5 ms·

Nobody goes to prison and you earn interest on all of that money for a year or two, what’s the downside? As long as nobody is held personally accountable these

Nobody goes to prison and you earn interest on all of that money for a year or two, what’s the downside? As long as nobody is held personally accountable these sorts of things will keep happening, we have to be tougher on the execs

sgu999 3y ago
> we have to be tougher on the execs Yes, but what if the exec's cousin's wife is playing golf with the chief of staff of the minister of the economy? Can't be tougher on this one, sorry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
namaria 3y ago
Being tougher on deviance cannot produce a world without deviance. Any system will be gamed. It will only shift it around. The middle class fantasy of perfect law enforcement is a fruit of our own moral self oppression. Powerful, wealthy people don't live by rules, they live by personal relationships and any fiction to the contrary is mere propaganda.
- Gud 3y ago
  Tell that to Sam Bankman-Fried or the countless rich and powerful men and women who have been put in prison for wrongdoing.
  - namaria 3y ago
    > countless rich and powerful men and women who have been put in prison for wrongdoing Jumping from one recent event to claiming other such examples are countless is not making the strong case you seem to think it is.
  - philistine 3y ago
    The rich have morals, irrespective of what others have said. Sam Bankman-Fried is coming from wealth, but not incommensurable wealth, and he did a crime so self-evident and destructive against the morals of money that there is no way to strike a sweetheart deal out of that.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- malux85 3y ago
  I’m waiting to hear solutions … or do you only have criticisms? And how far do you take that? We can’t produce a world without deviance so we should just let it slide?
  - namaria 3y ago
    It's very common to state 'bring solutions or shut up' but that is just a way to stop the conversation short. I made a valid contribution, pointing out that knee-jerk "tough on crime" responses to news of criminal behavior is not only naive but counter productive. I don't have to provide a fix for a deeply complex issue - class relations - to point out that grabbing the pitchfork is a reaction that is expected of the populace and used by the elites to keep us down. What we should do, in my opinion, instead of crying out for tougher enforcement of laws, is to acknowledge that anti social behavior is a socialization issue, not a criminal issue. Punishment is self serving - I want to feel like those who exploit our good nature suffer for it. Cultivating higher morals is hard and won't change statistics overnight. But a world without corruption is a world without greed, not a world with harsh punishment for those caught stepping out of the line.
    - malux85 3y ago
      It’s a very common state to throw criticisms and theories with no solutions - it’s called “the bloodless intellect” - and since it offers no solutions and takes no actions, it is almost always the worst option. Granted sometimes a bad solution is worse than no solution, but the vast majority of times, no solution is the worst option. The only thing being a bloodless intellect protects is the ego of the person, because their identity is so tied to their intellect they dislike it when their theories are actually evaluated, because the chance that they might be wrong materialises, and that would damage their fragile ego and deeply associated self identity, so better to act snidy and offer no solutions than to offer something that might be wrong, and call into question their self identity. I grant that you do make a contribution, a tiny, tiny one - because without action, your ideas will never be bigger than the few tiny brain cells they occupy. Saying "its' complex, I dont have any solutions" is a cop-out, do you think if everybody did that the corperate tax avoidance and greed would get better or worse? Or do you think if harsher punishments are introduced and enforced it might make the executives who are in the grey area of activity think twice? Compare more legal countries like the US with corrupt countries where this isn't enforced (e.g. Pakistan) it's clear that enforcement and the threat of punishment vastly helps mitigate corruption, and while there are no absolute silver bullets, threats of punishment are good for keeping the "lawful evil" in line, because it forces them to factor punishment into the risk equation, which otherwise, is only about profit.
- 6510 3y ago
  The game here are the odds to get away with it, the reward and the punishment. The size of the punishment should be adjusted to discourage repetition. The size of the budget should be adjusted to the damage. We still need a better formula for rich people to benefit from hunting down other rich people. Airbnb is harmful to real estate value in the area but drives up prices elsewhere. It creates fluctuation in rich peoples wealth.

sgu999 3y ago

> we have to be tougher on the execs Yes, but what if the exec's cousin's wife is playing golf with the chief of staff of the minister of the economy? Can't be tougher on this one, sorry.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

namaria 3y ago

Being tougher on deviance cannot produce a world without deviance. Any system will be gamed. It will only shift it around. The middle class fantasy of perfect law enforcement is a fruit of our own moral self oppression. Powerful, wealthy people don't live by rules, they live by personal relationships and any fiction to the contrary is mere propaganda.

Gud 3y ago
Tell that to Sam Bankman-Fried or the countless rich and powerful men and women who have been put in prison for wrongdoing.
- namaria 3y ago
  > countless rich and powerful men and women who have been put in prison for wrongdoing Jumping from one recent event to claiming other such examples are countless is not making the strong case you seem to think it is.
- philistine 3y ago
  The rich have morals, irrespective of what others have said. Sam Bankman-Fried is coming from wealth, but not incommensurable wealth, and he did a crime so self-evident and destructive against the morals of money that there is no way to strike a sweetheart deal out of that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
malux85 3y ago
I’m waiting to hear solutions … or do you only have criticisms? And how far do you take that? We can’t produce a world without deviance so we should just let it slide?
- namaria 3y ago
  It's very common to state 'bring solutions or shut up' but that is just a way to stop the conversation short. I made a valid contribution, pointing out that knee-jerk "tough on crime" responses to news of criminal behavior is not only naive but counter productive. I don't have to provide a fix for a deeply complex issue - class relations - to point out that grabbing the pitchfork is a reaction that is expected of the populace and used by the elites to keep us down. What we should do, in my opinion, instead of crying out for tougher enforcement of laws, is to acknowledge that anti social behavior is a socialization issue, not a criminal issue. Punishment is self serving - I want to feel like those who exploit our good nature suffer for it. Cultivating higher morals is hard and won't change statistics overnight. But a world without corruption is a world without greed, not a world with harsh punishment for those caught stepping out of the line.
  - malux85 3y ago
    It’s a very common state to throw criticisms and theories with no solutions - it’s called “the bloodless intellect” - and since it offers no solutions and takes no actions, it is almost always the worst option. Granted sometimes a bad solution is worse than no solution, but the vast majority of times, no solution is the worst option. The only thing being a bloodless intellect protects is the ego of the person, because their identity is so tied to their intellect they dislike it when their theories are actually evaluated, because the chance that they might be wrong materialises, and that would damage their fragile ego and deeply associated self identity, so better to act snidy and offer no solutions than to offer something that might be wrong, and call into question their self identity. I grant that you do make a contribution, a tiny, tiny one - because without action, your ideas will never be bigger than the few tiny brain cells they occupy. Saying "its' complex, I dont have any solutions" is a cop-out, do you think if everybody did that the corperate tax avoidance and greed would get better or worse? Or do you think if harsher punishments are introduced and enforced it might make the executives who are in the grey area of activity think twice? Compare more legal countries like the US with corrupt countries where this isn't enforced (e.g. Pakistan) it's clear that enforcement and the threat of punishment vastly helps mitigate corruption, and while there are no absolute silver bullets, threats of punishment are good for keeping the "lawful evil" in line, because it forces them to factor punishment into the risk equation, which otherwise, is only about profit.
6510 3y ago
The game here are the odds to get away with it, the reward and the punishment. The size of the punishment should be adjusted to discourage repetition. The size of the budget should be adjusted to the damage. We still need a better formula for rich people to benefit from hunting down other rich people. Airbnb is harmful to real estate value in the area but drives up prices elsewhere. It creates fluctuation in rich peoples wealth.