4 ms·

This is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. It has always been about who can afford better law

This is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. It has always been about who can afford better lawyers, who can win the war of attrition, and a whole lot of luck along the way. Quite a few articles have showed up on HN the past week that reinforce this.

zimpenfish 6y ago
I think, generally, the people saying that are the ones who have the advantage when it comes to court battles...
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Some thoughts attributed to ca. 600 BC: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0063:chapter=5&highlight=laws http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:20...
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    Ha, perfect, thanks.
WJW 6y ago
Fighting battles through protests seems like it is mainly a case of who can afford better PR companies, win the war of attrition and has a whole lot of luck along the way. In addition, at least with a court case you can be sure public opinion doesn't just forget about it in a few months and moves on to the next hot item to protest.
- me_me_me 6y ago
  Yeah, cuz that how every social change occurred in the world. Via two people talking in the room... Give me a break, legal system never changes itself. From Ghandi, Bolshevik revolution, Solidarity, French revolution to MLK. Change only occurs due to mass civil dissonance or armed revolutions. Never because you talk in a court and all people in power agreed you make sense.
  - WJW 6y ago
    You're arguing a different point than I made. Legal systems are as averse to change as the large masses of society (ie very averse). They do move eventually btw, but it's more on the scale of decades than months. What I was getting at is that protesting is not a very reliable way to effect change either. The "other side" of any protest is also trying to change the narrative and can often just wait out the protests. Look at how the various Occupy movements eventually dissolved after a few months because they weren't getting anywhere. Even the "main" camp (if one can talk about such a thing with Occupy) was eventually cleared by the police and didn't bother reforming somewhere else anymore. The gilets jaunes in France are currently experiencing the same problem. I'd be quite interested in a way to reliably bring about societal change in a reasonable amount of time and in a morally defensible way, but I have not found any yet. Since philosophers have been debating this since the days of the ancient Greeks I'm a bit doubtful that this is the time when we'll finally figure it out.
    - shirakawasuna 6y ago
      Protesting is very effective when you do actual direct action and civil disobedience. Americans have gotten used to running ignorable police-sanctioned parades and calling them protests.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  The court case is capital fighting capital. If it's the government, then it's the public's capital vs. private capital. The government is often at a disadvantage in this situation due to conflicts of interest and concerns over funds, as private capital is often far richer than anything the government can put forward. Proper protests etc. are direct action by the people against capital. There are still disadvantages, but they can be drowned out by simple numbers.
autisticcurio 6y ago
If the system was honest, everyone would be taught at least the basics about law, medicine and finance, but you dont, you get taught enough to be a slave.
- dqpb 6y ago
  Everyone should teach themselves the basics of law, medicine, finance. Its easy to start. Just pick up some textbooks.
  - autisticcurio 6y ago
    You have no authority with your opinion though if you are not qualified. The exam process doesnt give your papers back to check your results against the text books and what the teachers have stated, so using science and previous observations going back at least 12,000years namely the various religions invented over time, people in authority can reinforce their positions by making sure trouble makers fail even as kids.
  - calvano915 6y ago
    Unfortunately knowledge alone does not equal access to mechanisms of these disciplines. Without wealth, good luck using your law or medical knowledge to improve your situation aside from preventative measures. However, if knowledge is all you got, it's better than nothing at all and puts you ahead of many who won't be bothered.
    - dqpb 6y ago
      I disagree. Knowledge is the great equalizer. You can't buy knowledge with money.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  They are taught - they just don't pay attention or remember the "boring stuff we will never use" and then after going with the flow for decades with no forward thinking look for somebody to blame for their own failures. Seriously, all of those who goofed off in home ec and math complaining years later that they don't know how to cook or balance a checkbook. The immediate resources were often subpar I will admit but don't say you weren't taught.
unishark 6y ago
> This is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. Sounds like it was worded wrong (depending what you mean by "protests"). "fight your battles in the courts" is generally a statement about non-violence, meant to suggest metaphorical fighting in courts instead of actual violence.

zimpenfish 6y ago

I think, generally, the people saying that are the ones who have the advantage when it comes to court battles...

