The degree to which many centrist-liberals complain about the student protests is directly proportional to how seriously they take the overwhelming violence against Palestinians in Gaza. There is a lot of noise about the "violence" of occupying private property, or of disrupting a campus, which elides the underlying belief: That what is happening in Gaza doesn't really bother them a whole lot.
It's a lot of obfuscation to cover up the cynical position of "I can't lose this argument because if I'm wrong then I'm guilty of supporting monstrous things, and that makes me uncomfortable".
Your previous article about young morality and old morality is of course relevant here. The clarity of young morality can easily penetrate the written chaff being thrown up in defense of university administrations and the police response.
I am wondering. Can we find ways of institutionalizing humility? Maybe we could invent some rituals where those in power appear on TV and humble themselves? This sounds ridiculous but if we take it as a metaphor one could perhaps fill it in with meaningful proposals ...
A certain contingent within our political leadership especially is incapable of feeling shame. All you'd get is a PERFORMANCE of 'shame', but they'd never actually feel it...
What we NEED is an organization of journalists and sleuths tasked with vetting democratic candidates before they run for office...I could TOTALLY get behind a gofundme funded organization like that. As the republican brand continues to sour we should expect to see a LOT more Trojan Horse infiltrations from RW trash...Good vetting would have kept that fucking turncoat freak Tricia Cotham from handing the Rs a supermajority in NC...And perhaps could have saved us from Sinema
By the way, do you know Nomic by Peter Suber, a game with rules to change rules? http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set ... I once played this in class with my students and keep thinking that there is more to learn from this ... if you have any ideas on this I'd be interested.
On this May Day, I'd like to also suggest slipping ol' Hamilton here $6/month or something via patreon. Hamilton was just here in the Twin Cities meeting with SEIU, Trader Joe workers, hanging at the East Side Freedom Library and the Black Hart of Saint Paul... The dude walks the walk. Support him. In solidarity~~ Joel
Here is something completely unsurprising. On Monday night, I attended an event to celebrate 30 years of democracy in South Africa. There were many distinguished guests and honorees, most of them South Africans or longtime allies in the struggle, including leaders from many of the labor unions that stood in solidarity with the ANC at a critical time. Also, Eric Adams showed up.
The mayor marched on stage, congratulated the audience for the election of “an African” (him) as mayor of “the greatest city in the world” (New York.) While he blundered his way through a three minute speech about how swagger ended apartheid, his army of pigs was uptown beating and arresting the closest thing we have to heirs of the movement leaders in that room.
I really hope he got booed and/or heckled. Adams is somehow the worse mayor NYC has ever had (at least from the outside looking in) and he faced some real stiff competition.
Thank you so much for this. As our kids face Israeli trained militarized police forces as they try to peacefully protest an ongoing genocide — and get brutalized, I cannot help but wonder how anyone with children can stand or allow this. How long until someone is killed? These are our kids and our future, fighting for justice in our world. Your brilliant articulation of rules versus reality captures the human problem that is rampant in every organization, religion, home, or human space — how to navigate freedom, life, and change. On top of humility, I would add dignity, as the cost of this authoritarian display is also human dignity as seen in these horrific crackdowns.
This rationale is extremely sound. Rules and regulations should constantly be reviewed and revised as needed. A society where the rules made by a few can affect a giant swath of people, without leniency or reprisal for special circumstance, isn’t very democratic. Just the part where we don’t make our own rules is undemocratic enough.
Great article. I think your way of going step by step through the philosophy of having rules in the first place is hard to contest with. I will share your piece and see what people have to say.
Aside from being profoundly good, it just made me feel better that, yes, there ARE people in the world who get it. There ARE people who see these protests for what they really are and why they’re happening, and it feels like not enough people around me do. It’s crushing, but this helps a lot. Thank you.
Thanks, Hamilton. Very persuasive piece, leading from a philosophical dissection of "rules" to challenging opposition to rules breaking protests opposing U.S. support for Israel's murder of Palestinians. Happy one year anniversary! Happy May Day!
"The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely." The words of Sir Thomas More in the play "A Man For All Seasons". In the same play, the same character has this to say about the Devil: "I would give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
The story of Thomas More, who was the most senior lawyer in England at one time, is instructive. He opposed the divorce of Henry VIII and the split with the Church of Rome. He believed - and he was right - that if he neither signed the Act of Allegiance nor expressly refused to sign it, he would commit no blasphemy to God and no treason to the King. It was a matter on which More's life depended, and he sought refuge in the law for his protection. And then they changed the law. More was tried and his head cut off.
