Murder by Proxy
I agree with jrf, again. You could not implement this without violation of the ex post facto principle, among others. Like srlinder, i sympathize with your frustrations, but there are no reasonable responses to jrf29’s first three points, nor to these others he adds. It is an issue that needs redress, but this response is dangerous.
Also, just because it’s legislated does not mean it’s just, does not mean it isn’t lashing out in violence…i’m sure you’ve heard of men like Robespierre and Hitler before, and are familiar with their stories.
You said: "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?"
Actually–and this is addressed to you also, Futuo, with regards to me not addressing jrf29’s "first three points"–I an not in the slightest worried about states’ rights and the limits of Executive authority et al, because I know there is no possible legislative path forward with regards to Murder by Proxy or even "locking up tens of thousands of people, including mortgage brokers, realtors, appraisers and bankers…."
And I do make the distinction between "fraud" and "total lack of common or ethical sense." One you should be jailed for; the other, voted off the island (publically exposed as having profited off of others’ tragedy). How about a new reality show where the links in the chain are exposed; we could call it: Survive These Greedy #&%@s!
What inspired me to make the point was the fact that there is a connection between the fraud and the destroyed or ended lives. It’s there. I’m sure millions of people across America that have been a part of this system would rather not hear that; we can all keep our observations of reality to ourselves and not mention them in polite company, and thus enable further denial–or obfuscation. That’s not one of the keystones needed to construct a wall of deterence.
You also said: "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."
Actually I do believe that those who can think clearly need to protect those who rely on those who think clearly from those who think criminally. In fact, an entire population has proven itself in need of protection: "Buy and hold"; "Housing prices have never fallen, nationally"; "There is a new financial paradigm"; "Sign here."
We wouldn’t be here, Chris Martenson.com wouldn’t exist, and we wouldn’t need a coda of law if everyone were equally informed and capable of being informed, and thus responsible for their own actions. The problem is that there is some small percentage of the population whose personal needs render them functionally insane with respect to being a positive consituent in society; a great many "average" Americans can’t even imagine the mind of a Madoff, and surely don’t expect to meet one who is extending a contract and a pen on what should be one of the happiest days of their lives…
If I can’t have Murder by Proxy, how about acknowledging that the system is broken and there are some sick (as in greedy to the point of being socially insane) people out there that need to be guarded against and dealt with.
[quote=Nonzeroone] If I can’t have Murder by Proxy, how about acknowledging that the
system is broken and there are some sick (as in greedy to the point of
being socially insane) people out there that need to be guarded against
and dealt with. [/quote]
If you put it like that, I’m right there with you, Nonzeroone.
Why is it you want to kill all the CEOs and bankers and let the politicians who encouraged all this to go free? This mess has political roots in the belief of many politicians that everyone should have a house, car, medical insurance, and so on. When bankers have quotas set by the government on how many low income mortgages there should be, it is not just the financial sector that is to blame. Furthermore, the SIV type stuff consisting of lumping good and bad mortgages together and then selling them was a ploy encouraged by the fed, treasury, and Congress to spread the risk of millions of bad mortgages around among investors world wide.
There seems to be a tendency to call this kind of fraud ‘Capitalism’. A capitalist is an ethical person who produces a good or service and sells it in the open market to other capitalists on a voluntary basis trading value for value. Trading trash SIVs to investors as AAA, BBB, BB, etc when they know that there is no way to tell if any of the vehicle is BB let alone AAA amounts to fraud. Please do not call capitalists crooks, crooks are crooks. There are two kinds of business types out there, the producers and the looters. When you see someone producing a product or service and getting paid by someone else for them, that is capitalism. When you see people trading in paper of unknown origin, selling it to people in exchange for their savings knowing that it can never be paid back, and using this trade to leverage their take by doing it over and over again to line their pockets with the money created by the fraud, then you know that they are looters no matter who they claim to be. Bernake and Paulson are the aids and partners of the looters furnishing them ever more loot out of the public treasury and stifling legitimate production and service enterprises.
