| |
| 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) 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. They 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.
|
| | 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). |
|
>
> |
- Maybe. I don't feel particularly outraged. As I said, history will take a while to confirm the details of what happened at the end of 2008, and in the meantime it is more of a problem for Geithner in doing what now must be done. That he has low political credibility among those familiar with the situation was shown by the reception of his big policy announcement this week, after I made the comment you misunderstood that predicted his problem on the basis of its origin. That was Arnoldian political analysis, not outrage.
|
| | 4) But, if we make choices about how to live our lives solely based on our outrage, we risk replacing one intolerable human failure with another. If we are to be happy, we will need positive energy and positive goals, instead of simply being against things. (We want to know what is just and create what is just, rather than tearing down what is unjust, because we can replace it with something equally unjust). |
|
>
> |
- It is not clear to me where the idea of living lives based solely on outrage came from. Not from me, so far as I know. Might it be a red herring?
|
| | 5) Knowing injustice when we see it is easy. Identifying and implementing positive justice is very very hard. |
|
>
> |
- How do you know? The proposition is not obvious. From each according to his ability and to each according to his need is not a very very hard place to start. Nor is the principle of equal dignity and respect for all persons. The details may be complex, but the details of injustice are no easier to arrange, so it's not clear what head-shaking about the devilishness of details really amounts to.
|
| | 6) But after all, that's what we have two more years to think about.
-- AndrewCase - 13 Feb 2009 |
| | 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. |
|
>
> |
- Suddenly everyone is an anarchist. This proposition is hardly self-evident.
|
| | 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 took it seriously, one would wind up feeling unnecessarily unable to act. Surely the way to deal with racial segregation of public transit, or a particular wrongful conviction, or the inhumane detention of "illegal immigrants" is not to remain motionless, concerned with the unforeseen injustices that would result from dealing with the existing wrong.
|
| | 5) One potential response is to avoid this difficulty altogether by simply remaining a perpetual critic of particular injustices, and to leave building things to others.
I'm not at all convinced this is the best response, or even a particularly good one; I'm just curious about what others think. |