082349872349872 6y ago
Some thoughts attributed to ca. 600 BC: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:2008.01.0063:chapter=5&highlight=laws http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:20...
- zimpenfish 6y ago
  Ha, perfect, thanks.

WJW 6y ago

Fighting battles through protests seems like it is mainly a case of who can afford better PR companies, win the war of attrition and has a whole lot of luck along the way. In addition, at least with a court case you can be sure public opinion doesn't just forget about it in a few months and moves on to the next hot item to protest.

me_me_me 6y ago
Yeah, cuz that how every social change occurred in the world. Via two people talking in the room... Give me a break, legal system never changes itself. From Ghandi, Bolshevik revolution, Solidarity, French revolution to MLK. Change only occurs due to mass civil dissonance or armed revolutions. Never because you talk in a court and all people in power agreed you make sense.
- WJW 6y ago
  You're arguing a different point than I made. Legal systems are as averse to change as the large masses of society (ie very averse). They do move eventually btw, but it's more on the scale of decades than months. What I was getting at is that protesting is not a very reliable way to effect change either. The "other side" of any protest is also trying to change the narrative and can often just wait out the protests. Look at how the various Occupy movements eventually dissolved after a few months because they weren't getting anywhere. Even the "main" camp (if one can talk about such a thing with Occupy) was eventually cleared by the police and didn't bother reforming somewhere else anymore. The gilets jaunes in France are currently experiencing the same problem. I'd be quite interested in a way to reliably bring about societal change in a reasonable amount of time and in a morally defensible way, but I have not found any yet. Since philosophers have been debating this since the days of the ancient Greeks I'm a bit doubtful that this is the time when we'll finally figure it out.
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    Protesting is very effective when you do actual direct action and civil disobedience. Americans have gotten used to running ignorable police-sanctioned parades and calling them protests.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
shirakawasuna 6y ago
The court case is capital fighting capital. If it's the government, then it's the public's capital vs. private capital. The government is often at a disadvantage in this situation due to conflicts of interest and concerns over funds, as private capital is often far richer than anything the government can put forward. Proper protests etc. are direct action by the people against capital. There are still disadvantages, but they can be drowned out by simple numbers.

autisticcurio 6y ago

If the system was honest, everyone would be taught at least the basics about law, medicine and finance, but you dont, you get taught enough to be a slave.

dqpb 6y ago
Everyone should teach themselves the basics of law, medicine, finance. Its easy to start. Just pick up some textbooks.
- autisticcurio 6y ago
  You have no authority with your opinion though if you are not qualified. The exam process doesnt give your papers back to check your results against the text books and what the teachers have stated, so using science and previous observations going back at least 12,000years namely the various religions invented over time, people in authority can reinforce their positions by making sure trouble makers fail even as kids.
- calvano915 6y ago
  Unfortunately knowledge alone does not equal access to mechanisms of these disciplines. Without wealth, good luck using your law or medical knowledge to improve your situation aside from preventative measures. However, if knowledge is all you got, it's better than nothing at all and puts you ahead of many who won't be bothered.
  - dqpb 6y ago
    I disagree. Knowledge is the great equalizer. You can't buy knowledge with money.
Nasrudith 6y ago
They are taught - they just don't pay attention or remember the "boring stuff we will never use" and then after going with the flow for decades with no forward thinking look for somebody to blame for their own failures. Seriously, all of those who goofed off in home ec and math complaining years later that they don't know how to cook or balance a checkbook. The immediate resources were often subpar I will admit but don't say you weren't taught.

unishark 6y ago

> This is why I am puzzled when people say 'you should fight your battles in the courts, not through protests'. Sounds like it was worded wrong (depending what you mean by "protests"). "fight your battles in the courts" is generally a statement about non-violence, meant to suggest metaphorical fighting in courts instead of actual violence.