to cooperate with the police in order to get rid of the heroin pushers, which was something many Christianites felt extremely uncomfortable about due to their anarchical tradition and the continuous clashes between Christiania and the police. Despite the shared feelings of distrust, however, some Christianites felt there was no other way to fix such problem, and supplied the police with a list of suspected hard drug networks. The intention of the Christianites' decision was made very clear: police were to concentrate only on hard drugs. This did not happen, and instead the police ignored the Christianites' requests and made a large crackdown only on the hash network, oddly leaving the heroin ring untouched.
The police gave the names of "cooperating Christianites" to the hash dealers, and they had to leave Christiania for fear of reprisals.
Feeling betrayed and bitter the Christianites decided not to cooperate any further with the authorities, and instead launched what was to be known as the Junk Blockade. For 40 days and nights the Christianites--men, women, and children--patrolled 'The Arc of Peace' and whenever they found junkies or pushers they gave them an ultimatum: either quit all activities with hard drugs or leave Christiania. In the end, the pushers were forced to leave, and sixty people entered drug rehabilitation.
A legal positivist would say that drug use is clearly wrong, because it is illegal, while a supporter of natural law would say that we have an inherent right to use drugs if we feel like, and no amount of law can turn this right into a wrong. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
My understanding of legal positivism is that it makes no statement on whether the law is right or wrong, morally. It's just the rules we have chosen to give ourselves. That doesn't make them morally right in an absolute sense. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that: There is no inherent or necessary connection between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality. Laws are rules made, whether deliberately or unintentionally, by human beings. Laws must follow the rules of determinism.
Legal positivism is a school of thought in philosophy of law and jurisprudence. The principal claims of legal positivism are that:
Rättspositivism - Wikipedia
Enligt rättspositivismen kan inte en lag vara orätt, eftersom rätt bara är en idé eller känsla som skapats genom till exempel uppfostran, eller ett instrument för makthavare att utöva makt.
Det finns olika skolor inom rättspositivismen, varav en del menar att moral existerar och andra inte gör det.
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist. Therefore - if I understand it correctly - there is no moral that the law could contradict.
After reading some wikipedia I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting... A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
In other words: there's what's legal and illegal; what's done or not done (morals); and right and wrong (ethics).
One doesn't have to believe in natural law (which is a sort of absolute standard) in order to believe that ethical behaviour exists and can be illegal.
But one can also decide that law dictates morality and there's no difference between morality and ethics. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
for expeciency reasons
I start to suspect that legal positivism is a school that highly values its internal model of the legal system. It should then not be surprising if changes in the laws are simply external factors that are uninteresting...
Nomic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1] Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362. Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Nomic is a game created in 1982 by philosopher Peter Suber in which the rules of the game include mechanisms for the players to change those rules, usually beginning through a system of democratic voting.[1]
Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of course, can be changed. --Peter Suber, the creator of Nomic, The Paradox of Self-Amendment, Appendix 3, p. 362.
Nomic actually refers to a large number of games based on the initial ruleset laid out by Peter Suber in his book The Paradox of Self-Amendment. (The ruleset was actually first published in Douglas Hofstadter's column Metamagical Themas in Scientific American in June 1982. The column discussed Suber's then-upcoming book, which was published some years later.) The game is in some ways modeled on modern government systems, and demonstrates that any such system where rule-changes are possible, a situation may arise in which the resulting laws are contradictory or insufficient to determine what is in fact legal. Because the game models (and exposes conceptual questions about) a legal system and the problems of legal interpretation, it is named after νόμος (nomos), Greek for "law". (See also nomos.)
Starvid appears to adher to the school within legal positivism that claims that moral does not exist.
Thanks for clearing that out. A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!
If the protesters didn't have a permit, they were acting outside the law and thus proper police action could be justified. However, regardless of whether the protesters did or did not have a permit, it appears the police in this instance were unjustified in the harsh action they took.
The only real question to ponder is whether or not any police action was necessary at all. The presumption would be that perhaps, if necessary to enforce a court order of some sort, whether one agrees with it or not. Obviously, our sympathies lie with the Iraqi refugees. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
it looks like the police are using far more than a proportional amount of force, and it does look quite outrageous. However, the police actually doing their job is not outrageous. Their refusal to do it would be.
er, hello?
it's outrageous how they're 'doing their job' and it'd be outrageous if they did no job at all.
if the protest was non-violent, where is there any justification for the police to set such a bad example?
one incident would be worrying, the fact that this is rapidly becoming a global pattern even more so.
starvid, isn't this 'doublethink'? ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
That's what I said. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
The figures I saw said that 27 % thought that the police should not have abducted the refugees. Which is a rather different question.
I målingen siger 54 procent, at nattens politiaktion mod irakerne var i orden, mens 27 procent mener, at den var for voldsom.
