[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 You keep saying the "harm he did was minimal" but I'm not sure that's a fact, and it seems more like your own subjective analysis.

Information about the whole affair is limited, at this point, no one in this thread(including you) has any clear idea about specifics like this. I have read in the few articles about the event, that damage was in fact minimal, that the group 'hurt' at all was the auction group, and even then, not very much. So, however you or I feel about it, is whatever, the limited information that exists leans that way however.

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.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 You keep saying the "harm he did was minimal" but I'm not sure that's a fact, and it seems more like your own subjective analysis. Beyond that, it's not a big leap from doing what this kid did -- a clever yet simple fraud -- to some deep-pocketed environmental groups forming LLCs with a couple million in the bank for "show" purposes, and then making the same type of sham bids to effect the same result. My point is the same one I was trying to make with my "365 rabid environmentalists in NYC" example above: There's always a next guy willing to do the same thing, or even a little more. If this kid gets let off, you can be sure it will inspire copycat efforts elsewhere, in this and other contexts.

It is my own subjective analysis: you are absolutely correct. If it turns out that people were seriously harmed, I'll reconsider.

So the rest of your argument is that we are on a slippery slope, correct?

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Wrao 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.

And if we can't find a book to throw, then throw this copy of Vogue at him!

[apple007]

Originally Posted by torifile As Brad said, you asked me my opinion. If you don't care to hear it, don't ask me for it. Who said anything about environmentalists in your scenario? You were asking about a hypothetical scenario unrelated to the thread and I responded to it. So, what about the fact that I'd take steps to schedule only legit people for intakes? I believe in personal responsibility and taking care of oneself. The people who put this auction on didn't and it's their own damned fault for getting played. Should the taxpayers foot the bill for their incompetence in taking appropriate measures to prevent this alleged fraud? Are you proposing that taxpayers should pay for others' incompetence?

I asked your opinion, in a rhetorical way, expecting you would give an honest reply. Saying, "Oh, gee, that wouldn't be fraud, and it would have been my own fault anyway," didn't strike me as much of an honest response.

Originally Posted by Wrao Information about the whole affair is limited, at this point, no one in this thread(including you) has any clear idea about specifics like this. I have read in the few articles about the event, that damage was in fact minimal, that the group 'hurt' at all was the auction group, and even then, not very much. So, however you or I feel about it, is whatever, the limited information that exists leans that way however. 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.

Perhaps true. But I'm not aware of any scenario in which intentionally bidding up a legal auction while having absolutely no means or intention of paying the "winning" bid is anything other than fraudulent. Whether it results in criminal charges or not is a separate matter, but fraud is fraud. (If I hop in the car and drive 75 mph in a 30-mph zone, I'm speeding whether a cop gives me a ticket or not, right?)

Originally Posted by zsummers It is my own subjective analysis: you are absolutely correct. If it turns out that people were seriously harmed, I'll reconsider. So the rest of your argument is that we are on a slippery slope, correct?

My main point is that we live in a nation of laws, and those laws should be either followed *or* attempted to be changed within legal means.

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.)

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 Perhaps true. But I'm not aware of any scenario in which intentionally bidding up a legal auction while having absolutely no means or intention of paying the "winning" bid is anything other than fraudulent. Whether it results in criminal charges or not is a separate matter, but fraud is fraud. (If I hop in the car and drive 75 mph in a 30-mph zone, I'm speeding whether a cop gives me a ticket or not, right?)

Conflating speeding with auction 'fraud' is a little silly. Traffic laws are probably the only area in our legal system that are clearly defined and right/wrong exists. Beyond that, everything is a spectrum, there is no only the question of what was done wrong, but how it was done, and to what severity were there any damages, as well as the personal history of those involved...etc...etc...etc.

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.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 My main point is that we live in a nation of laws, and those laws should be either followed *or* attempted to be changed within legal means. 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?

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Wrao Conflating speeding with auction 'fraud' is a little silly. Traffic laws are probably the only area in our legal system that are clearly defined and right/wrong exists. Beyond that, everything is a spectrum, there is no only the question of what was done wrong, but how it was done, and to what severity were there any damages, as well as the personal history of those involved...etc...etc...etc.

What's silly about it? It's a very simple concept. And traffic laws aren't any more "clearly-defined" with "right/wrong" than the concept of auction fraud. In fact, I'd say the latter is much more easily defined than the former.

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.

Originally Posted by Wrao 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.

Actually, it's up to a jury to decide. It's astonishing how many people here keep getting this concept wrong.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Wrao ... 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.

Did he try to get *this* auction delayed by legal means? No.

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.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 Did he try to get *this* auction delayed by legal means? No. 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.

Uh... what?

