Skip to main content

View Diary: I'm a Law and Order Liberal (86 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I seriously doubt that human advancement... (11+ / 0-)

    will result in a society that does not require law, and the necessary corollary to law, order to enforce it.

    As for jumping to conclusions, that is precisely what many regular do here in their vilification of police officers and operation on the assumption that police officers are never in the right.  It is no different when others argue the exact opposite.  I'm all for waiting for the evidence.  To me, that inquisitiveness is at the core of liberal thought.

    Enacting our agenda requires winning elections.

    by Mets102 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:15:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  from some religions to idealistic anarchism (3+ / 0-)

      many aspire to an evolved humanity.

      many here reflexively criticize authority figures. many here reflexively defend them. those photos are not conclusive about many things. hitting an officer with a stick is wrong. manhandling a woman is wrong.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:24:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mets, (5+ / 0-)

      are you saying that you don't think un-just laws should be broken?

      Are you arguing against civil disobedience?

      •  No, I do not... (7+ / 0-)

        However, those who engage in civil disobedience do so knowing that they are breaking the existing law and the consequences that flow from that.

        For laws that violate the rights of the people, civil disobedience is one of many potential legitimate responses.  However, for those laws that do not violate the rights of the people, civil disobedience is not valid.  In that instance, bad laws can and should be protested against and people should work within the system to change those laws.

        Enacting our agenda requires winning elections.

        by Mets102 on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:31:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (6+ / 0-)

          When Thoreau broke the law, he proudly went to jail. He didn't resist, didn't complain about the police or complain about jail conditions and he even refused to allow his friends to pay his back taxes.

        •  Many young protesters today don't seem to get it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mets102

          After they are arrested, it's amusing to see them demand to be released, and to have the charges dropped and expunged.

          Not really putting themselves on the line, is it?  These times they are a changin'.

          •  assembly and speech aren't breaking the law (9+ / 0-)

            they are such important constitutional rights that they were the very first amendment to the constitution. there is no reason for people to be arrested for protesting, and there certainly is no reason for them to be beaten, sprayed, and tortured for it.

            •  Sure can't disagree with that (0+ / 0-)

              But if they intend to be arrested then they should be prepared for the consequences and not expect them to just go away because what they were doing was the right thing.

              •  i find it tragic (5+ / 0-)

                that americans accept that any dissent will be met with violence and arrests, nearly always illegally and in ways that do not stand up in court, simply because the state finds them inconvenient.

                why should someone protesting nonviolently be arrested, much less physically abused, for exercising a constitutionally protected right? why shouldn't they protest unlawful police measures? when the shit went down on my campus, it turned out that the students were in the legal right and the university was issuing illegal orders? why welcome acts of crime, just because they're committed by police officers?

                •  Not talking about police crimes or unjust arrests (0+ / 0-)

                  I am talking about acts of civil disobedience specifically intended to provoke arrest.  In some sense, the arrest is the point, to demonstrate the injustice of the law or the situation that has led to the act of civil disobedience.   To then try to negate the arrest goes against that point.

                  Oh well.  Perhaps people have forgotten all that...

        •  Not laws, justice.... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          oldpotsmuggler, 4kedtongue, milkbone

          Laws are subjective and meant to be broken.   Justice should never be compromised and is like pornography, you know it when you see it.   Politicians and bankers who destroy lives should be in jail; drug users should be in treatment or buying it OTC, paying taxes, and contributing to society.

          Armed tea partiers at an Obama rally require little to no police presence.   Unarmed citizens require snow plows, barriers, intimidation, and thousand of cops armed with mace, stun guns and batons.  

          You can focus on process; I prefer policy.   Cops, prosecutors, politicians, and judges have way too little accountability for their "justice" system, and the injustice in imposes on poor people and black males.  Don't talk to me about laws when the enforcers don't have to follow it, and the people do.

          "bin Laden's dead, and GM is alive" ~ Biden

          by dkmich on Mon May 21, 2012 at 12:03:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Laws are meant to be broken"? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Be Skeptical

            Remind yourself you said that when a loved on is murdered, raped, assaulted, robbed, etc.

            Also remind yourself you said that before you complain about the banksters, torturers, corrupt politicians and others of their ilk.

            "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

            by Neuroptimalian on Mon May 21, 2012 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What is unjust in this case? (6+ / 0-)

        I think she isn't arguing against civil disobedience. But in this case, a question of unjust law doesn't seem to be posed, only a question of fact: Did the police start the altercation or did the protestors?

        That's important because, if the police were assaulted, they had the right to defend themselves, to arrest the attackers, and so on. If not, it's a case of police brutality.

        Now, in this case we do not have enough information, in my view, to reach a certain conclusion either way. However, all of this is interesting because people tend to jump to conclusions based on their preexisting worldview, in favour of the police or against it. Factionalisation galore.

        Iuris praecepta sunt haec: Honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. - Ulpian, Digestae 1, 3

        by Dauphin on Mon May 21, 2012 at 11:32:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Civil Disobedience (5+ / 0-)

        Thoreau's seminal work encourages breaking un-just laws. For example, he refused to pay taxes. He encouraged breaking certain laws when it breaking those laws help bring attention to the unfairness or ludicrousness of those laws. In many places, a woman showing her bare breasts in public is against the laws. Bare-breasted lesbians on a Gay Pride Parade float is the perfect type of civil disobedience Thoreau would encourage. However, Thoreau never condoned violent protest or breaking laws which criminalize violence. And he probably wouldn't condone it today either.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (127)
  • Community (60)
  • Media (32)
  • Elections (32)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (30)
  • 2016 (29)
  • Law (28)
  • Environment (28)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Culture (24)
  • Barack Obama (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Climate Change (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Labor (19)
  • Economy (19)
  • Josh Duggar (18)
  • Jeb Bush (18)
  • Bernie Sanders (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site