Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
Likewise, it is not clear as to whether or not he committed fraud. What, if anything, he will be charged with, is still out in the open, and authorities(As well as the Auction group, of whose prerogative it is to press charges at all) do not have a clearly defined case laid out for them. Lastly, as mentioned prior, some believe that the auctions existence was fraudulent in the first place. These allegations will have to be looked into, obviously, but the claim is that the Bush administration moved to expedite the process to aid oil and gas companies unfairly, to circumvent the groups opposing the auction. (and also, ironically enable something like this happen in the first place) I don't know if I believe any of the above, but the point is that the situation is more complicated than you seem willing to admit. I understand your opinion is 'if he's guilty then throw the book at him', but as far as the case, 'guilt' may be a difficult thing to define, and there might not even be a book to throw. |
|
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
So the rest of your argument is that we are on a slippery slope, correct? "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." |
|
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In this case, there's no reason whatsoever to consider this guy a hero, or consider his actions justified. There's no shortage of lawyers in this country, and no shortage of lawyers in favor of environmental causes. If this guy felt so strongly that the auction was wrong and/or illegal, why didn't this guy contact a lawyer and seek an injunction? More than anything, I guess it's the double-standards here on this board that are the most annoying. This place is chock-full of people who've been bashing Bush, and demanding he be prosecuted, for pushing the envelope in the name of national security. But now, as soon as someone comes along breaking the law in the name of a left-wing cause, the same people call him a hero. It's very strange. (And I'm not saying this to support Bush; I have big problems with a lot of things he's done. I'm just making a general point.) |
|||
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
It is not a separate matter as to whether or not he is convicted, it is directly related. If a judge determines that what he did was not fraud... then it was not fraud. I mean, I see what you are getting at, but I don't think it is that simple, nor should it be. |
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
Well this is the curious x-factor to the whole story. Groups have been attempting to prevent these auctions for a while(through legal means), The Bush Administration, allegedly, moved to make them happen regardless of the popular opinion on them. One of the things that the kid said(who, btw, did not plan to do any of this) was that he was amazed at how much a little bit of action(as in, physical, in person action) could accomplish where so many months of trying to change things 'the legal way' were completely ineffectual. Obviously a society needs laws to get by, but I think that the mentality of 'we live in a nation of laws and they must always be followed or attempted to change legally" is a slippery slope mentality. There are situations when the 'legal' method of change is obscured or otherwise made to be extraordinarily difficult for an average person to navigate through. Sometimes intentionally so. Does that mean that whenever something is disagreeable with some group they need to start firebombing government buildings? of course not, but, as has been stated many times in this thread. Law is a perennial gray area, almost always, and acting in that gray area is sometimes the *only* way to get anything to happen at all. |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
If someone sees a child snatched off the side of the road and then exceeds the speed limit in pursuing the kidnapper, is speeding "wrong"? If someone gets shot and then parks in a no-parking zone to call an ambulance, is that "wrong"? I'd say those violations are much more justified than a kid rigging an auction he disagreed with, especially considering he didn't bother to pursue a long list of *legal* avenues in getting the auction canceled. Quote:
|
||
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
You seem to have the same mentality as the anti-Prop 8 folks in California: Democracy and the rule of law are great, until we don't get our way. Then, the ends justify the means. If that's not the ultimate in slippery slopes, I don't know what is. |
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
In the auction fraud example, it is not clear that it is even fraud when the kid did not gain anything from it, nor did he lie about who he was. Fraud, in legalese, as I understand it, directly involves someone lying for personal gain. He did not lie about who he was, as far as the auction is concerned he was just another bidder, and if he DID have the money, he would not have committed any wrong-doing. Additionally, from what I have read he was trying to go through legal means when he entered the building in the first place. His original purpose was to get some phone numbers of people to call, but the clerk said "are you here to bid?" and he said... "uh... yeah sure" Besides all that, whether or not something is more justified is just opinion, which is up to the Court to decide. Some would feel that the destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of land is a lot more serious than a kidnapping. |
|
quote |
M AH - ch ain saw
Join Date: May 2004
|
Yeah, do us a favor and actually explain what you're trying to say "apple007."