It is not rare to encounter judgments and statutes of a contradictory nature or indeed of a pernicious nature. When policy is thwarted by the judiciary's interpretation of the law, executive powers bent on their policy will simply enact new laws (the case of Rwanda as a destination for refugees in the UK is a blatant one). So, the English Act of Settlement of 1534, whilst egregious in its design and its effect, does not stand alone as a device of policy, more terrible than the rack with which More was threatened at the Tower.
"This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's. If you cut them down (to get after the devil), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" More's tragedy is, not only did the law get changed, but it was the Devil himself who changed it, and on that he had never bargained.
In modern times, if injustice resides in the space between rules and the real world, what matters is not the space, for what rules will always do is create an opportunity for injustice - your own argument, in fact. What policy must do is create bridges across that space, which allow the rule, the space and the citizen to coexist in a manner that respects the rule whilst acknowledging its inherent inflexibility. Because a flexible rule is a double-edged rubber billy club: it gives the reasonable the agility to tread softly; and it gives the hard task-master legitimacy to be the Devil. Many modern criminal statutes are less directed at a specific mischief but are far more designed as a tool to prosecute seemingly whoever the authorities don't like, at whatever moment they don't like them.
When the law does not protect us from Devils, but becomes the tool of Devils, the options become few. More was resigned to his fate, because his belief in God led him down a truer causeway than the law of the land had. It's a sorry sight to be martyred for a rule. But, he who adapts to one bad rule by accepting an injustice does not allay the injustice, but simply invites a worse one.
The degree to which many centrist-liberals complain about the student protests is directly proportional to how seriously they take the overwhelming violence against Palestinians in Gaza. There is a lot of noise about the "violence" of occupying private property, or of disrupting a campus, which elides the underlying belief: That what is happening in Gaza doesn't really bother them a whole lot.
It's a lot of obfuscation to cover up the cynical position of "I can't lose this argument because if I'm wrong then I'm guilty of supporting monstrous things, and that makes me uncomfortable".
Your previous article about young morality and old morality is of course relevant here. The clarity of young morality can easily penetrate the written chaff being thrown up in defense of university administrations and the police response.
"the most valuable quality in someone charged with enforcing rules is humility"
I like that.
I am wondering. Can we find ways of institutionalizing humility? Maybe we could invent some rituals where those in power appear on TV and humble themselves? This sounds ridiculous but if we take it as a metaphor one could perhaps fill it in with meaningful proposals ...
A certain contingent within our political leadership especially is incapable of feeling shame. All you'd get is a PERFORMANCE of 'shame', but they'd never actually feel it...
What we NEED is an organization of journalists and sleuths tasked with vetting democratic candidates before they run for office...I could TOTALLY get behind a gofundme funded organization like that. As the republican brand continues to sour we should expect to see a LOT more Trojan Horse infiltrations from RW trash...Good vetting would have kept that fucking turncoat freak Tricia Cotham from handing the Rs a supermajority in NC...And perhaps could have saved us from Sinema
By the way, do you know Nomic by Peter Suber, a game with rules to change rules? http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/nomic.htm#initial%20set ... I once played this in class with my students and keep thinking that there is more to learn from this ... if you have any ideas on this I'd be interested.
"Rules protect the world the way it is. Therefore it is impossible to change the world without breaking the rules"
That's goddamn brilliant...civil disobedience as moral imperative
Happy one year anniversary of How Things Work!
On this May Day, I'd like to also suggest slipping ol' Hamilton here $6/month or something via patreon. Hamilton was just here in the Twin Cities meeting with SEIU, Trader Joe workers, hanging at the East Side Freedom Library and the Black Hart of Saint Paul... The dude walks the walk. Support him. In solidarity~~ Joel
Here is something completely unsurprising. On Monday night, I attended an event to celebrate 30 years of democracy in South Africa. There were many distinguished guests and honorees, most of them South Africans or longtime allies in the struggle, including leaders from many of the labor unions that stood in solidarity with the ANC at a critical time. Also, Eric Adams showed up.
