Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Murder by Proxy

Login or register to post comments Last Post 4763 reads   17 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 17 total)
  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 06:04am

    #1
    Headless

    Headless

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 28 2008

    Posts: 157

    count placeholder

    Murder by Proxy

Karl Denninger gives Obama a little advice regarding the "First Hundred Days"; for example,

"Immediately investigate Hank Paulson, focusing on his 2000 and 2004 "requests" to remove leverage limits and his firm shorting the bonds they were selling to investors,,,

"Each and every individual and firm involved in the blatant, rampant fraud that allowed the housing and mortgage bubble to occur needs to be prosecuted.  No exceptions.  Since this will involve locking up tens of thousands of people, including mortgage brokers, realtors, appraisers and bankers, and we seem to be a bit short on jail space, I recommend commuting the sentences of and releasing all non-violent "consensual adult" drug offenders.  That should create plenty of room for the new inmates."

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/701-To-Obama-Your-First-100-Days.html

I would add one consequence to Karl’s Wonderful World of Whoop Ass; that being:

Murder by Proxy: Any defendant who participated in and is found guilty of any financial fraud which is found to have contributed to a disturbed state of mind which resulted in violent actions being perpetrated by the victim of said financial fraud upon self or any other person, shall be held liable for the ultimate results of such violent acts. For example, if a person has suffered a loss (job or investments) that led to a state of despair and hopelessness such that, ultimately, he or she committed suicide or slaughtered his or her extended family at a Christmas party, for example, the perp that inflicted the financial fraud upon the originally innocent victim shall be charged with Murder by Proxy, not to be confused with Negligent Homicide, which does not allow the appropriate punishment; that is to say, "capital" crime, capital punishment!

If this sounds nuts, you’re not paying attention to the real damage these lesser humans are really causing! Tonight, while you are reading this, some few of our American brothers and sisters will kill themselves or someone else because his or her future has been stolen by a thief on Wall Street.

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 08:55am

    #2

    jrf29

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2008

    Posts: 166

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

This is silly nonsense.  First of all, the president has no authority to commute the sentence of anybody unless they are serving time in a federal prison.  Commuting the sentences of everybody serving time for "consensual drug offenses" would require the cooperation of the governors of the several states.  I bring this up only because it is an important part of the system of checks and balances between federal and state authority.

Second, murder is prosecuted by state authorities.  The President wouldn’t have anything to do with it.  To give the federal government power to prosecute for common murders would be a dangerous and unconstitutional transfer of power to the central government.

Third, I would not want to live in a world where the president himself can dream up new crimes, such as "murder by proxy for bankers," and then start sentencing people to death by firing squad without proving such things as "criminal intent."  As much satisfaction as it might give you to see such boundless and draconian authority exercised briefly against the bankers and mortgage brokers, it wouldn’t be long before such capricious authority would be turned against the people.

In the words of James Madison, "Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.  Grant no power to government that you would not wish your worst enemies to wield against you."

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 12:52pm

    #3
    MarkM

    MarkM

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 22 2008

    Posts: 356

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

[quote=jrf29]

 To give the federal government power to prosecute for common murders would be a dangerous and unconstitutional transfer of power to the central government.

[/quote]

There have been so many unconstitutional acts recently that I can’t keep track.  What is one more?

Apparently, our government does not need to be "granted" anything.  They seem to take what they want.

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 04:50pm

    #4
    Headless

    Headless

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 28 2008

    Posts: 157

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

jrf29 said:

"This is silly nonsense.  First of all, the president has no authority…it is an important part of the system of checks and balances between federal and state authority… dangerous and unconstitutional transfer of power to the central government… I would not want to live in a world where the president himself can dream up new crimes, such as "murder by proxy for bankers…"

jrf29,

You also called such a proposal "draconian."  That, "draconian," and "silly" are the two words that you leave me with…

How about a country where you are condemned to poverty by working hard and saving harder your whole life?

How about a country that allows companies to "go public" by selling hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock, though those "companies" have neither a product, a profit, nor a predictable path to profitablility? Poof!

How about a country where a credit card company can charge you 39% if you’re late on a payment?

How about a country that can send your son or daughter to fight and be killed or maimed in a pre-emptive war?

How about a country where as you save X% each month toward the down payment on a house, the required down payment increases 2X% due to policies that are implemented by a private for-profit arm of your government? (I say this in regards to those who held themselves to a standard though no one else would–during the inflating of the bubble. They are out there; they are now angry.)

How about a country where a single CEO’s yearly take is more than all the Senators, Congressman, and Governors of the states combined?

How about a country where the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, in his last year of employment, made more than all the soldiers fighting in Afghanistan?

How about a country where "the money that is spent each day [on the war in Iraq] could pay to put 39,904 students through four years at a state college"? 

Draconian? Silly? As I have no plan to perpetrate financial fraud against the Great People that, for the time being, are the only redeeming remnant of what once was, I’ll take my chances with such "draconian" measures as actually holding someone responsible for the true results of their actions. To do otherwise is just another case of failing to account for the true cost(the "externalities"), which is and has been the primary defining characteristic of American corporatism for the last 100 years.