A capitalist is the owner of the bakery that produces your bread, the farmer who produces ag products for use by other capitalists for production food products. The person who trades in contracts on that production can be either a capitalist or looter depending upon how he operates. If he sells grain futures to a farmer who wants to be sure of receiving X dollars a bushel for his corn and let the trader take the risk of the corn not reaching that price or even exceeding it, he is a capitalist. If he is a trader who sells thousands of contracts of corn short to drive down the price of corn so that he can cheat the farmer out of his profits, he is a looter. A farmer is a looter if he takes government subsidies for producing nothing. Where subsidies are concerned, are the politicians who pass the appropriations for this loot not looters also? If a person hires a contractor to treat his house for insect infestation and the contractor succeeds and charges a fair price, the service is capitalistic. If the contractor sprays with water and pretends to provide the service, he is a looter. All I am saying is that you need to be sure that it is the looters that you go after. There were many bankers who did not get involved in the subprime fraud and who are now being asked to compete with those who did with money extorted from their banks and the public. Who is the capitalist and who the looter? The actions of our government at present are focused on helping the looters at the expense of the producers, and this is the tragedy of our current situation. In the end analysis, it is the government that is mainly at fault, since it trades not in goods or services, but in favors and pull.
This thread is a good example of why I am paying money to subscribe to this site. I wold suggest for consideration that threads that are found potentially offensive NOT be deleted, but instead placed in a section of the subscribers only forum so subscribers can look at the them. That way, nearly all the concerns of Chris will be addressed as far as people coming to the site and being turned off, as the "offensive" threads will be in a section you must be to access, yet the valuable dialogue and discussion will not be removed. It is precisely threads like this, that start off in a somewhat inflammatory way, that can yield excellent discussion.
And, I will submit for the moderator’s consideration, the valuable discussion occurred mostly after the moderator post about deleting the thread. Yes, that may have changed the tone of discussion but it also shows the excellent thought provoking material may have never have been if the thread had been deleted.
Finally, to pwoody82:
Agreed on a true Capitalist! Adam Smith’s book"Theory of Moral Sentiments", written before "The Wealth of Nations" provides the underpinning for moral actions and explanations of motives. All, whether capitalist or not, I think Smith would concur, should strive for moral and ethical dealings with others.
I don’t want to kill anyone (but if, realizing what damage they had done, they decided to kill themselves, no problem). I think at least a couple of you that have posted here don’t understand the concept of "by proxy."
I agree with you on: "Why…let the politicians who encouraged all this to go free?"
It’s a collage of guilt. In my opinion the real problem is the sometimes utter lack of perspective on the part of those who have and are profiting from others’ tragedy. Many people have experienced the "silver spoons’" and their complete inability to empathize due to having no conception of anything other than their spoon-fed lives; they are the kind that look at a homeless person laying along the side of the road and say: "Jeezuz. Just get a job you loser." That’s it. They don’t need to go any further. They’ve never "been anywhere" that would inform them of the multitudinous reasons that that man is where he is. And the average silver spoon will have forgotten about that man by the time the rear wheels of the car pass the worn-through soles of his dirty shoes. Most of us who come from middle-class backgrounds and ended up at good colleges know how differently these people understand the world. I know a few very well from my years in a fraternity.
I guess you can’t legislate "perspective"; and frankly, from my experience, most of the silver spoons that have made it to puberty are write-offs; they will never understand. Whatever the solution is, it has be maleable enough to bend around them as they continue to stand self-righteously in the way, spitting out their "Free market," "personal freedom at all costs" one liner fixes that they assure us "would work if you idiots would just leave things alone and quit whining."
P.S. Larry Kudlow is the quintessential example of America via Free Spoon-ism; the fact that such a damaging message as his is still allowed to be broadcast to millions (after 12? years of inflicting damage on middle Americans) proves that those in control of the media have one goal in mind: to fuc* you! Larry Kudlow’s continued existence on the airways of American television is not a small part of why I am renouncing my American citizenship. 조심해요!
[quote=Septimus] And, I will submit for the moderator’s consideration, the valuable
discussion occurred mostly after the moderator post about deleting the
thread. Yes, that may have changed the tone of discussion but it also
shows the excellent thought provoking material may have never have been
if the thread had been deleted. [/quote]
I agree. This thread is an example of vigorous and intelligent conversation developing from a potentially explosive subject. I am glad that the thread didn’t have to be deleted. We will always try to use deletion sparingly, recognizing that any post can be of value if it is capable of catalyzing intelligent thought.