I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

Politicization Of Poverty [Pic+]

Hits: 3874 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: Cajun247
Page: 1 2 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:05:47 PM
I'll just go right out and defraud people out of $100,000 this week. According to YOU I can pay back a 'portion' of it and face no jail time


I wasn't suggesting we be that generous, on one hand if it were possible then it indeed should be required the culprit pay more to recoup money spent on lawyer fees and court costs. On the other hand there are sunk costs that victims are faced with.

Furthermore, suppose you did defraud people of $100,000, do you seriously believe anyone is going to be as apt to give you money again? I doubt it very much.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:53:45 PM
@MeGrendel

So, in yet another way, here are the two situations:

1. We legislate that a criminal must repay the victim some amount more than what they damaged or stole (kx or x+k). Conceivably, k could become unreasonable. X can never be unreasonable (because it's the amount they stole in the first place). Therefore, we should seek to eliminate k.

2. We legislate that a criminal must make restitution.

I hope this helps to clarify the confusion.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:49:59 PM
@MeGrendel

As 'resaonable man' is purely subjective, that's exactly what you're suggesting.

I'm not sure how it happened, but I don't think we are on the same page here.

Let me re-clarify my statement about the "reasonable man" since it has apparently caused some confusion.

Here goes:

We should seek out legislative processes that do not offer the opportunity to become unreasonable through political manipulation. If a process allows for a situation in which a "reasonable man" would be appalled, then that process should be avoided.

So, I'm not trying to say that we should use a "reasonable man" standard. I'm saying that we should avoid a system that requires such a standard. To do so, we must remove arbitrarily set variables that can be manipulated.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:21:22 PM
Cajun247-"Yet mandating unprescribed amounts of time for each case of fraud is no less subjective."

There is not cookie-cutter way of sentancing, as each situaion is different. A habitual wreckless driver getting caught speeding should face a stiffer penalty than someone who gets their first ticket.

We are a nation of laws. Our judges and juries are supposed to be objective, and weigh each case on its situation and merits.

Cajun247-"we can discover how much money was taken and require a portion of it be paid back."

Hey, great deal. I'll just go right out and defraud people out of $100,000 this week. According to YOU I can pay back a 'portion' of it and face no jail time. So I'll pay back $50,000.

$50,000 profit and no jail time? Where do I sign up?

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:55:12 PM
As 'resaonable man' is purely subjective, that's exactly what you're suggesting.


Yet mandating unprescribed amounts of time for each case of fraud is no less subjective. On the other hand we can discover how much money was taken and require a portion of it be paid back.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 6:25:39 PM
HumanAction-"Adding complexity and/or subjectivity into a system"

As 'resaonable man' is purely subjective, that's exactly what you're suggesting.

HumanAction-"If it weren't so complex (say, a flat tax or flat-rate tax), there would be far fewer opportunities for political manipulation"

See, now THAT I agree with. A flat tax; no deductions, no loopholes, no rebates, no 'Earned Income Tax Credit', no tax code that runs into 60,000 pages.

Simple put: You earned 'X'. Multiply that by Y% and that's how much you owe. No reason a tax form couldn't fit on a post-card. (and imagine the bureaucracy we could get rid of).

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:45:57 PM
HumanAction: You're welcome

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:18:06 PM
@MeGrendel

There is law. And if the law needs changing, there is a process for that.

Yes, and history demonstrates that the current process you're referencing is a terrible one. Adding complexity and/or subjectivity into a system opens opportunities for politicians to behave poorly.

For example, see the tax code. If it weren't so complex (say, a flat tax or flat-rate tax), there would be far fewer opportunities for political manipulation (aka corruption). I doubt you'd disagree. Why then do you suppose the legal system should operate in the opposite manner?

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 1:10:26 PM
HumanAction-"they do not pass the reasonable man standard"

Sorry, there IS no 'reasonable man standard'.

A 'reasonable' man would find this 'poor little lady' an idiot, and treat her appropriately. (and liberals are far from 'reasonable'.)

There is law. And if the law needs changing, there is a process for that.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 12:32:00 PM
@MeGrendel

What's reasonable to one man is not to another.

Exactly - which is why we shouldn't have laws that allow for arbitrary points along a line. Let me clarify: we should not have laws that define arbitrary points because the arbitrary points could perceivably be moved in a less reasonable direction at any point in time. Rather, laws should be designed that do not rely on arbitrary points decided by politicians. Since such points could become unreasonable (See: Drug War), they do not pass the reasonable man standard.

'Reasonable' and 'non-arbitrary' are not even close to being synonymous.

Which is why I separated them. If they were synonymous, I would not have written them; that would be redundant.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:14:23 AM
HumanAction-"It's the reasonable man standard."

'Reasonable' is subjective. What's reasonable to one man is not to another.

That's why we have 'law'.

Would hanging a person for stealing a candy bar be reasonable? No.

Have men been put in prison for life for stealing a candy bar? Yes. If they have a history of crime and are facing their last strike.

