MORE UNPROVOKED GARDA VIOLENCE (1 Viewer)

[oh shit]

Legally speaking, yes

straight from the hart

 

[ann post]

i dont think i can actually explain it any more succintly than i did in the first post, but oh shit ; s second wee quote would assume that law came before man, if you can prove that, then i'll put my hands up and say i'm wrong. Or explain to me where law originates from and how it is not philosophy.

And for the sake of conversation, at some point there were no laws, people thought (or philosphied) there would be a value in having a law. the law gets enforced. then there is a norm. the norm may not apply later and people will happily discard it, a new norm is created.. that i believe is philosophy applied. thats also why you have a bunch of comedy laws from a few hundred years ago that seem silly now but had a function in society at the time.

 

[oh shit]

t @oh shit ; s second wee quote would assume that law came before man, if you can prove that, then i'll put my hands up and say i'm wrong. .

hang on, you were the one who brought up the example of the word of god found on the mountain. you made an equivalence between that and legal positivism. i just pointed out that the 'word of god' metaphor is analogous to naturalism, not to positivism, so it doesn't actually say anything about a theory of law that is focused on sources, which is all that yer man was saying. i'm not a mullah or an american presidential candidate, so i'm not going to bother defending a naturalist position. i certainly wasn't defending one.

And for the sake of conversation, at some point there were no laws, people thought (or philosphied) there would be a value in having a law. the law gets enforced. then there is a norm. the norm may not apply later and people will happily discard it, a new norm is created.. that i believe is philosophy applied. thats also why you have a bunch of comedy laws from a few hundred years ago that seem silly now but had a function in society at the time.

but see this is just repeating the error. you're saying that on the one hand, law derives from philosophy, ie an idea of pure reason. but then you say that as norms change over time, philosophy is re-applied and the law is changed. so is law normative, or is it based on reason? if it's reason, why is something reasonable in one time and unreasonable in another? doesn't that undermine the notion of philosophy as application of pure reason? doesn't that mean that reason itself is contingent and therefore not to be trusted? isn't the ultimate implication that reason is just an enlightenment substitute for 'God'? i think if you're defending a position of law-as-norm (eg Foucault, Deleuze, Koskenniemi, or law as system in Luhmann, etc) then you are also implicitly attacking the notion of law-as-reason and undermining the foundations of philosophy. it's anti-philosophy. which is great.

the thing about haulin oats and other positivists like him is that while they can accept the validity of such arguments, they don't regard them as particularly important to the functioning of law a developed society. i'm not going to defend that either though. just sayin.

Or explain to me where law originates from and how it is not philosophy

the eternal search for the always-disappearing origin... no thanks, i'm never playing that language game again.

 

[oh shit]

and to get back to the point, i just think you run into problems if you take the view that law is only the application of contingent norms, particularly in a situation like this where there is antagonism and conflict. the flaw with the idea of law as norms is that it has no real account of antagonism, and moreover that it offers very little space for advancing one moral or ethical argument over a competing one. everything is equivalently contingent and accidental.

 

[Jerry Twig]

well thats not a point, basically. that assumes that law was a book found in the desert on top of a mountain like the bible, and we just all went with it, when in reality law is an evolving form based on what people consider to be the norm. if (though i'm starting to think its 'when') a garda finally beats someone to death in one of these protests, we'll all be looking at the legality of cops carrying batons. law starts and ends philosphically, even when it is bought and sold.

What have I unleashed here?!
I don't think you're getting what I was saying. The law does of course generally derive from 'what people consider to be the norm' (assuming it's a state with nominal accountability to the public interest). But since the advent of the law and the word 'crime' has a legal meaning. So, if you ask me is abortion a crime, the answer is that it is a crime in Ireland, but it is not a crime in England. It doesn't mean I agree with it, it's just a statement of fact. That's all I saying earlier. A 'crime' is what is listed as a 'crime' - anything else is still an evolving norm.

PS - for what its worth, I do think that this view of the law as an expression of social norms is overly simplistic.

 

[Space]

So any yeah, do yous not think that the cop could've just opened the door instead of smashing the window? Strikes me that this would have been a much less antagonistic and intimidating reaction that would produce the same result, unless of course the cops were intentionally trying to intimidate him by smashing the window, hmmmm.

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

So any yeah, do yous not think that the cop could've just opened the door instead of smashing the window? Strikes me that this would have been a much less antagonistic and intimidating reaction that would produce the same result, unless of course the cops were intentionally trying to intimidate him by smashing the window, hmmmm.

I think that the driver should have opened the door and that the cops shouldn't have smashed the window.

I'm sure i posted that earlier