I think you're referring to the fact that Anti-Prop 8 groups are challenging the constitutionality of the ban in courts despite the fact that it passed legally and democratically. In which case its an absurd point to make, and rather conflates the issue even further as it's completely and entirely unrelated. I'm having trouble drawing any similarities between the two cases. The fact that the ban is being challenged in court is very democratic. If it is eventually found illegal in the eyes of the court letting the ban stand without a challenge would have been undemocratic. User formally known as Sh0eWax |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
|
quote |
Less than Stellar Member
|
There's nothing faulty about it. We can both herald this guy's actions and expect him to be prosecuted. No one is saying he "shouldn't be" by the letter of the law, if he did commit fraud. Where is the faulty logic at all? The things seem orthogonal if they're related at all.
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
Quote:
What happened instead was a clerk said "are you here to bid?" and he said "sure". He is not a criminal mastermind, by all readings, he was doing things legally, until this unique(read: unprecedented, and not clear-cut) situation presented itself, and he acted. And his act, has very likely saved the land that would have otherwise been sold in a potentially fraudulent auction where legal avenues of preventing were ineffectual. The auction was already happening. Whether or not he or anyone else had tried legal means to prevent it, is kind of irrelevant because it was happening at that moment. All said and done, I don't think that he should be let off the hook. If he is found guilty, then so be it. I'm not in favor of bypassing laws just for the sake of some protestors pet cause. |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
I thought I was in a dialogue with a rational person. I see I was mistaken. Anyway, this guy personally wanted the auction delayed or canceled, and he succeeded. Are you claiming that wouldn't qualify as "personal gain" under the "legalese" of this case? Quote:
|
||
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Beyond that, I don't believe the winning bidders were going to start drilling that same day, so there was no real urgency to the matter. The gavel coming down in an auction isn't remotely the same as a closed land sale or lease. This guy had days/weeks/months to retain sympathetic counsel and pursue legal avenues. That's the bottom line, whether or not you want to accept it or admit it. |
||
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
Your statements about speeding are equally confusing. By your logic, if we allow someone to speed to save someone's life, isn't it a slippery slope to allowing them to speed to get their kid to school on time? to speed get to church on time? There is always a slippery slope when you make an exception--the question is when it's worth it to make that exception. That's called equity. So to is your equation of environmentalism with "the left." Lots and lots of folks on the right are into preserving the environment. For all I know, this kid is a conservative Christian McCain voter who believes in preserving the environment because man is the steward of the land. Can we just frame the debate based on the actual dispute: I think what the kid did was admirable because I agree with the outcome he was seeking. apple007 (and presumably others) do not. That's what this all boils down to. These convoluted and conflated arguments are officially circling the drain. So try this on: these auctions were arguably extra-legal. If not explicitly so, they were toeing the line. Presumably, if they really serve the public good, they'll go through eventually. If not, they will not. I think that saving this land from mining and drilling was worth it; the small gain to the public good of having extra oil, coal, etc. does not make up for the permanent loss of these lands. apple007 feels differently. Or, at least I assume you do. Am I correct? "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." |
|
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
(a) "wrongful" and "criminal" have meanings, and there's no showing he meets them here. They don't just mean you deceived--they generally require some kind of forethought or knowledge that the law was being broken. There's a chance he doesn't meet that definition. (b) there's no financial gain that I can see, so let's assume you have to go to "personal gain." In many situations, personal gain actually requires a tangible benefit. This is often the case in tort law or in the law of standing (which is actually often the inverse--you must show a tangible harm to come to court (or a tangible benefit you would gain)). So, assuming Utah (or federal) law requires "tangible gain," this is actually a much tougher case. In short, it is very unlikely that this is as cut-and-dried as you assume. "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Saying it's more wrong to speed to thwart a kidnapping than it is to commit fraud in an otherwise legal auction makes you look silly. The bottom line, as I've said two or three times now, is that this guy had a long list of legal options he didn't pursue. When a person has legal avenues available to remedy a situation but ignores them and instead takes the law into his own hands, that's not civil disobedience, it's just illegal activity. Plain and simple. |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
