It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should the rich be better protected under law?

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
I have been saying for years that "justice" in Amerika is a commodity sold by the pound. Rich people can afford better lawyers, which amounts to immunity to a large degree. To counteract this, the TV/movie industry repeatedly shows the rich and powerful getting busted, to maintain in the minds of the masses that 'just-us" is blind. It never was.




posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   

signalfire
North Korea and China are socialist countries? Is that why they're frequently called 'Communist China' and 'Communist North Korea'? One suffers from a complete dearth of modern anything including even electricity and the aftermath of a long war, and the other from extreme excess of population and a raging case of capitalism (factories) combined with a complete lack of concern for pollution control, which is rapidly poisoning the air, water and land. All so the west can buy plastic pumpkins and cheap computers. I truly expect them to at some point decide to close their markets and products and bond-buying to the west and tell them to F off, that will be interesting.


Socialism is the heart of communism.
You do yourself no favors by trying to alude that the two aren't tied at the hip.


Your understanding of Zeitgeist is extremely limited, I suggest you do more research. It's not about 'R2D2 picking what days of the month you can eat meat', but about basing our resource usage on actual resource availability and sustainability, and making sure that everyone has their true needs taken care of (housing, food, education, medical care) before some people get obscene amounts of wealth with which to manipulate the system, creating inequality and the crime that goes along with that. The usual debunking with ridicule is the sign of a closed mind and inadequate information.


You are incorrect.
I have seen all three movies and done extensive research on PJ and Zeitgeist and I'm sorry, but Peter Joseph is a blowhard & a self-centered opportunist.
He's more about what he can get from you than what you can get from him.
PJ nearly sank his own movement because he wasn't getting what he felt he deserved. It was so drastic that both Camelot & Venus turned their backs on him to name but a few.
The only thing I detest more than Zeitgeist is the Bible.


See, the problem with capitalism is what we're seeing all over the place now in the west. Extreme inequality, win/lose mentality which is the same as dog eat dog. Hardly a civilization, more like the same mentality as castles, armed camps, and invading hordes. The rich need to start realizing that they're at risk from the not-so-rich, even in their underground bunkers and gated communities. What we're doing obviously isn't working and the love of money has long since overtaken the Constitution. The US is now a fascist state with stunning firepower. The outcome of that combo won't be pretty.


First a correction: "The West has crony capitalism" and the difference is night compared to day, but thinking socialism can solve this after it literally sank the USSR in under a century is pretty staggeringly dismissive of you.
The West is already on borrowed time so I am definitely not for a course of action that will hasten the demise and socialism (collectivisation) is preferred tool to accomplish that task.
Thanks, but no thanks.

Capitalism has no place in the courts whatsoever...but apparently, neither does justice.

-Peace-



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


A seemingly innocuous question, but upon further examination, brings to point that that there is an inequality where there shouldn't be.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Every time I see Jamie Dimon's face on the news I gag. Seriously.

I can't BELIEVE that these monsters only have to pay "fines" for their atrocities, usury, and criminal extortion...
all the empty homes, all the homeless people NOT housed, all those who have no jobs because theirs was shipped overseas, all the Cayman Islands fun and games.....

ALL CRIMINAL. Money should NOT buy one's way out of justice being served.
Sickening.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Yes, we should!



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Well to make us all feel better there's been a rash of recently released but wrongly convicted murderers. And they still have that "eternal flame" deal out at Kennedy's grave. Hay and how about those "white collar" prisons? Yea boy you bettcha.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

beezzer

A seemingly innocuous question, but upon further examination, brings to point that that there is an inequality where there shouldn't be.


Exactly.

Doesnt matter on ones economic views be you a hard core capitlist or socialist or somewhere inbetween. At the end of the day when it comes to a Criminal court hearing we should all be equal under the law. Outside, diffrent matter but in front of judge and jury we should all be the same, wealth should be left at the door.
edit on 14-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

crazyewok

So why do scandinavia countrys report the highest amount in happyness, education and healthcare?


It mainly due to their culture...not their government.


Norway, Sweden and Finland are not the USSR or north Korea!
why does everything have to be measured in extermes with "YOU" people. There no middle way.


That's because Norway, Sweden and Finland have little if any effect on global affairs.



Same can be said of capitlist countrys, Hong Kong and Singapore are very free market yet are up the top with scandinavia countrys. But the USA and UK are failing fast does that mean capitlism is a faliure? No as Hong Kong and Singapore make it work.


Again people are confusing crony capitalism for a true free market.
This is a common mistake.


And your guilty of the same. Picking out the bad apples like China and North Korea and ignoreing the sucessfull ones like Norway and finland ect


Once more...if they had an influential effect on the planet I might agree but the three nordic countries you named just sit in a corner.


Im not saying socilism is any better than capitlism that not the topic here. All Im saying if both can work, depending on how a country impliemenst them.


Well I AM saying a true free market is better than any socialist platform.
Problem we're getting "collectivisation" and that just a slow death by drowning.

-Peace-
edit on 14-12-2013 by Eryiedes because: Typo



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Uh oh. We have a wookie AND an ewok on the same thread?

*whispers to OP: 'I starred your thread.' slinks off to corner booth*



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


Well this inst really a thread acount economic systems really. And Im not disagreeing that true free market isnt good because as I said Singapore, hongkong and the Bahamas have it and are doing just as well as the Northen Europe states.


this thread though about should we be equal under the law.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Yeah I think there should be laws to protect the rich...

