Pragmatopian Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The law in this country does not in my mind necessarily follow what is right and wrong, though it tries to define it. How would you feel if I decided that in my view, the laws in this country on common assault were wrong and I should be allowed to punch you repeatedly in the face? Good analogy. There are plenty of daft laws, but we can't choose which to abide by and which not to abide by. However prohibitions against damage to others (as in Ans' example) and against damage to the property of others (as in Mr Goodwin's case) don't seem particularly daft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 25, 2009 Author Share Posted March 25, 2009 "A person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed" (i.e. an anarchist) probably would approve of such actions by cowardly and destructive criminals."A person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct" (i.e. a libertarian) might not find it so easy to do so. On the other hand, someone suffering from "a relatively rare dissociative disorder in which the usual integrity of the personality breaks down and two or more independent personalities emerge" (i.e. split personality disorder), might be able to manage it. Are you having treatment? Anarchists do not propose that violence should be used to remove government, but if violence is used against them they would respond in kind. And the whole idea of anarchism is that anarchism can be preserved in removing government. I don't think your understanding of the libertarian aspect makes much sense to me, I would be interested if you explained it. Where does your repugnance to this particular vandalism lie? Is it because of the distastefulness of destructive acts as a whole, which I think is perfectly understandable? I think the people who did this could do far better than smash windows or damaging cars. Like I said, they could pinch them. How would you feel if I decided that in my view, the laws in this country on common assault were wrong and I should be allowed to punch you repeatedly in the face? I would feel rather upset and puzzled as to why you would want to do that. But if you did simply because you felt like it then I would think you had bad morals. LDV you have now sunk to a new low by condoning the act of vandalism against another persons property, it matters not if he is a millionare or a pauper on benifits, a hardened criminal or a law abiding citizen, it is still a low act by what can only be described as scum when a persons property is meaninglessly vandalised. What other lows have I reached already? For starters I don't think this vandalism is meaningless, it had purpose. I also think there is a distinction between the millionaire and the pauper. I don't believe that simply being disgustingly wealthy means that one should vandalise their property, however. Yet, when they have had a large part in the loss of peoples jobs, their homes, and yet can still face the world with an arrogance in thinking their massive pension is justified AND can get away it, then if he has a few broken windows and dents in his car I think his role and behaviour has been deserving of this. I don't really have much concern over acts of vandalism against his extravagant purchases that comes from his shockingly high salary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 in one word COCK ^^^, Ldv you think its right to go round and samsh someones place up because YOU think thay have got cash thay dont deserve, your a odd one i tell you that, jealousy will get u no where in life!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 How would you feel if I decided that in my view, the laws in this country on common assault were wrong and I should be allowed to punch you repeatedly in the face? I would feel rather upset and puzzled as to why you would want to do that. But if you did simply because you felt like it then I would think you had bad morals. You'd be straight down the police station to report it you hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 The vandalism of Mr Goodwin's property is totally and utterly unacceptable. The vigilantees who have taken the law into their own hands have said it is just the start - I hope the police catch them and they are suitably punished. But there is a flip side to this - Mr Goodwin's reward for failure is injust. Business and contracts aren't based on justice but agreement between often unequal partners. I think there are vast amounts of evidence to show that this lack of justice doesn't in the round create a general injustice - the invisible hand evens this out, but that doesn't stop individual injustices. RBS was bankrupt - if it had gone bankrupt Mr Goodwin wouldn't have got his pension and everyone would have been made unemployed - with huge chaos as people rush to try and get their savings out. Government saw that as being too unpaletable a prospect to allow to happen - they stepped in. The result is that thousands of people still work for RBS, millions of people aren't in a panic over their savings, and Mr Goodwin got paid his pension. Mr Goodwin's injustice is the cost of stopping many other injustices. I don't think the state should tried to have annulled contracts - that would have serious consequences and set a terrible precident. Read this letter of an AIG executive who resigned after the witch hunt left him totally disallusioned - he at least donated his pay to others struck down by the crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Mr Goodwin's injustice is the cost of stopping many other injustices. I don't think the state should tried to have annulled contracts - that would have serious consequences and set a terrible precident. Completely disagree. The government should not reward failure by allowing scum like Goodwin to get away with this. A 100% tax on all excessive payments (salary, bonus and pensions) to bailed out bankers is the minimum the UK gov should do to teach these people a lesson, and to reduce the chance of it happening again. I would be surprised if Goodwin escapes with his life after what he has done, and while I don't condone people taking the law into their own hands, I won't weep one solitary tear for whatever happens to the little rat. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 I would be surprised if Goodwin escapes with his life after what he has done, and while I don't condone people taking the law into their own hands, I won't weep one solitary tear for whatever happens to the little rat. S Wow that's pretty powerful stuff there my friend...