231
A judge has ordered New York City to rip up the 31st Street protected bike lane in Astoria. This is entirely unprecedented. (nyc.streetsblog.org)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 11 months ago (24 children)

Is that what you really want? More people acting like Donald Trump?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 44 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    No want to fight against fascism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Yeah, sure, fascism bad, however, I’m not sure that, in this case, a bit of judicial assholery is tantamount to fascism. This decision can be appealed and possibly reversed by a higher court.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Looks like the judge is reversing it based on nothing but carbrain, calling the bike lane "arbitrary" and "capricious". Looks like this whole court is out of order.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    The key words I pick out are “in violation of lawful procedure”. I don’t like this choice either, but it looks like the city took a shortcut

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Ah I didn't see that part, thank you.

    Yeah the judge doesn't sound so wrong any more.

    I guess it depends on if DOT actually violated the law or the judge is ruling on a stretch. I wish had more details.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I’m pretty sure there’s gonna be an appeal. The judge gave 30 days before the order must be executed. He also denied all of the other claims.

    This is not a ruling that should be difficult to get reversed on appeal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    What about this is fascist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Public funding was used as directed by public officials to build public infrastructure. A judge orders it torn up with no legal basis, attempting to circumvent not only the will of the people, but the law.

    It's certainly not democratic

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

    Morally you're right of course. Everyone should follow laws and procedures. Even when others don't. No disagreement.

    But there is a line from the first Foundation book. I'll paraphrase: Don't let your sense of morality stop you from doing the right thing.

    When you're playing against a cheater. You'll follow the rules every time, and loose every time. Which is fine in a game. Especially when you know someone is inforcing the rules and the cheater will be stopped. But when when actual lives are on the line? And the ref is the one cheating? Going against your moral code to do the right thing, becomes the moral thing to do.

    That's what RobbinHood was all about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (7 children)

    Laws are not moral. It is absolutely not morally correct to blindly follow laws and adhere to bureaucracy.

    It is "unlawful" for the hungry to take bread from a store while that same store throws away tons of perfectly good bread annually because they didn't sell it by some arbitrarily set date. How is that morally correct to allow bread to be thrown away instead of simply letting the hungry have food?

    There is NOTHING moral about laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Laws are a governments attempt to codify it's peoples aggregate morality into something enforceable. Something more than just an individuals own judgement.

    Without laws society would be governed by the whims of the most powerful individuals. The existence of laws themselves, are a moral stance against Might Makes Right. So following the law is a moral rule, of it's own.

    Stealing (taking something that doesn't belong to you) is immoral. So is failing to give something you don't need, to someone who will die without it. The times when moral rules come into conflict, are exactly the moments I'm talking about when I say "Don't let your morality get in the way of doing what's right." You can't follow two contradictory rules. So you have to choose what action, in that individual moment, will lead to the best outcome.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    As an anarchist I firmly disagree with this entire premise.

    We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people as dictated by the hierarchy that "rule of law" and the capitalist system creates. Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone "beneath" them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment. The rule of law is literally "might makes right", you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.

    Stealing food from a corporate entity is 100% a morally correct action. Stealing itself is an action that cannot be morally judged without understanding the socioeconomic circumstances behind why someone would feel they need to steal in the first place.

    Following the law has nothing to do with morality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    I'm assuming you're referring to the US when you say "We literally live in a society governed by the whims most powerful people..." That part is true. But the most powerful people get there, largely by breaking the law, trusting it won't be enforced; Even when it is, the punishment won't really matter.

    Rule of law got its beginning in the whims of kings deciding that everyone “beneath” them on the social hierarchy should follow their rule or be subject to punishment.

    No actually. The "Rule of Law", replaced the "Rule of The King". Meaning instead of The King being the ultimate authority, The Law is ultimate authority. Prior to The Law, The King made rules, but those weren't Laws. You may be making a bit of an equivocation fallacy here.

    The rule of law is literally “might makes right”, you either listen to the authority of those at the top of the hierarchy or they will send the state dogs (the police) to force you into obedience.

    No That's the Rule of The King again.
    The Rule of The King by the way, is the natural consequence of anarchy.

    And none of what you wrote directly disagrees with what I wrote.
    You think it does, due in part to the misconception or Rule and Law I just tried to explain.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    "hierarchy of kings is the consequences of anarchy, a political system devoted to the abolition of hierarchy"

    Do you really not understand how stupid you sound?

    "Rule of Law replaced Rule of Kings"

    Do you not know the phrase "the king's word is law"? You have literally zero clue what you're talking about and just spouting bullshit. Literally, zero clue if you believe that the decrees of kings weren't laws. The only difference is who held authority to dictate laws, going from kings to a body of elected representatives.

    You just don't get it and I don't have the time to explain anarchism to you and the evolution of hierarchical governments. You're just heavily misinformed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Who are you quoting?
    Are you replying to the right comment?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I just can't with stupid people. Piss off.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I'm asking because you quoted a statement with the phrase hierarchy of kings. But I never used that phrase, so I'm not sure who you're quoting.

    I would say calling anarchy a Political System, is something like calling a blank canvas a painting.
    Anarchy is the absence of a system. Once a system is in place, there's no longer anarchy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent