Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The ambivalence of being an immigrant kid

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    I think you make your reference frame narrower than the problems require. Your reccommendations suffice to solve the minor issues, but do not (yet) adress the larger issues.
    Of course I use simple examples, they're more expedient at getting the idea across.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    In this case, Commander In Chief.
    I thought so; just wasn't sure.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    I don't think it does. Mainly, it would not work with crime that is not captured by law; i.e. highest level white collar schemes.

    I'd like to see you beat up an entire insurance company.
    When a company acts out illegal or unethical practices the entire company doesn't get punished. That is to say, John Doe working in IT doesn't get thrown in jail or sued because the company is dumping toxic waste. The dumpers go to jail and the CEOs pay fines, typically speaking. My idea of harsh punishment, in such a case, would be to strip the CEO of their shares and other assets within the company and sell them to fund the clean up. Then, determine how much profit they personally made from the illegal activity for as long as it can be proven that they've been doing it and give them a fine of no less than double that amount. Then force them to participate in the clean up until the job is done. And anytime they balk at the task, allow a member of the public who's been adversely affected by the illegal dumping to publicly cane them. BUT once their sentence is done, leave them alone. Don't hang their past over their head. So while, yes, I used simple crimes as an example, it can be adapted to fit more complex crimes.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    So far, governments are the only entities running global drone assassination programs, so ... yes, the same governments.
    OTOH, no, I don't want to have governments allocate everything.
    Are you sure?

    That's like saying, "We have to make sure everyone has the same quality house to keep them from trying to break in."
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Exactly. Now you're getting it.
    Sounds awfully diverse and interesting. Let's all give all of our money to our global government so they can give us all our...
    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Is it worse than leaving it all to Google and Facebook?
    Given the evidence at hand one could be forgiven for coming to that conclusion.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Nah, that just goes to the scope of the perspective.
    Wrt, economic class, I am of yeoman stock fairy recently urbanized, at present definitely 'lowest lower middle'/ 'upper lower' class, struggling to stay above the hurdle of involuntary proletarization
    I'm more or less the same.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    Sry, I didn't mean to mock it, at least not any more than to score debate points.
    Like I said above, ordinary "policing" (official or 'vigilante') can deal with ordinary "visible", i.e. petty, crime, but is not really effective against high level inefficiencies.
    I classify these as crimes based on the roughly commonsensical view that virtue is doing good/creating utility, individually and socially, and crime is doing bad/creating inutility, individually and socially; trying to keep away from too idealistic or moralistic definitions. In that sense, I see e.g. shady financial dealings as crime, no matter the various legal conditions in various countries; the same goes for ruthless pursuit of profit at all costs and above any other consideration, and so on with wrongdoing of a systemic nature. This would of course also include such acts as and when committed by governments, if that can be of reassurance.
    I believe this is where we diverge. Keeping to your "shady financial dealings", you consider this to be a crime in and of itself (or seem to at least). I only consider it to be a crime if a law was broken or, if the dealing was of a heinous, grievous, or egregious enough nature to warrant making such an action illegal. Although, if it wasn't illegal to begin with I would allow a lighter sentence on the person vs someone who comes along later and does it when it's already been made illegal.

    Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
    If that's all you care about, your fate may be grizly.
    It's not that it's all I care about, I'm just a somewhat austere person with little tolerance for excuses.

    "Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life. I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well." Theodore Roosevelt

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JamesNunya View Post
      Of course I use simple examples, they're more expedient at getting the idea across.
      Not when the question is how to deal with complex issues.

      When a company acts out illegal or unethical practices the entire company doesn't get punished. That is to say, John Doe working in IT doesn't get thrown in jail or sued because the company is dumping toxic waste. The dumpers go to jail and the CEOs pay fines, typically speaking. My idea of harsh punishment, in such a case, would be to strip the CEO of their shares and other assets within the company and sell them to fund the clean up. Then, determine how much profit they personally made from the illegal activity for as long as it can be proven that they've been doing it and give them a fine of no less than double that amount. Then force them to participate in the clean up until the job is done. And anytime they balk at the task, allow a member of the public who's been adversely affected by the illegal dumping to publicly cane them. BUT once their sentence is done, leave them alone. Don't hang their past over their head. So while, yes, I used simple crimes as an example, it can be adapted to fit more complex crimes.
      The whole Idea of USA is predicated on the Men of the Day recognizing that the state in the hand of an absolute king is nothing more than a mobster racket.
      The Mob has been with us since the Zigguraths of Sumer, farming the people, only sometimes in a toga, sometimes in a knight's attire, and today in a pinstripe suit and tie.
      My problem with your model is that the present laws are written by the mob. I want an end to the mobster rule, so that everyone everywhere can have a decent livelihood.

      Are you sure?
      Totes. I'm an anarchist.
      But before we enter Candyland, the law is the only power that can curb harmful practices. The law needs organization to be upheld; at present, that organization is a government.
      So we have to make sure that the govt. is of the people, for the people and by the people.

      I believe this is where we diverge. Keeping to your "shady financial dealings", you consider this to be a crime in and of itself (or seem to at least). I only consider it to be a crime if a law was broken or, if the dealing was of a heinous, grievous, or egregious enough nature to warrant making such an action illegal. Although, if it wasn't illegal to begin with I would allow a lighter sentence on the person vs someone who comes along later and does it when it's already been made illegal.
      The old Romans made their state work with 12 laws; but they also conceded that this would only work as long as people had "fides", i.e. "good faith", i.e. regulated their actions with the intent that they should contribute to uphold the law.
      Today there is little fides, and less and less the higher up you go. Why else would tax loophole theory be taught at prestigious law schools? The business sector is trying to find a way around the law wherever it can, thereby undermining both the law in itself and also the faith in the law as the supreme instrument of a people governing itself.
      Unfortunately, one can't make "lack of fides", in itself, illegal; that would lead to abomination. But one could certainly go further in both regulation and legislation than what is done today, after the republican juggernaut has demolished a lot of checks and balances in the business sector.


      "Nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain, difficulty… I have never in my life envied a human being who led an easy life.
      I have envied a great many people who led difficult lives and led them well." Theodore Roosevelt
      Interesting. I live an exceedingly, perhaps excessively easy life. Let me tell you, sometimes it's rather hard going, all this ease.

      M

      Comment

      Working...
      X