HumanAction-"Therefore, the only reasonable (and non-arbitrary) response is an equal one."

'Reasonable' and 'non-arbitrary' are not even close to being synonymous.

Some would find it reasonable for her to have to pay back the $92,000.

Others would find it reasonble for her to have to pay back the $92,000 AND pay an additinoal $92,000 (after all, that's what she attempted to defraud).

Still others would find imprisonment reasonable.

In each case, the law supercedes.

madduck
Female, 50-59, Europe
 5182 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 11:06:04 AM
I read the original piece and felt it was well written, but oddly did not quite ring true. it is a hard call for me though as I am not American- but for a brilliant description of how the poor have limited choices read Caitlin Moran..

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 10:01:42 AM
@MeGrendel

It's the reasonable man standard. You can't justify a proportionally greater response because the percent response is an arbitrary value.

We wouldn't justify hanging someone for stealing a candy bar. Therefore, the only reasonable (and non-arbitrary) response is an equal one.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:58:16 AM
@Cajun

That's a very interesting read; I quite liked his ideas. Thanks for the link.

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:48:59 AM
Cajun247-"the response to an aggressor must NOT be greater in proportion to the damage"

Where did you get such an asanine idea as that?

MeGrendel
Male, 40-49, Southern US
 4159 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:43:21 AM
lauriloo-"Liberals want cheaters caught just as much as you do."

Bullsh|t.

Two Words: "Voter ID". Liberals are against it so that they can ADVOCATE cheating.

Liberals manage to rationalize that, as long as it's for a 'good' cause (read 'liberal' cause), cheating is perfectly okay. In fact, it's pretty much institutionalized within the liberal mindset.

Just a few cheaters that liberals didn't want caught:
Bill Clinton (purgery)
Philadelphia Black Panthers (voter intimidation)
Timothy Geithner (six-time tax cheat)
William J. Jefferson (guilty of bribary, but re-elected anyway)
Ted Kennedy (murderer, drunkard)

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:33:13 AM
In short 5Cats, the response to an aggressor must NOT be greater in proportion to the damage. Jail time does not satisfy this criterion, as it simply means further expense for the victim through taxes.

Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:13:39 AM
So was everyone!


Errmm... I'm not.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 9:07:10 AM
5Cats: Then all that is necessary is to make her pay back the money she took and be done with it.

Now those people who donated to "her cause" will be unable to donate to WORTHWHILE causes!


I doubt very seriously anyone donated their life savings to her cause. In any case I suspect they're going to be far more cautious over who they donate to. Better after the fact than never wouldn't you agree?

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 23906 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:52:09 AM
@cajun247: So she should be ALLOWED to cheat and defraud people because it costs so much to put her in jail?
WTF>DUDE?

"She was poor in her 20's"
So was everyone! That doesn't excuse her writing fiction, passing it as fact, and STEALING!
Now those people who donated to "her cause" will be unable to donate to WORTHWHILE causes! What about that?

Jail = Justice. You do the crime? You do the time.

Making excuses for criminal behaviour is pathetic. No one should get a "free pass" because of gender, skin colour OR income level. Period!

@MeGrendel: Your analysis is "spot on perfect"! Don't let the nay-sayers tell you otherwise.

Liberals: It's the GUN'S fault!
Conservatives: It's the HUMAN'S fault!

Case and point.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:33:15 AM
that when someone does something bad it might be worthwhile to look at an underlying reason for that behavior and do something to fix it so it doesn't happen again


So if experts were to reach the conclusion that our welfare state fosters more dependence, would you support eliminating it?

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:20:49 AM
Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?


Then there's one aspect of the misplaced generosity I'm referring to.

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10207 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:15:49 AM
Jail time is note designed to 'help anyone', but rather to penalize a criminal.


In which case it absolutely hurts everyone because now the same people who've been defrauded have to cough up more money to house, feed, and clothe said culprit.

I should rephrase that, it hurts everyone except the culprit (except for their dignity). Then there's absolutely no guarantee it won't stop them from defrauding more people.

Somehow, you feel this lady is a 'victim'.

Make no mistake, she absolutely deserved the backlash she received over the $92K. If there's one takeaway from this story is that American society is not a walking cabal of apathetic tin men the left likes to drivel on about. But rather our generosity tends to be misplaced.

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 8:05:10 AM
"conservatives attacking individuals"

Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?

"Of course, it's never that black and white, but that's the gist of it."

Maybe in your twisted mind but it's all BS. Liberals want cheaters caught just as much as you do. We just recognize that you don't look at one person's actions and assume everyone acts the same way AND that when someone does something bad it might be worthwhile to look at an underlying reason for that behavior and do something to fix it so it doesn't happen again. It's called "seeing the big picture", "planning ahead" and "empathy", things the GOP seriously lacks unless it means making them money.

lauriloo
Female, 40-49, Midwest US
 1805 Posts
Tuesday, December 17, 2013 7:57:28 AM
"conservatives attacking individuals"

Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?

Page: 1 2 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.