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 What's silly about it? It's a very simple concept. And traffic laws aren't any more "clearly-defined" with "right/wrong" than the concept of auction fraud. In fact, I'd say the latter is much more easily defined than the former. 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.

There is a clear measure for traffic violations. Numerically and otherwise. In both your examples a traffic law has been broken, regardless of whether or not it is enforced.

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.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Wrao Uh... what?

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Wrao Uh... what?

What part did you not understand?

This guy had a long list of legal options available to him, none of which he apparently pursued, and yet you and others are heralding his act of so-called "civil disobedience" as heroic. Seems like very faulty logic.

[torifile]

Originally Posted by apple007 What part did you not understand? This guy had a long list of legal options available to him, none of which he apparently pursued, and yet you and others are heralding his act of so-called "civil disobedience" as heroic. Seems like very faulty logic.

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.

[Wrao]

Originally Posted by apple007 What part did you not understand? This guy had a long list of legal options available to him, none of which he apparently pursued, and yet you and others are heralding his act of so-called "civil disobedience" as heroic. Seems like very faulty logic.

Well let's see. He showed up to the Auction house to protest, legally, the auction. He walked into the building to, again, legally, acquire some information about it, so that he could ostensibly, and legally, proceed to protest, legally the auction.

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Wrao There is a clear measure for traffic violations. Numerically and otherwise. In both your examples a traffic law has been broken, regardless of whether or not it is enforced. 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.

Wow. Just wow.

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?

Originally Posted by Maciej 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.

I was referring to the mentality rather than the specific actions. If you've been reading the other Prop 8 thread, it might make more sense. If it advances this discussion, I'll retract the Prop 8 comment, although I still feel it was valid in the context I made it.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by torifile 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.

Are you reading the same thread? Many of the others don't want him prosecuted at all, to the point they're claiming some new definition of the word "fraud."

Originally Posted by Wrao Well let's see. He showed up to the Auction house to protest, legally, the auction. He walked into the building to, again, legally, acquire some information about it, so that he could ostensibly, and legally, proceed to protest, legally the auction. 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.

Well, you can use the word "legally" a million times if you want, but the bottom line is, the guy knew he didn't have the money he was bidding to pay. That's fraud, plain and simple.

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.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 Did he try to get *this* auction delayed by legal means? No. 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.

This is a confusing statement. The auction kid should have pursued his remedies through the courts. The anti-Prop-8 folks are bad because they are pursuing recourse through the courts (and through public protest, by the way)? What the anti-Prop 8 folks are doing is the inverse of civil disobedience.

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?

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 Are you reading the same thread? Many of the others don't want him prosecuted at all, to the point they're claiming some new definition of the word "fraud." Well, you can use the word "legally" a million times if you want, but the bottom line is, the guy knew he didn't have the money he was bidding to pay. That's fraud, plain and simple. 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.

fraud: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain."

(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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by zsummers This is a confusing statement. The auction kid should have pursued his remedies through the courts. The anti-Prop-8 folks are bad because they are pursuing recourse through the courts (and through public protest, by the way)? What the anti-Prop 8 folks are doing is the inverse of civil disobedience. 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?

I already retracted the Prop 8 comment.

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by zsummers fraud: "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain." (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.

Perhaps right. But if I were this kid, I'd feel a lot better if the case didn't hinge on people being stupid enough to think he didn't know making bids he couldn't pay doesn't qualify as fraud, or that the fact he personally wanted the auction delayed or canceled didn't qualify as "personal gain" under the statute.

If a prosecutor can get the proverbial ham sandwich indicted, I suspect this guy is going to be someone's lunch.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by apple007 Can't read rhetorical questions much? I don't give a shit how 'torifile' defines the word "fraud." Does anyone doubt he wouldn't be as charitable if someone commits it, as per my example, against his firm, regardless of his protestations here to the contrary? Please. Give me a break.

I believe it is often left to the victim to decide whether or not to press charges, so what torifile thinks counts as fraud would be significant if someone booked fake appointments, etc. If he didn't feel it was fraud, he wouldn't press charges. Likewise, this auction house needs to decide if to press charges, and which one(s) they'd want to try.

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.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 I already retracted the Prop 8 comment. 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.

That it's more wrong to speed than to (allegedly) commit fraud is not what I said, and I think you know it. I said that by your logic (i.e., the logic of slippery slopes, which I personally think is as faulty as ad hominem arguments), allowing speeding to prevent a kidnapping starts you down a slippery slope--[puts on panicked voice] where do you draw the line?!? at kidnapping?!? at stopping a robbery?!? at getting your kid to school?!? [takes of panicked voice]. My point is merely that we are pretty good at drawing the line, and slippery slope arguments are almost always crap. They ignore society's ability to draw lines (and argue over just where to do it in a civil manner) and a slippery slope can be found in every situation where an exception is made--yet almost everyone agrees that exceptions should be made (as in your example).

