Should the rich be better protected under law?

Final comment here...

In this case, the idea being forwarded is that wealth, or lack thereof, is something that somehow makes people different. It is applied the same way that we do politics... where we judge based on who someone voted for.

If someone got off from a crime because of the money they have, then there is a system and a judge that stand scrutiny first.

people are people and we are all imperfect. Some of us have more cash than the next but that makes us neither more or less than the guy/gal next to us. If the system fails us based on how much money a person has, it is not the person's fault... it is the system's.

That was what I was trying to say. That is what this story has overstepped along the way.

Have a nice day

redoubt

In this case, the idea being forwarded is that wealth, or lack thereof, is something that somehow makes people different.

Im not claiming that.

redoubt
If someone got off from a crime because of the money they have, then there is a system and a judge that stand scrutiny first.

Thats what im getting at. Is the system broken when scum like Ethan couch get a get out of jail free card because he is "to rich to know the consequences"?

redoubt
Some of us have more cash than the next but that makes us neither more or less than the guy/gal next to us.

Yup I agree. Which is why ones wealth should not be a factor in a crimnal court hearing.

redoubt
If the system fails us based on how much money a person has, it is not the person's fault... it is the system's.

And that really the heart of the thread. Is the system broken?

reply to post by Eryiedes


Scandinavian nations do not have socialism... They are simply successful examples of hybrid systems, where certain left-wing policies are mixed with right-wing policies.

Necessities, like health care and education, are kept out of the private hands. This is helping to keep the costs relatively low, as there are no middlemen. There is no way to keep the costs lower, when private industry exists, especially the insurance system. Every insurance salesman wants their salaries, shareholders want their profits etc. This does not keep the costs low, while in public system, the only real costs are equiment and the most necessary employees.

The low crime rates are vastly in correlation with the strong social system, culture plays role, but the social system plays even more. People do not even reach desperate situation enough to consider crime as a solution, as they/their parents have paid for the social security tax. Better education also leads to less bad decisions financially. The education systems are fairly strong as well as equal for everybody (whether poor or rich kid, the opportunities for the best education are the same, in Finland for example the academic difference between lowest and highest achieving schools is less than 5%, although schools do not compete, there are no ranking tables and schools co-operate with each other to achieve the best results for the nation).

At the end, the taxes might seem high, although if you consider what you receive for them - from strong education system to good healthcare, paid motherleave during the first years of child, low stress due to knowing whatever happens you are always secured. At the end the social benefits cost severely less than if exactly the same things were gotten from private companies (insurance, schools, healthcare etc)

Everything else is capitalism, if you want consumer iems, you need to buy from the private companies. You can start a company easily, possibly even more easily than in US. Innovation and entrepreneurship are highly promoted and valued. Economically these countries are considered stronger than US from better business environment to being innovative. Despite all the spending, the debt is significantly lower than in US in Scandinavian countries. People who work harder are rewarded for their hard work, just as in other countries. These countries are considered more democratic than US, their corruption is lower etc.

Neither extremes work well - socialism is about full equality, capitalism about inequality. In socialism, the capital is in the hands of the government, in capitalism it concentrates in the hands of a few of the strongest. In socialism the strongest lose, while weakest win - in capitalism the strongest win on the expense of the weakest. No extreme works well, the world is not black and white. A middle area exists and that is something Nordic countries have proven to be incredibly efficient, achieving one of the highest life standards in the world, being in the top of near to any (positive) ranking system, which compares different countries - freedom,democracy, prosperity, education, healthcare, peace, sustainability, economical competitiveness, innovation and so on.

reply to post by Eryiedes


Communism is the extreme form of socialism. The primary difference between socialism and communism is the acceptance of capitalism. Socialism allows for capitalism, Communism does not. In both cases, the means of production are centrally owned; however, in countries that are frequently a mixture of socialist/capitalist that control is selective and implemented in areas where it would have the most public benefit.

www.wisegeek.org...

We do actually already have socialistic/centralized ownership within the US. Our roads, our schools, our fire departments and more--those are all centrally controlled for the greater good as when they were not, travesties occurred. They used to be as much a part of the free market as any other thing. However, for schools, it led to gross inequity in education, loss of opportunity, and class stagnation--not good for the "land of opportunity" though even that has become a farce. For roads, the paying of tolls everywhere and the restriction of who could travel upon them also was determined to directly affect liberty and opportunity--hence the public ownership of roads around the beginning of the 20th century. And fire departments? Well, those used to be volunteer organizations that operated privately; however, things got really very out of hand due to competitiveness. Imagine a firefighter putting a barrel on a fire hydrant and sitting upon it while a house burns down behind him just so that their company and no other could be the ones to try to put it out. That actually happened along with fights in the streets between rival companies instead of fighting the fires that they arrived for. (Great read of firefighting history: mises.org...)

