Why Batman is Secretly Terrible for Gotham.

[Set Harth]

That's how he can say the social contract is dissolved. Because the key players of the Gotham City government, including the City Council, D.A.'s office, and the Police Department, were under the thumb of organized crime -- either through bribery or through fear and intimidation.

Not to mention a judge.

 

[Sci]

Is that really any different than, say, how the people in Tehrir Square decided that their government no longer functioned?

...



I would hope we can all appreciate the difference between an individual deciding the social contract is flawed and will work individually against it and a mass protest movement intended to enact positive change.

From a purely legalistic, pro-Establishment standpoint, there really isn't any difference except in numbers. One guy taking the law into his own hands vs. a bunch of guys taking the law into their own hands.

From another POV, though, the only substantive difference is that Batman is hoping to inspire the sort of widespread social change that something like Tehrir Square represents through his individual example. Indeed, in The Dark Knight, he was considering retiring as Batman because he felt that the election of Harvey Dent represented a fundamental change in the Gotham political culture -- the ascendency of honest leaders and the restoration of the people's faith in their social contract. This changed, of course, once the Joker emerged to dominate the remainder of the organized crime syndicates and used their influence to create widespread social unrest, and the Gotham government again proved incapable of responding to the threat by itself.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Bruce is breaking the law and justifying it by saying he's saving lives. But, even justifiable homicide still needs to be investigated after it occurs, to make sure it actually WAS justifiable. You can't just shoot someone, say it was justifiable and go home. There's an investigation. Which, AS SEEN IN THE FILM, never happens with the Batman.

Where is his witness statement? Where is the trial? Where is the investigation?

Does Batman think he's above the law? I think so.

But in the case of the one person I remember him actually killing (Dent), Batman's not trying to write it off as justifiable homicide and pretend he's above the law/ system. He's letting everyone think that he is a murderer .....

Ah, what a great way to detract from his other crimes... to pretend to be a murderer. But than the truth....

Wayne Enterprises had not been made public at that point in Batman Begins. At the time that Lucius provided Bruce with the Tumbler and the other pieces of technology, Wayne Enterprises was still a sole proprietorship owned by Bruce Wayne. They were, in fact, his.

Point taken. Though afterwards...even if he did own a majority, he still has taken the equipment without the knowledge or permission of the other shareholders. He, at least, should have taken it up for a vote.

No. If, in his capacity as owner of Wayne Enterprises before it became a public company, he chose to transfer ownership of the Tumbler and other equipment from Wayne Enterprises to himself in his capacity as a private citizen, it is not the right of the new shareholders to question or reverse his distribution of his own property prior to the company going public.

THAT is even worse. If he did it in SECRET, removing ASSETS from the company? He's, in secret, devaluing the company. The market and he said the shares are worth a certain price because Wayne Enterprises have STUFF... so people bought the shares. But, oh, no, Bruce has gone and taken some of those assets AWAY, without telling anyone... making the company actually LESS valuable than it was... without telling anyone.

It's like buying a fully equipped car for X price, and then when you get it, find out the radio is missing.

Sounds like fraud to me. Add that to Bruce's crimes.

If someone came after him to stop HIS violence, would he allow himself to be put under arrest, or just decide that other person is a "villain?"

Well, this hasn't happened in the Nolanverse. But in the DC Comics Universe, when Superman did it, he evaded Superman before eventually persuading him that they were on the same side.

At least Superman had authority GRANTED to him by an elected official. Sort of made sheriff. The President can't help it if he gave that authority to some demi-god half wit.

But, how could he possible argue the social contract is dissolved? There's a mayor. There's police.

Remember that scene in Batman Begins where Carmine Falconi pulls a gun on him in a restaurant, and he points to all the members of the City Council and police officers and union officials nearby, and he declares that he wouldn't have any problems killing Bruce right in front of them?

So, the Social Contract remains in place ONLY if there is ZERO corruption?

Sounds like the Social Contract in America has been dissolved for some time. Excuse me while I get my body armor and baseball bat....

That's how he can say the social contract is dissolved. Because the key players of the Gotham City government, including the City Council, D.A.'s office, and the Police Department, were under the thumb of organized crime -- either through bribery or through fear and intimidation. Simply put, the government of the City of Gotham was, by that point, little more in reality than just another front for the Mafia.

Not by the time of The Dark Knight--if we're talking just the movie. The Mayor, The DA's office, and The Commissioner, pre-Gordon, didn't seem to be under the thumb of organized crime.

Was the Contract reinstated?

Speaking of which, does Bruce get to decide when the contract is back in place?

I like how this thread has become the video in text form.

Is that really any different than, say, how the people in Tehrir Square decided that their government no longer functioned?

...



I would hope we can all appreciate the difference between an individual deciding the social contract is flawed and will work individually against it and a mass protest movement intended to enact positive change.

EXACTLY. ONE man gets to decide when the Social Contract is void? That sounds quite dangerous.

I should try. Alright, everyone: The Social Contract is void. Anarchy is running rampant. Get to your Batcaves.

Anyone? Anyone?