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Swox I believe it is often left to the victim to decide whether or not to press charges, so what torifile thinks counts as fraud would be significant if someone booked fake appointments, etc. If he didn't feel it was fraud, he wouldn't press charges. Likewise, this auction house needs to decide if to press charges, and which one(s) they'd want to try. 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.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the definition of the word "fraud." If a person or firm is the victim of fraud and chooses not to seek prosecution, that's their business, but it doesn't change the fact that fraud has occurred.

Originally Posted by zsummers Secondly, civil disobedience only happens when there are no legal avenues for change? Are you going to stand by the statement? The entire civil rights movement was based on both legal and extra-legal means. And don't forget Gandhi was a lawyer.

Geez, talk about conflating issues. You're mentioning some kid who wants to "save" land in the same sentence as MLK and Gandhi?

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?

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the definition of the word "fraud." If a person or firm is the victim of fraud and chooses not to seek prosecution, that's their business, but it doesn't change the fact that fraud has occurred. Geez, talk about conflating issues. You're mentioning some kid who wants to "save" land in the same sentence as MLK and Gandhi? 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?

Sorry: did I miss my mention of that kid in that sentence? I was trying to define civil disobedience.

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."

[apple007]

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.

[Wrao]

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Wrao 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.

Sorry, still not buying. According to your post above, this was reviewed by the courts and they lost. If anyone who loses a court case can subsequently do whatever he wants to effect his own version of justice, we might as well do away with the notion of the U.S. being a nation of laws.

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.

[Swox]

Originally Posted by apple007 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.

Man, you haven't changed in your time off .

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.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by apple007 Sorry, still not buying. According to your post above, this was reviewed by the courts and they lost. If anyone who loses a court case can subsequently do whatever he wants to effect his own version of justice, we might as well do away with the notion of the U.S. being a nation of laws. 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.

apple07, you're making your arguments look suspect. You surely know that the movements led by MLK and Gandhi both were turned back by the legal system and other legal/democratic avenues repeatedly, and that--at least in MLK's case--some court cases were actually being won, even while civil disobedience was being pursued as an alternative option. If that means we've done "away with the notion of the U.S. being a nation of laws," then so be it. I was always under the impression it was a nation of individuals, anyways.

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.

[apple007]

Originally Posted by Swox Man, you haven't changed in your time off . 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.

Wait a minute ... Ted Turner buys a bunch of land precisely to make sure it doesn't get "violated" by capitalists, and that's bad? I don't see a whole lot of middle-class types running out to buy land with their spare cash rather than a new flat-screen TV.

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.

Originally Posted by zsummers apple07, you're making your arguments look ridiculous. You surely know that the movements led by MLK and Gandhi both were turned back by the legal system and other legal/democratic avenues repeatedly, and that--at least in MLK's case--some court cases were actually being won, even while civil disobedience was being pursued as an alternative option. If that means we've done "away with the notion of the U.S. being a nation of laws," then so be it. I was always under the impression it was a nation of individuals, anyways.

MLK and Gandhi were fighting for basic civil rights. Environmentalists are fighting to impose their world view on the property rights of others. Big difference.

Originally Posted by zsummers 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.

It wasn't civil disobedience at all, at least not in the modern context. Harriet Tubman flew under the radar -- "Underground Railroad" -- and certainly wasn't baiting the authorities into arresting or prosecuting her as a way to bring her issue into focus.

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.

Originally Posted by zsummers 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.

Total nonsense. I've stated and re-stated my positions quite clearly in this thread: The U.S. is a nation of laws. Allowing people to take the law into their own hands every time they disagree with something or dislike a couple court rulings is the express train to anarchy. Civil disobedience should be a last resort rather than the first or second option. Environmentalists have no right whatsoever to dictate or trample the private property rights of others, whether the "others" in question are Bob & Sally down the street or Uncle Sam.

Originally Posted by zsummers 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. ...

There you go again, mentioning this kid in the same sentence as MLK and Gandhi.

Originally Posted by zsummers 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--and less ridiculous.

I'm quite sure I've already stated my position re: the "right/wrong" question presented here. GWB was elected POTUS -- note to lefties: please spare us Round 73 of the he-stole-the-election bullshit, please -- and had the power to authorize this lease auction; a lease auction that apparently was not stopped by the courts. This kid deliberately made bids he had no ability or intention of paying, and that resulted in the auction being a waste of time and taxpayer money. End of story, AFAIC.

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.