So the US has actually had socialist functions within it for a very long time. In fact, the first publicly funded municipal fire department formed in 1679--160 years before the Communist Manifesto was ever published. The idea that there are times at which the government needs to step in and take control of something previously privately run to assure the maximum public benefit has existed before Communism ever became a term.

reply to post by wildtimes


Because we've reached a point where the peoples of the world can no longer just sit idly within their respective borders.
If socialist countries are SO beneficial, then why don't they care about anything except themselves and their respective populations?
To me, it's the global equivalent of watching a car crash then not stopping to help out the survivors simply because no one in their own vehicle was injured.

I completely agree with the Iceland analogy but not the Canadian one...even if I'd like to.
Canada is sliding down the same slippery slope that Amerika is...just at a slower speed.
The only REAL difference between Canada and America right now is the perception of corruption but it has little bearing on the reality of said corruption.
(But you already know that!)

Appologies if I have caused thread drift.

-Peace-

reply to post by crazyewok


EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS CRUCIAL TO A FREE SOCIETY.

However, it's an ideal rarely approached in reality.

America has come closer than historic nations--particularly in some counties . . . at some points in time.

Today, we are as far from that as we've ever been and tyranny has never been more pervasive nor deeper within our borders than it is now . . . and it is advancing rapidly, massively, horribly . . .

The excesses and protected status of the globalist elite is just one . . . aspect . . . of the encroaching tyranny. . . . one horrific aspect.

However, they have been deluded that there is no God Almighty to hold them to account, ever.

They are most TERMINALLY WRONG as they will most shockingly discover, in due course.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


That's alright.
Just like communism and socialism...I don't believe in The State either.

-Peace-

I have been wondering at this point in the UK with the Nigella Lawson trial. I won't bore people with the details but the Ex charles Scarttci (can['t spell his name but he's a very wealthy art collector reported his wife Nigella Lawson's Aides for overspending on credit cards. As the trial progresses it arises that Nigella Lawson and her daughter are purported to have used coc aine and cannabis. Lawson and Scattchi divorced over a very public episode where in public in a restaurant he took hold of her nose and later her neck. He claimed he was trying to make her focus and was wiping coc aine from her nose. He also sent an email which - surprisingly got leaked sying Nigella was always out of her head etc etc.

We have even had our illustrious Prime Minister Cameron saying he was a fan of Nigella's but, wait for it ignorring completely the drug allegations. Interestingly after all this release of information and at the trial, Scrattchi tells the court he didn't know about his wife taking drugs and she has said she has taken them twice only in her life, both at times of great misery. The defendants claim quite another story though.

Now in the UK if you are an ordinary person it now appears that if you have no property and are likely to deny drug chargers you are not worthy of prosecuting unless something difre has happened because they can't give you a massive fine against your assets as you have none. But if you do have assets, you will be utterly persecuted over drug crime and likely loose all your assets. If, however, you are rich, I am waiting to see how the Lawson Scrattchi trial goes and what happens afterwards. I suspect the rich will get away with it, especially if admired by our top politicians. (lets face it they probably all know each other)

I love watching Nigella's cookery programmes but now I could hazard a guess as to why she is rifling through the fridge every night always hungry - anyone else hazard a guess also?

I think the law should stand equally for all.

Eryiedes
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

That's alright.
Just like communism and socialism...I don't believe in The State either.

-Peace-

Well, then perhaps we should look at what happens when there is no State. The closest matching period would be the Middle Ages after the fall of Rome. What was going on? Depopulation and abandonment of urban centers, decline in literacy (hence the "Dark" Ages as records are scarce), and, eventually, feudalism. In fact, feudalism is what erupts every time an empire (or state) falls. The haves become the rulers of the have nots. If we were to have the same thing happen today, then I would imagine that those rulers would most likely be the mega corporations. I'm not ready to bow down and swear fealty to Coca Cola.

The State is not a controller of society. Society controls the State and, ergo, the State is merely a channel for all those varying influences within society. The total sum of society IS the State. See Edward Alsworth Ross on that one.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I am a firm believer in Anarchy.
Not the Mad Max Hollywood version.
The non-violence initiating, peaceful, DRO type.
As for the Dark Ages?
That was manipulated by Rome when it became the first civilization to NOT cancel the debt owed to it.
THAT'S what caused your Dark Ages...