No. Because it's madness to let one man say it's void.

 

[Trekker4747]

Harvey Dent pretty much outlines this in TDK where he Gotham's citizens, politicians and police had all "elected" Batman as their savior (citing practices in Ancient Rome) through the corruption and indifference everyone had to what was becoming of Gotham. So, again as Harvey said, Batman stood up to clean-up Gotham mostly because no one else was doing anything about anything going on in the city, the police force was too far corrupted by the mob.

Is what Batman is doing right? That's a tough call to make and what he's doing is certainly illegal in many, many ways from his professional life, to his personal life, to local, state and even federal laws, hell in TDK he even breaks international law!

But he's doing it for a "greater good" and I think it'd actually be interesting to see a Batman story where Batman takes his penance for what he has done, Gotham is finally "cleaned up", crime is as at more acceptable levels, the corruption is removed from the government and the law enforcement and the citizenry are re-empowered to prevent Gotham from falling again.

What would really show whether or not Batman is "good" for Gotham or not is what he does then. Does he do what Caesar did and not relinquish his "power" back to the citizens and continues to rule over Gotham with an iron fist and now turning to litters and jaywalkers? Or does he relinquish his power, step-out, and allow society and law to do what the see his fit for Batman to serve his penance? Or does Batman simply "go away" never to be seen or heard from again?

I think that would make for an interesting story but not likely one to be seen in the movies and the various cartoons and comics (which I've not read in ages so maybe they've done something like this) are more interested in keeping stories going so making Batman's goals get reached would sort-of end any future story-telling.

Batman is "good" for Gotham because he's doing what no one else in the city is doing, as Soren Bowie says, if it were not for Batman Gotham would be a crater or at the very least in much worse shape than it is with Batman around, but at the same time Batman is "bad" for Gotham because his acts in someways entice the criminals (the events of the mob and The Joker in TDK would have never happened if Batman had just stopped the water/nuke plot thing in the previous movie and let Gotham go on as the mob would have remained mostly in power and never needed to hide their money or hire The Joker for his "help.") but mostly because of his breaking of laws, destruction of property and use of public-traded company possessions (if Wayne Enterprises is, indeed, still publicly traded in the movies.)

It remains to be seen if the events in the next movie are either the next thing caused because of Batman's being around or if they occur as just a natural rising of the already existing crime.

 

[Kegg]

From a purely legalistic, pro-Establishment standpoint, there really isn't any difference except in numbers.

Except one was a largely peaceful protest and the other is a basically violent (if conveinently casualty-lacking) anti-crime spree.

No, it's not even legally much like Tahrir Square. Vigilante fantasies and political action against kleptocracies are not synonymous.

From another POV, though, the only substantive difference is that Batman is hoping to inspire the sort of widespread social change that something like Tehrir Square represents through his individual example.

There are numerous substantive differences. One off the top of my head - Batman's problem is confined to a city which is part of a broader nation state, while Tahrir Square focused its ire very much on President Mubarak. Batman's target is first and foremost a criminal underground and state actors are tangential; the problem with them mostly being the extent to which they are corrupted by the criminal underground.

Further there is no interest in legislative change - Batman does not want to revise America's constitution or otherwise alter the principles of the social contract. Batman's issue is more that the social contract is in his eyes contamined in Gotham and honoured more in the breach than the observance.

 

[Showdown]

Harvey Dent pretty much outlines this in TDK where he Gotham's citizens, politicians and police had all "elected" Batman as their savior (citing practices in Ancient Rome) through the corruption and indifference everyone had to what was becoming of Gotham. So, again as Harvey said, Batman stood up to clean-up Gotham mostly because no one else was doing anything about anything going on in the city, the police force was too far corrupted by the mob.

Is what Batman is doing right? That's a tough call to make and what he's doing is certainly illegal in many, many ways from his professional life, to his personal life, to local, state and even federal laws, hell in TDK he even breaks international law!

But he's doing it for a "greater good" and I think it'd actually be interesting to see a Batman story where Batman takes his penance for what he has done, Gotham is finally "cleaned up", crime is as at more acceptable levels, the corruption is removed from the government and the law enforcement and the citizenry are re-empowered to prevent Gotham from falling again.

What would really show whether or not Batman is "good" for Gotham or not is what he does then. Does he do what Caesar did and not relinquish his "power" back to the citizens and continues to rule over Gotham with an iron fist and now turning to litters and jaywalkers? Or does he relinquish his power, step-out, and allow society and law to do what the see his fit for Batman to serve his penance? Or does Batman simply "go away" never to be seen or heard from again?

I think that would make for an interesting story but not likely one to be seen in the movies and the various cartoons and comics (which I've not read in ages so maybe they've done something like this) are more interested in keeping stories going so making Batman's goals get reached would sort-of end any future story-telling.

I think Batman would just quit and walk away. He seems ready and willing during TDK. I don't think many people get Bruce, but Harvey does. He realize that Batman doesnt want to be Batman forever.

 

[Bob Karo]

Well, Batman did save reality. I think that outweighs the bad he's done.