The mayor marched on stage, congratulated the audience for the election of “an African” (him) as mayor of “the greatest city in the world” (New York.) While he blundered his way through a three minute speech about how swagger ended apartheid, his army of pigs was uptown beating and arresting the closest thing we have to heirs of the movement leaders in that room.
I really hope he got booed and/or heckled. Adams is somehow the worse mayor NYC has ever had (at least from the outside looking in) and he faced some real stiff competition.
Over & over & over . . . Hamilton nails it every freaking time.
Thank you so much for this. As our kids face Israeli trained militarized police forces as they try to peacefully protest an ongoing genocide — and get brutalized, I cannot help but wonder how anyone with children can stand or allow this. How long until someone is killed? These are our kids and our future, fighting for justice in our world. Your brilliant articulation of rules versus reality captures the human problem that is rampant in every organization, religion, home, or human space — how to navigate freedom, life, and change. On top of humility, I would add dignity, as the cost of this authoritarian display is also human dignity as seen in these horrific crackdowns.
This rationale is extremely sound. Rules and regulations should constantly be reviewed and revised as needed. A society where the rules made by a few can affect a giant swath of people, without leniency or reprisal for special circumstance, isn’t very democratic. Just the part where we don’t make our own rules is undemocratic enough.
Great article. I think your way of going step by step through the philosophy of having rules in the first place is hard to contest with. I will share your piece and see what people have to say.
Incisive and insightful as always. Congratulations on your year anniversary. Here’s to many more years to come.
This is lovely. Thank you
Aside from being profoundly good, it just made me feel better that, yes, there ARE people in the world who get it. There ARE people who see these protests for what they really are and why they’re happening, and it feels like not enough people around me do. It’s crushing, but this helps a lot. Thank you.
This is an absolutely brilliant piece of writing.
this is a brilliant essay. there should be a rule that forces politicians and policemen to read it!
Thanks, Hamilton. Very persuasive piece, leading from a philosophical dissection of "rules" to challenging opposition to rules breaking protests opposing U.S. support for Israel's murder of Palestinians. Happy one year anniversary! Happy May Day!
Thank you Bob! Fight the power.
Thank you for this.
"The law is a causeway upon which, so long as he keeps to it, a citizen may walk safely." The words of Sir Thomas More in the play "A Man For All Seasons". In the same play, the same character has this to say about the Devil: "I would give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
The story of Thomas More, who was the most senior lawyer in England at one time, is instructive. He opposed the divorce of Henry VIII and the split with the Church of Rome. He believed - and he was right - that if he neither signed the Act of Allegiance nor expressly refused to sign it, he would commit no blasphemy to God and no treason to the King. It was a matter on which More's life depended, and he sought refuge in the law for his protection. And then they changed the law. More was tried and his head cut off.
It is not rare to encounter judgments and statutes of a contradictory nature or indeed of a pernicious nature. When policy is thwarted by the judiciary's interpretation of the law, executive powers bent on their policy will simply enact new laws (the case of Rwanda as a destination for refugees in the UK is a blatant one). So, the English Act of Settlement of 1534, whilst egregious in its design and its effect, does not stand alone as a device of policy, more terrible than the rack with which More was threatened at the Tower.
"This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's. If you cut them down (to get after the devil), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?" More's tragedy is, not only did the law get changed, but it was the Devil himself who changed it, and on that he had never bargained.
In modern times, if injustice resides in the space between rules and the real world, what matters is not the space, for what rules will always do is create an opportunity for injustice - your own argument, in fact. What policy must do is create bridges across that space, which allow the rule, the space and the citizen to coexist in a manner that respects the rule whilst acknowledging its inherent inflexibility. Because a flexible rule is a double-edged rubber billy club: it gives the reasonable the agility to tread softly; and it gives the hard task-master legitimacy to be the Devil. Many modern criminal statutes are less directed at a specific mischief but are far more designed as a tool to prosecute seemingly whoever the authorities don't like, at whatever moment they don't like them.
When the law does not protect us from Devils, but becomes the tool of Devils, the options become few. More was resigned to his fate, because his belief in God led him down a truer causeway than the law of the land had. It's a sorry sight to be martyred for a rule. But, he who adapts to one bad rule by accepting an injustice does not allay the injustice, but simply invites a worse one.