Mostly to prevent poaching and over hunting...
We want to make sure we manage a stable healthy population of rich bastards so that our children and grandchildren can know the pleasures of bagging a big buck in a cardigan on a cool crisp autumn day.

"No Junior, don't touch it... the dullness rubs off..."



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 




After cases such as Ethan couch and Morgan Stanley I have been thinking.

Is it fair for those at the top to get away with crimes that those who are poorer would be thrown in prison for? Is it fair they get leniet sentances?


First, let's define what is 'rich'. (I'll let you do that.)

Second, let's also try not to stereotype; just because someone comes from a poor family or a (now almost extinct) middle class family or those of the wealthier, doesn't mean that they are any different than those next to them.

Did this guy get off because his family was wealthy? That is the premise here but, even if he did, do we then condemn anyone who dares to have more financial means than the next? Many who have reached a status of economic comfort did so through hard work.

The human race is full of individuals and no two are exactly alike. To classify, or stereotype someone for the number of dollars in their bank account is really no different than doing the same based on their religion or skin color.

We can do better.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 



Once more...if they had an influential effect on the planet I might agree but the three nordic countries you named just sit in a corner.

And that's a problem...WHY?

They are, in my opinion, making EXAMPLES of themselves, much like Iceland and Canada do.
The people in the Scandinavian countries aren't trying for world domination....they live in peace, making do with what they have and what they produce, and all are taken care of.

That's the kind of society we should - in my opinion - all be pursuing.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Eryiedes
 


Actually I will also say.

I think one of the reason Singapore and places like that are so succesfull with there freemarket is the equality under the law there. Because all levels of socity there are repectfull of the law thing flow more smothly. There are some bankers in singpore serving some very hard time for fraud. Something you would not get in the USA and UK. A healthy fear of the law would help keep those at the top in check.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   

redoubt
First, let's define what is 'rich'. (I'll let you do that.)

Let not pick hairs here.

redoubt
Second, let's also try not to stereotype; just because someone comes from a poor family or a (now almost extinct) middle class family or those of the wealthier, doesn't mean that they are any different than those next to them.

Im not saying that.

redoubt
Did this guy get off because his family was wealthy?

Both those examples have. One was apprently too "rich" to understand his conquence the other had a to "important" job to jail. Both are BS defences.


redoubt
That is the premise here but, even if he did, do we then condemn anyone who dares to have more financial means than the next?

No im just saying they should treated EQUAL under the law. Not saying people should not be wealthy but that they should held to the same laws and standards as we are expected to.


redoubt
Many who have reached a status of economic comfort did so through hard work.

So they deserve "special" legal status?



redoubt
The human race is full of individuals and no two are exactly alike. To classify, or stereotype someone for the number of dollars in their bank account is really no different than doing the same based on their religion or skin color.

But under the law we should be held to the SAME standards. Being to rich to jail is a BS defence.
If a senater is caught with co cain and the standard punishment is 10 years in jail then he should get that 10 years in jail like anyone else! If a brat kills 4 people in a DUI crash and the standar punnishment is 20 years then he should get 20 years! Not a couple of years in a therapy resort.


To put it more simply when standing in front of a Judge, wealth, power, Race, gender and sexual orintation should be left at the court room door.

edit on 14-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


When I was in school and much, much younger, our English teacher showed us how to dissect a paragraph and then take it piece-by-piece to make it something that it was not. This is standard fare today... especially in politics.

My purpose in reply was to question the concept of wealth being ee-ville... that anyone of wealth was ee-ville because they had it.

You replied by way of such a dissection and here at ATS, that is your right. I do not constest that. But, that said, you dodged the main points of my reply.

I stand by my comment. If you should care to try again in the spirit it was offered, I will engage.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

redoubt

My purpose in reply was to question the concept of wealth being ee-ville... that anyone of wealth was ee-ville because they had it.



This isnt the topic though.

This topic is about should we all be EQUAL under the law.


At no point have I said gaveing wealth makes you evil. Nor have I asked that queation.

I have only asked that should those with wealth who do break the law get away with it?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 




I have only asked that should those with wealth who do break the law get away with it?


By that single line/sentence, you have stereotyped. You have identified all who have more money than another; without definition, or less; without definition, as being potentially different.

If I was poor, would I be a better person? If I had wealth, would I be ee-ville?



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
# no if everybody has equal rights, how should it be 'fair' to punish people different for same crimes, because one party had more money. THE WORLD IS #ED WAKE UP.



posted on Dec, 14 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

redoubt

By that single line/sentence, you have stereotyped. You have identified all who have more money than another; without definition, or less; without definition, as being potentially different.

No I havent.
Why?
Because at the moment they do seem to be treated diffrently. Im not saying it as a opinion Im saying it as IT HAPPENING! The courts themself are the ones that seem to be stereotyped and treating people diffrently. And Im saying that wrong BOTH ways.
What im saying is at the moment they are treated diffrently. Thats looks like a fact at the moment. And is that moraly right?
Sorry but being rich was used as defence for both the examples in my OP and it worked.
What Im saying is that is it right that being rich should get you special concideration under the law?



redoubt
If I was poor, would I be a better person? If I had wealth, would I be ee-ville?

Probably not. I dunno. Thats not the topic. But I know a few multi millionaires and they are good people.

Are you saying if you are rich you cant be evil?


Sorry but rich and poor alike break the law.

The queation here is should wealth be left at the court room door?
edit on 14-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join