3 ms·

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

jeffbee 2y ago
This is paraphrased unironically right there in the majority opinion. "The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status."
- pandaman 2y ago
  Yes. Why do many people quote it as if something profound here (there are at least half a dozen of instances of this quote by different authors and some just repeat it in multiple threads)? This is the essential rule of law: nobody is above it. It appears that people posting this quote believe that the law should be different for different people? I mean, the original author was a monarchist and did not believe a democracy was good or just so it makes sense. Are people repeating this also all monarchists who believe the law for different classes should be different or just made up by the Crown for each situation?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - underlipton 2y ago
    Because a hypothetical opposite - “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to use money to improve their dwelling, to purchase unnecessary luxury goods, and to pay for basic goods a rate commensurate with their means” - does not exist. The laws that "nobody is above" punish poverty, but not wealth. That's the distinction.
    - pandaman 2y ago
      From what I could understand from your message, you are saying that the law is designed to punish poverty and the actual actions (loitering, theft and harassment) are just excuses? E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people? Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone, rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine children toys and a rich person tent blocking right of way is an amusement to marvel at?
      - underlipton 2y ago
        >E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people? Yes. That's called gentrification. And they don't limit themselves to parks; they'll happily go after your property - not through purchase at a fair price, but through legal maneuvers and political influence that aren't available to people of lesser means. And this is arguably more destructive to the fabric of the existing community than a few tents (whatever you might think of what replaces it). >Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone, Well, that of their dogs. >rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine They get around this by doing blow instead. >and a rich person tent blocking right of way is an amusement to marvel at? Every oversized SUV built in the past 2 decades.
        pandaman 2y ago
        >Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs. Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs? >They get around this by doing blow instead. You completely lost me. Are you just playing associations and type whatever first comes into your head? Good luck with that.
        underlipton 2y ago
        >So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. If you don't have the imagination to understand how gentrification could be considered the rich-person equivalent of camping in public places, in that both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities, there might not be any reason to continue this conversation. >You completely lost me. That much is clear. You seem to be trying really hard to avoid understanding the fairly basic and simple notion that equality under the law is unequal when the laws themselves are. The moral virtue of subjecting everyone to the same standards is undermined by those standards being shaped to punish the likely (immoral) behavior of one group while ignoring the likely (immoral) behavior of another. The only way around this is assuming that rich people just don't do immoral things, which beggars the question; rich people use their money to cast their immoral behavior as moral (or at least amoral). So you end up with this argument, where I say, "Here are the bad things rich people do that are analogous to bad things that poor people do," and you respond, confused, "But those things rich people do aren't all that bad." They'd gotten to you before you'd even known it.
    - johngladtj 2y ago
      Except all you need to do is look at the tax code and see that is untrue.
      - underlipton 2y ago
        Not really. Though it would be interesting to see a progressive, wealth-based sales tax implemented, it surely does not exist.

jeffbee 2y ago

This is paraphrased unironically right there in the majority opinion. "The public-camping laws prohibit actions undertaken by any person, regardless of status."

pandaman 2y ago
Yes. Why do many people quote it as if something profound here (there are at least half a dozen of instances of this quote by different authors and some just repeat it in multiple threads)? This is the essential rule of law: nobody is above it. It appears that people posting this quote believe that the law should be different for different people? I mean, the original author was a monarchist and did not believe a democracy was good or just so it makes sense. Are people repeating this also all monarchists who believe the law for different classes should be different or just made up by the Crown for each situation?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- underlipton 2y ago
  Because a hypothetical opposite - “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to use money to improve their dwelling, to purchase unnecessary luxury goods, and to pay for basic goods a rate commensurate with their means” - does not exist. The laws that "nobody is above" punish poverty, but not wealth. That's the distinction.
  - pandaman 2y ago
    From what I could understand from your message, you are saying that the law is designed to punish poverty and the actual actions (loitering, theft and harassment) are just excuses? E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people? Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone, rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine children toys and a rich person tent blocking right of way is an amusement to marvel at?
    - underlipton 2y ago
      >E.g. in the topical case, people would be fine with the encampments on the streets and in the parks if they consisted of rich people? Yes. That's called gentrification. And they don't limit themselves to parks; they'll happily go after your property - not through purchase at a fair price, but through legal maneuvers and political influence that aren't available to people of lesser means. And this is arguably more destructive to the fabric of the existing community than a few tents (whatever you might think of what replaces it). >Like rich person shit on one's lawn won't bother anyone, Well, that of their dogs. >rich people's blood encrusted needles are fine They get around this by doing blow instead. >and a rich person tent blocking right of way is an amusement to marvel at? Every oversized SUV built in the past 2 decades.
      - pandaman 2y ago
        >Yes. That's called gentrification. No, not really. Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. >Well, that of their dogs. Well, I am talking about human shit specifically but homeless have dogs too. So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? In the same universe where gentrification is when rich people camp on the streets and pass out from drugs? >They get around this by doing blow instead. You completely lost me. Are you just playing associations and type whatever first comes into your head? Good luck with that.
        underlipton 2y ago
        >So people are not bothered with rich people's dog shit? People can't afford to be bothered by rich people's dog shit (which is as bad as people shit, for all intents and purposes), because that would involve passing laws to fine rich people above the "cost of doing business" line and/or taking them to court, both of which are quite expensive ventures. >Gentrification is not rich people camping on the streets and parks, look it up. If you don't have the imagination to understand how gentrification could be considered the rich-person equivalent of camping in public places, in that both corrupt existing urban streetscapes to the best of their respective financial abilities, there might not be any reason to continue this conversation. >You completely lost me. That much is clear. You seem to be trying really hard to avoid understanding the fairly basic and simple notion that equality under the law is unequal when the laws themselves are. The moral virtue of subjecting everyone to the same standards is undermined by those standards being shaped to punish the likely (immoral) behavior of one group while ignoring the likely (immoral) behavior of another. The only way around this is assuming that rich people just don't do immoral things, which beggars the question; rich people use their money to cast their immoral behavior as moral (or at least amoral). So you end up with this argument, where I say, "Here are the bad things rich people do that are analogous to bad things that poor people do," and you respond, confused, "But those things rich people do aren't all that bad." They'd gotten to you before you'd even known it.
  - johngladtj 2y ago
    Except all you need to do is look at the tax code and see that is untrue.
    - underlipton 2y ago
      Not really. Though it would be interesting to see a progressive, wealth-based sales tax implemented, it surely does not exist.