If a prosecutor can get the proverbial ham sandwich indicted, I suspect this guy is going to be someone's lunch. |
|
quote |
OK Mr. Sunshine!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
I imagine that most people would react differently based on the intent and identity of the person committing the crime - i.e. I would be less likely to want the book thrown at a teenager pulling a prank than a carrier criminal doing the same thing. Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind! |
|
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
Secondly, I have to disagree that civil disobedience is defined such that it only happens when there are no legal avenues for change. And given that you seemed to have a strong grasp of the concept earlier, I wonder if you'll stand by that statement? The entire civil rights movement was based on both legal and extra-legal means. And don't forget Gandhi was a lawyer. I think, perhaps, you are saying that civil disobedience can only occur where the greater good is obviously being served. I disagree with that if that's the argument, but it's better than your claim about legal avenues not being available. Personally, I think a closer definition is something like: civil disobedience occurs when laws are broken as part of a political effort. That might not work perfectly, but I think it's close. "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
Bottom line, again, this guy had a long list of legal options -- options that might have succeeded if this auction was half as nebulous as alleged -- and he ignored all of them. Why didn't he call a lawyer? Why didn't he join forces with environmental groups to lease the land and let it sit as-is? |
||
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
But I'll state it very clearly, since I didn't: assuming a law has actually been broken, like MLK and Gandhi, the kid who went to that auction performed an act of civil disobedience. Was it as noble? Probably not. Was it civil disobedience? You bet. "civil disobedience: the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest." "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
We seem to be going in circles here. Thinking back to my history classes, civil disobedience seemed to be undertaken in situations where all other legal options had failed. This guy, meanwhile, seems to have used it straight out of the chute.
There's no shortage of lawyers sympathetic to environmental causes. There's no shortage of judges sympathetic to environmental causes. There's no shortage of environmental groups willing to take up causes like this. This guy contacted none of them. As for the fact he didn't feel the courts were doing enough, every loser in a court case feels that way. It's not even remotely a defense here. |
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
So, the day of the auction the kid is supposed to go write a letter or something? Did you miss the part where he has been involved with this cause for a while? Not only he, but a variety of groups. This case was pursued through legal means, but the auction was still going through. By your recollection of history classes, this *was* a cause for civil disobedience, since no other action succeeded in stopping the auction.
http://planetsave.com/blog/2008/12/0...lease-auction/ Note the date. This was weeks before the auctions, groups were getting together to fight them, the kid, was a part of one of these groups, that was why he was there at all, their formal protests failed to stop the auction. |
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Beyond that, I had more sympathy for the guy when I thought this was more of a last-minute deal. If he and the enviro groups knew about this so long in advance, why didn't they raise LEGITIMATE funds to lease the land themselves and let it sit as-is? That's my #1 problem with the so-called enviro movement: They're always trying to tell other people what to do with other people's land/property. I don't see much principle in that. |
|
quote |
OK Mr. Sunshine!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
|
Quote:
Everyone's trying to tell others what to do with their stuff. Capitalists, communists, whatever-the-fuck yours and our systems are, environmentalists, libertarians, etc. etc. etc. It blows me away that more people are horrified with the selling off of our beautiful countries to the highest bidder so they can be devastated by companies who don't care about anything but making money. Where's the principal in that? I also don't get people supporting a system that allows a really small group of people to own so much property (Ted Turner alone owns almost 2 million acres of land). But, whatever. Greed is a principal, apparently. Do not be oppressed by the forces of ignorance and delusion! But rise up now with resolve and courage! Entranced by ignorance, from beginningless time until now, You have had more than enough time to sleep. So do not slumber any longer, but strive after virtue with body, speech, and mind! |
|
quote |
Avast!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: New York?