-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


Feudalism, however, did not just erupt after the fall of the Roman Empire. In history, when emperors fell, it was the common result each time from Japan to China (until the last emperor of China and adoption of Communism, which is really no better) to the Carolingian. It wasn't just the fall of Rome that led to a return to feudalism. It is the most common result of any fall of an empire. The most notable exceptions would be the formation of communistic countries, as previously mentioned, such as China and the USSR. It'd be unlikely that we would see such a thing happen here, however, as Western society tends to be more individualistic. Communism practically requires a society to already be collectivist.

Like you said, there is a point to learning from history.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I don't believe in feudalism either.
That's basically what we have right now...neo-feudalism of the tax livestock.

-Peace-

reply to post by crazyewok

"Thats what im getting at."

What I am getting at... or, was at least was trying to, was to point out that the system is responsble for injustice.

"... scum like Ethan couch get a get out of jail free card because he is "to rich to know the consequences"

Scum? Okee dokee... if he had no money and got away the same... the excuse would be... what?

(Now then, will separate each sentence so they can be peeled like a banana, lol...)

- If this guy had been poor and still got off, what then? Who or what would have been the target?

- Crime is rampant across the nation and it has often little to do with wealth. Who's to blame?

- Overall? We have pretty dirty social culture with violence on TV, in the movies and video games. Females are also quite often treated with disrespect...

- In the end, do we stereotype based on:
wealth?
race?
sexual orientation?
upbringing?
race/ethnicity?
regionality?
religion?
politics?

In some cases, those subject references above would be called other things than just 'stereotyping'.

in closing (again)...
If the system is failing, it is failing us all. Not just rich or poor or white or black or... or...

So, instead of targeting those who may have a few more bucks, why not try and jam the door on those who are trusted to provide justice for ALL? Why not focus on the system that makes someone different based on something as shallow as how much money they have?

Let people... all of us, be who we are without sticking a scarlet letter on us.

Let the trickle go up... instead of down for a change.

Eryiedes
reply to post by WhiteAlice

 

I don't believe in feudalism either.
That's basically what we have right now...neo-feudalism of the tax livestock.

-Peace-

Then tell me how you expect your anarchist world to function without descending into the Mad Max Hollywood variation. What happened in the Wild West? Or heck, we can even take a more current look at cities today with an existing state that have still had those "roving hordes" passing through to take what they want.



It is the tragedy of the commons that drives the formation of feudalistic states and roving bands. Even in an anarchistic society, this would still occur because you cannot change human nature so fundamentally. There will always be a risk that one owns something that another would take.

And ps. I do agree that what we have today is rather neo-feudalistic.

reply to post by redoubt


The SOURCE of the crime? . . .

other than hell etc. . . .

OF COURSE, it is . . . drum roll . . . epidemic ATTACHMENT DISORDER.

Children grow up as at least emotional orphans.

As Sam Solyn says so powerfully in:

MY FATHER MY FATHER:

BY Sam Soleyn

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1387066675&sr=1-1&keywords=my+father+my+father

Kindle price currently $0.00

He notes quite accurately that

ORPHANS CARE ONLY FOR PROVISION AND SECURITY/SAFETY. They have no left over resources or energy for anything more. That's their scope, their mentality, their focus, their world.

So, we have massive numbers of leaders--all the ones I can quickly think of--who are emotional, psychological if not literal orphans.

They are grasping for provision and safety issues . . . and that grasping can mean grasping for MORE power and/or MORE wealth and/or MORE !CONTROL! regardless of how much they already have.

And they do NOT CARE FOR the serfs and slaves under them or around them.

deleting mystifying double post

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Head's up.
What you are posting and asking of me is thread derailment.

-Peace-

Logarock

RomeByFire


You know, I think the real reason why the symbol for justice is blindfolded is so she doesn't have to watch as she's raped, all the while we stand by idly.

It never fails to amaze how symbols like the blindfold take on the opposite of their intended meaning in a corrupt society.

How in the h#ll does a blindfolded person determine if the scales are right anyway or even see to read the law? It would be more accurate to put a fat stack on one side of the scale and a rolled up copy of the constitution on the other side.

Lets face it the blindfold is for the ignorant masses.....like an opiate for the masses. Stupid designer propaganda in a statue.

Or the alternative is that you just don't get what it means.

The scales of justice not being interfered with by those holding them.

reply to post by crazyewok


Th rich have become super citzens who are effectively immune from the law due to their ability to use power, influence and social standing to make any kind of charges dissappear.

What may be more effective is to make it a crimmal offence punishable by automatic 5 year sentence to not report what may be an act of attempted bribary or smilar thereto.

YES... under the 0bama dictatorship & shredding of the Constitution both Elites (rich people) that live in the country at least part-time

ALONG WITH banker & big contributers to the Demon-crat party need to be an Aristrocracy Class
while all us peons /serfs are mere organ donors to the affluent that run-the-globe