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Wow, Sebrof - and I thought you blamed Brown for it all!! I agree its wrong he's paid - if it wasn't for the government bail out his company would be bankrupt and he wouldn't be paid. But for the government to micromanage operations in a bank - decide what are "excessive payments" and deliberately create legislation to punish them would be a great folly. Hubris is a dangerous delusion - and Goodwin and many others were under that delusion - but I don't think calling them scum or little rats adds anything. You of course have the advantage that you saw it all coming and feel that anyone and every one should have had the same opinion as you. Hence you think these people deliberately set out to enrich themselves knowing they were sowing destruction upon everyone else. I feel that view is simplistic and one dimensional. They took mighty bets and were wrong - of course there was arrogance and presumption in doing that, but unless you want to go back to some rural idyll there will be a concentration of power and individuals making decisions with trully vast amounts of money. I am totally unconvinced that Westminster can micromanage the salary systems of the banking industry. Goodwin is gone - and good riddance, but having Gordon Brown try to twist this round to be due to greedy bankers is to me political double speak of the worst kind. He's seen a target and is using it to deflect the blame. I'm surprised you've fallen for it Sebrof, but it looks like you have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 the government have had a mighty big slice out of the massive bank profits due to these inflated values of their mortgage books/pre toxic .. billions .. infact i would wager they had 150+ plus over 10 years... they are in effect bailing out the banks with them taxes. .. even tho the government has blown it on their massive job creation programme.. one could think that the banks knew they were only borrowing the government the money as banks do.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Come now, China. Your surprise is misplaced. It took two to cause this. Greedy and incompetent bankers, and stupid and idle regulators. Just because Goodwin and his kind were the primary cause of the problem doesn't let Broon off the hook one iota. And please don't maintain the fiction that I claimed that I alone saw everything coming. Everybody with half an eye saw the house price crash coming, but I certainly didn't see the rest of it, and have never claimed I did. Quite the reverse, in fact. I agree that calling Goodwin "scum" and a "little rat" doesn't add anything, just as calling the Pope a Catholic doesn't add anything. They just happen to be true, that's all, and it helps me to cope with the IMMENSE feeling of frustration that these people have caused huge damage to billions of people, and are being rewarded for it. It was reckoned that the fat controller's recession in 1988-2005 directly caused over 50 suicides. This one will no doubt cause thousands. I am not saying Goodwin should be tried for murder, but he (with his mates, and Broon) will certainly be responsible for many deaths. That is why I will shed no tears if something horrible happens to the little rat. (Sorry. That's the nicest thing I can think of to call him.) S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 They took mighty bets and were wrong - of course there was arrogance and presumption in doing that, but unless you want to go back to some rural idyll there will be a concentration of power and individuals making decisions with trully vast amounts of money. That's rich coming from a MEA apologist! And what if they make the wrong decisions? Ah yes, you get someone to make excuses for them... It took two to cause this. Greedy and incompetent bankers, and stupid and idle regulators. Just because Goodwin and his kind were the primary cause of the problem doesn't let Broon off the hook one iota. Errr, regulators can only ensure that banks, building society's etc etc adhere to a certain set of procedures. They cannot pull those institutions back for incompetance, stupidity and imprudence. Because that would be giving them an unfair advantage over their rivals. An extra pool of competancy which most of them clearly lacked. Regulation was lax, no question, but anything more would be seen as interfering with a solid, conservative, profitable, time-honoured, steady, prudent banking system that was the envy of the civilised world. That is until the emergence of "The scum that Thatcher spawned" as I once heard an academic describe it (with a shudder). One of those moments that tends to stick in the memory you know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 in one word COCK ^^^, Ldv you think its right to go round and samsh someones place up because YOU think thay have got cash thay dont deserve, your a odd one i tell you that, jealousy will get u no where in life!!! I don't think I am the only one who believes that this man does not deserves this pension. And I think I am right (unless someone can correct me) that he had a very large role in bringing RBS to its knees, with all the ensuing consequences for people. I would say that maybe the word deserves was wrong to use in this thread. I was not passing judgement on whether this vandalism should be considered a crime or not and should therefore lead to punishment by the legal system. I see that an arrogant and irresponsible man has by this own actions taken risks whose consequences are utterly appalling. I don't see the damage to his expensive purchases, made while he was working for the bank, as having any moral value worse than what he has done to other people. He brings on this vigilantism in clearly not accepting responsibility. But this does not in any way mean that I think carte blanche should be given to people to go around destroying things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Regulation was lax, no question, but anything more would be seen as interfering with a solid, conservative, profitable, time-honoured, steady, prudent banking system that was the envy of the civilised world. That is until the emergence of "The scum that Thatcher spawned" as I once heard an academic describe it (with a shudder). One of those moments that tends to stick in the memory you know... "Scum that Brown spawned" more like. It is his decade as chancellor keeping inflation unrealistically low, interest rates unrealistically low, encouraging the spend, spend, spend mentality, and things like making bankruptcy acceptable. Those are what caused the housing bubble. Those are what caused mortgage and loan defaults. The knock on effect is that banks default on their loan repayment commitments. You want to blame someone, blame Brown. The buck stops with him. Goodwin is simply being made a scapegoat. The irony of this attack on Goodwins property is that he will claim on his house insurance, which is no doubt with a company that has been bailed out with tax payers money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 But this does not in any way mean that I think carte blanche should be given to people to go around destroying things. You're just backpedalling because you don't want me to punch you in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 "Scum that Brown spawned" more like. You want to blame someone, blame Brown. The buck stops with him. Goodwin is simply being made a scapegoat. Errr, I'll think you'll find that the appalling Mrs Thatcher made a virtue out of greed. Sorry and all that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.