|
Quote:
Just to pick one very clear, obvious example: Harriet Tubman began rescuing slaves right after the Fugitive Slave Law required that all slaves be returned to their "masters"--i.e., she began just after a major democratic defeat. She continued even after a court defeat--Dred Scott. Yet I doubt that you would argue that she did not commit civil disobedience. To pick the flip-side of this coin: after Plessy, separate-but-equal was the law, and many legal and democratic challenges to segregation were laid to waste by the principle it represents. Yet Thurgood Marshall and others began putting dents into the principle in Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), Sweatt v. Painter (1950), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950). Brown v. Board came down in 1954--one year before Rosa Parks performed perhaps the most famous act of civil disobedience in history, and a year before MLK began launched his career with the Montgomery bus boycotts. In short, in Tubman's case, she suffered only legal defeats; in Parks' and MLK's cases, they were succeeding in the courts. But I doubt you disagree that they performed civil disobedience. So let me try to state what I think you might want to say (though I'm uncertain this is really it, and I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I hope you'll reply): you think that the environmental movement is wrongheaded, and because it is wrongheaded, it cannot pursue civil disobedience. Or, put differently, civil disobedience requires that the cause be a good one; since you don't consider this kid's cause to be a good one, you don't think it is civil disobedience. I'll also restate what I said earlier: this kid, like MLK and Gandhi, has pursued furtherance of his cause by civil disobedience--he has refused to (allegedly) comply with a law as a form of peaceful political protest. If I've misstated your position above, then maybe we can agree that civil disobedience is not noble or grand in itself? That is, that civil disobedience can be used for all sorts of ends? That this kid might have used civil disobedience, but that doesn't mean what he did was right? I'm much more interested in discussing whether what he did was right. Like I said earlier, I think that preserving these lands is far more important than opening up another source of oil/coal/natural gas/minerals. You simply cannot get these lands back once they have been mined. We can, however, find other energy options, etc. Now, to set someone up, I would be interested to hear about the tension between our current economic difficulties and the jobs such mining might have created and what this kids has done. Or the cost of energy and its toll on the poor vs. what this kid has done. My feeling is I still come down on his side, but it certainly makes the debate more interesting. "How could you falter / when you're the Rock of Gibralter? / I had to get off the boat so I could walk on water. / This ain't no tall order. / This is nothing to me. / Difficult takes a day. / Impossible takes a week." Last edited by zsummers : 2008-12-25 at 19:35. Reason: tone |
|
quote |
BANNED
I am worthless beyond hope. Join Date: May 2006
|
Quote:
Beyond that, capitalists and libertarians believe in free markets, individual rights and, especially, individual property rights, so your comment about those two groups is, at best, flat-out incorrect, and at worst, deliberately misleading. Quote:
Quote:
But again, if you want to talk about "silly," it's mentioning incredible human beings like MLK, Gandhi and Harriet Tubman in the same thread as some guy who pulled a stunt over land he didn't own. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Beyond all of that, the thing that grates at me the most about this thread is that if it was Bush, Cheney, Scooter Libby or someone like that, some of the same people in this thread would have had them on death row by now. As I said at the onset of this thread, I'd like to see one set of rules and principles in place for people on both sides of the aisle. |
||||||
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
Page 3 of 4 Previous 1 2 [3] 4 Next |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
hundreds of South Park episodes online! | atomicbartbeans | AppleOutsider | 26 | 2006-06-18 18:18 |
Safari saves files as .txt | iCode | Genius Bar | 2 | 2006-01-17 14:46 |
Once again the Terminal saves the day. | Res | General Discussion | 1 | 2005-08-05 13:02 |
Once again, beer saves the day (merged) | Akumulator | AppleOutsider | 15 | 2005-01-31 01:41 |
This land is your land, this land is my land | psgamer0921 | AppleOutsider | 27 | 2004-07-17 00:56 |