Of course, I can see how a person would be opposed to a fair accounting if he or she were one of those who has been a part of the  Murder by Proxy of the American Family…

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 05:01pm

    #5

    ckessel

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Nov 12 2008

    Posts: 166

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

[quote=jrf29]

This is silly nonsense.  First of all, the president has no authority to commute the sentence of anybody unless they are serving time in a federal prison.  Commuting the sentences of everybody serving time for "consensual drug offenses" would require the cooperation of the governors of the several states.  I bring this up only because it is an important part of the system of checks and balances between federal and state authority.

Second, murder is prosecuted by state authorities.  The President wouldn’t have anything to do with it.  To give the federal government power to prosecute for common murders would be a dangerous and unconstitutional transfer of power to the central government.

[/quote]

jrf29,

The proposal would not only be appropriate but would be extremely easy to accomplish. Simply require the states to prosecute the offenders as a requirement of receiving any of the bailout or subsidy monies heading there way.

Coop

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 05:59pm

    #6
    Futuo

    Futuo

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 16 2008

    Posts: 131

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

I wrote up a two page word document in response, but I won’t be posting it – I want to try to keep things concise, and unemotional. 

 

Really, no agreement with jrf29? That is very scary. This "murder by proxy" brings to mind a rather horrible part of history, the Reign of Terror. 

Nonzeroone, what you said in response to jrf29 makes absolutely no sense. 

"The two word you leave me with are draconian and silly…" (paraphrased)

Actually, he leaves you with 224 words. You decide to ignore 222 of them, to do exactly what the media does, exactly what ideologues whose only basis is raw emotion and vengeful charisma to accomplish their goals. You draw out two words, and then proceed to show that the country is already draconian and silly. Does that justify a draconian and silly response? Absolutely not! Really, you’re going to take the government that has the power to send kids to war, where the government spends all that money on Iraq, and now give them even more power to kill? 

That aside,  I’d liketo offer my opinion that this is one of those threads that:

a) Contributes nothing to the dialogue here (even if that were a brilliant idea, who would argue that that ought to be the central tenant of the Course?)

b) Can be considered anywhere from rude to extremely offensive to many individuals

c) Has the potential to blow up into an emotionally heated debate that would turn many people off from the site

d) And most importantly is in no appropriate way related to the 3 Es

Personally, I would take no issue with a moderator pulling this thread completely…

Chris says as his third point that we need "non status quo solutions" to these problems. I’d say lashing out in blind violence is a rather status quo solution, that wouldn’t even solve the problem[s]. Such a suggestion clearly shows naivete with regard to the Constitution, the efficacy (or lack thereof) of the death penalty, the justifications for punishment (namely deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, or incapacitation), the prosecution of murder, and the "goodness" of the government. You also display less than an elementary understanding of suicide. This is one of those unprincipled "policies" suggested by someone who just wants to get people riled up to action, without actually considering what they’re doing.

I sympathize with your concern. I don’t know if you heard about this, but i’m close friends with that man’s niece. I feel the crisis, and I know those who have committed suicide because of it. That being said, I strongly disagree with you. Shouldn’t we also hold college professors responsible, for it is they who teach all these professionals to do these jobs? And then the universities for allowing such classes and majors to exist? And how about all the donors to said universities? You know, I think anyone who invests should also be prosecuted, because those people support the institutions that give these people the money to continue their horribleness. In fact, we should prosecute the whole country for being lazy and complacent, and fostering an environment that lets this happen. Look at your logic. You’re just taking someone many despise, and coming up with a justification to kill them. That, or you actually care about those being hurt, and don’t know how to go about preventing suicide. Whether it’s ignorance or malintent, I must respectfully disagree. I share your concern for this issue, but really, killing tens of thousands of people is never the solution. 

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 06:39pm

    #7

    Moderator Jason

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 23 2008

    Posts: 24

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

We’re considering whether or not to delete this forum thread.  If it were to blow up into a mess of vile recriminations, that would make it certain.  Any other comments on the matter of deletion are welcome.

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 07:19pm

    #8
    SamLinder

    SamLinder

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jul 10 2008

    Posts: 289

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

[quote=Moderator Jason]We’re currently considering whether or not to delete this forum thread.  If it were to blow up into a mess of vile recriminations, that would make it certain.  Any other comments on the matter of deletion are welcome.
[/quote]

While I sympathize with Nonzeroone’s frustrations, I also agree with Futuo’s response.

Make this one vote in favor of deleting this forum thread.

Sam….

 

 

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 07:43pm

    #9
    Headless

    Headless

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Oct 28 2008

    Posts: 157

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

Futuo,

You said (among other things): "I’d say lashing out in blind violence is a rather status quo solution, that wouldn’t even solve the problem[s]."

My advocacy of an extention of liability via Murder by Proxy actually is not "lashing out in violence," it is a legislative solution (a deterrent for one of the problems, where there is no effective detterent now), and it is not far removed from existing legal remedies–it’s just that we have never had a level of corruption like that which now pervades the Wall Street-Governmental Complex such that "product liability" laws would be applicable to transactions which the vast majority of Americans have to participate in just to go about their daily financial lives; what father or mother, when being coached on all sides by previously "reliable" and official sources of information, when buying a house that had doubled in price over the previous 5 years, a house which they were told would only continue to appreciate, could imagine that suicide would be the most compelling solution to his or her problems 2 years later (because, as it turned out, many links in the "chain" that they had relied on were actually criminal organizations–or organizations which exploited existing legal frameworks such that the effect was a theft of the entire net worth of the buyer)?

Other "solutions" have been proposed, and are continually re-proposed (more regulation, less regulation). What we need is an overhall of the legal system; as Fernando DeSoto said, "Your legal system that creates trust among each other has collapsed."

If you haven’t seen this, it’s an hour well spent; it directly addresses solutions to the current sacking of the middle class.

http://fora.tv/2008/10/20/Naomi_Klein_and_Joseph_Stiglitz_on_Economic_Power (and Fernando DeSoto: http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/2701)

This thread directly attacks the problem as it exists (with an admittedly extreme proposal). Is it a real proposal? Yes, in that it offers a remedy that is commesurate with the actual results of certain behaviors. Is it realistic? No. Not yet. But these are no ordinary times, and product liability laws might find new applications and require harsher consequences. If not applied retroactively, then as a post-hoc, proactive solution that would deter future miscreants… There are countries that have laws that eliminate problems (Saudi Arabia); there are countries that support family structure such that there is almost no crime (Japan and South Korea). There is America, the new "banana republic," which does…?

 

 

  • Sun, Dec 28, 2008 - 08:31pm

    #10

    jrf29

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 18 2008

    Posts: 166

    count placeholder

    Re: Murder by Proxy

[quote=Nonzeroone] This thread directly attacks the problem as it exists (with an
admittedly extreme proposal). Is it a real proposal? Yes, in that it
offers a remedy that is commesurate with the actual results of certain
behaviors. Is it realistic? No. Not yet. [/quote]

Scary.  And how, exactly, would you overhaul the legal system to make convictions under these new laws possible? I am interested to hear what kind of kangaroo courts would return convictions on these statutes.  What about the constitutional guarantee of protection from ex post facto laws, whereby a person is punished for an act that was not illegal at the time they committed it?  That protection would have to be abolished.  Don’t you think it would be nice to continue to enjoy that protection yourself? Or do you place such ultimate faith in our various legislative bodies not to use that dangerous power against you in the future?

[quote=Nonzeroone] what father or mother, when being coached on all sides by previously
"reliable" and official sources of information, when buying a house
that had doubled in price over the previous 5 years, a house which they
were told would only continue to appreciate, could imagine that suicide
would be the most compelling solution to his or her problems 2 years
later [/quote]

Nonzeroone, you are treating the entire population of the United States as though they are mentally deficient, helpless waifs who are not responsible for any of their own actions.  If I decide to murder a person because I’ve just lost my house, I’d say that was my decision, wouldn’t you?  You’re extending the culture of victimhood beyond what the slimiest personal-injury lawyers ever dreamed was possible. 

And what about the consumers who lied on their loan applications, intentionally lied about their incomes and assets, in an apparent attempt to defraud the bank?  Should they be charged with murder as well?  Aren’t they responsible for the downfall of the system?  If they had not defaulted on their loans, the system would not have collapsed.  Indeed, the entire banking system was based on trust—trust that these people would pay back the money that was lent to them, by terms they agreed to in writing.  By failing to pay back what wasn’t theirs to begin with, and by stupidly agreeing to repayment terms that anybody could see were beyond their means, they caused all the carnage! 

So you see: things can be twisted around and presented in such a way as to make almost anybody appear to be at fault for anything.  Where does it all end?

That is why, after the brutal Middle Ages, the courts came up with the doctrine of "criminal intent", and mens rea, to stop the futile retaliatory butchery that had gone on for so long.  A person cannot be held in criminal liability unless they commit a criminal act knowingly, and with criminal intent, no matter what the statute says. 

Thus, even though you might pass a statute which provides for the punishments you outline, and even though you might get prosecutors to file cases against the bankers, unless you could prove that they had specific and malicious intent to cause murder to be committed, they could not be convicted.  Indeed, not without an overhaul of the most basic principals of our ancient common law, handed down from hundreds of years ago, and born of bitter struggle and brutal lessons learned the hard way by our own ancestors.

Do you want to throw that all away?  Just to obtain revenge on the bankers who believed, as much as anybody else, that property values would continue to rise?  And what kind of a world would we live in after all the entire judicial system had been torn down?  Nay.  People with ideas such as yours are very, very dangerous.  They would destroy the entire flower of civilization, and send us all back to the dark ages permanently, just so they might punish a banker. 

If we lived in the world you imagine, we would not have to worry about loans and loan applications.  There would be no banks, and no commerce.  There would be only hateful barbarism.

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 17 total)

Login or Register to post comments