Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 149

Thread: Why not debtors' prison?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Actually, during that time the government just kept making it harder and harder for people to make ends meet.
    So it's not the lender's fault. What if they didn't?

    Do you really and truly think there are no records of who goes through bankruptcy? Seriously?
    Yes, I thought that. So tell me, does that mean they're ruined for life? If not, why not? Do lenders keep falling for them or forced to lend them?

    Or, specifically, how is the current system of telling the lender "you can fuck off, you're not getting paid back and we're not going to let you pursue this debtor anymore" any better?
    Last edited by Tpoints; 02-04-2013 at 06:49 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    So it's not the lender's fault. What if they didn't?
    So, the Federal Reserve isn't the banks' fault? They just bought the legislation, they didn't pass it? Is that what you're saying? The entity that buys influence with the legislature is guilty of no crime, can hold no fault, is pure as the driven snow? We have a God-given right to try to buy legislators; only the legislators themselves are guilty if they sell themselves? Only the prostitute is wrong, the person who pays the prostitute is perfectly moral?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Yes, I thought that. So tell me, does that mean they're ruined for life? If not, why not? Do lenders keep falling for them or forced to lend them?
    Are lenders more likely to lend to them if they can put them in jail for not paying it back? Can the lenders make slaves of them if they don't? Does this policy make lenders more likely to make risky loans, just the way bad legislation and the newfangled 'credit default swaps', which allow a bank to (arguably with fraudulent misrepresentation in the process) sell their bad loans to suckers encourage lenders to make risky loans?

    Are you going to accuse me of arguing too much practicality now, and hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue because you're ostensibly arguing about principle? Are you aware that the lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation? Do you really not see why?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 06:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes
    In the long run we're all dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge
    The attempt to regulate, control, and prescribe all manner of conduct and social relations is very old. It was always the practice of primitive peoples.
    In an insane world, crazy is the new sane.

  4. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Fail. Are you arguing that those who are raped or murdered are 'asking for it'?
    They are no less a victim than creditors who trusted people to pay them back but were refused or betrayed.

    Or do you seriously believe that a lender that negotiates a loan with someone has as little to do with his situation as someone who is a victim of random violence?
    Not sure why that matters. And why would that matter to third parties who are paying for prisons.

    Under your system, getting a loan wouldn't be illegal, not repaying it would be.
    so would fraud.

    So, you're not a criminal until you miss a payment.
    Or committed fraud, or committed force. How else do you force people to pay?

    At what point do rape and murder go from being legal to being illegal? They don't.
    As soon as bullies in society decided it was their business to make it illegal. You think it was always illegal and we always had prisons for them? And courts? Juries? No. These all took time to form, some took longer, some came late, but we've accepted them (oh, no, we didn't, you didn't ask every single person in this room if they agreed to pay to punish rapists and murderers, how dare you steal their money to punish people only you hate)

    They're illegal from the moment the perp goes from impulse to action. Therefore, the comparison is a major failure of logic.
    WRONG. Legality of actions are human and social constructs. They're only illegal in societies that make it illegal, and only effectively illegal in countries that bother to punish them. Ever heard of "it's not illegal if you're not caught"?

  5. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Are lenders more likely to lend to them if they can put them in jail for not paying it back?
    would my answer settle anything or will you ask another one? I think they would.

    Can the lenders make slaves of them if they don't?
    I think they should, but you must have a better solution.

    Does this policy make lenders more likely to make risky loans, just the way bad legislation and the newfangled 'credit default swaps', which allow a bank to (arguably with fraudulent misrepresentation in the process) sell their bad loans to suckers encourage lenders to make risky loans?
    I love being vindicated, when arguments fail, blame the system for tricking idiots into being cheaters (call them the real victims) and tell the victims to fuck off.


    Are you going to accuse me of arguing too much practicality now, and hold yourself up as a paragon of virtue because you're ostensibly arguing about principle? Are you aware that the lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation? Do you really not see why?
    Nope. I never said I was arguing for either principle or practicality. I don't think there's anything wrong with being practical, I just don't think you're holding yourself to the same rules you do to me. I am not aware that lack of debtors prison is a founding principle of this nation, nor do I see why. It's not like you preserve or want to preserve every single founding principle of this nation (all the good stuff like not letting women and blacks vote).

  6. #35

    Default

    Although I think this is a futile argument to have with you, because you'll revert to the "why have any laws at all" that could be used justify any law and pretty much ends any sensible debate. I'll try to engage...

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Because they're already convinced that paying them back is impossible either because the person is unable or unwilling. That's like asking how is putting my rapist or robber in prison going to unrape or unrob me?
    Who determines that paying them back is impossible? They do? A court? Laws that the big lending companies help write through lobbyists? You like to go on about comparing an unpaid loan to being raped or robbed, but its again flawed logic and a poor analogy. Someone who rapes me or robs me, does so against my will. Someone who I give money to, in exchange for interest on the loan, is done so by 2 mutually agreeing parties. 1 party gets cash that they otherwise would not have, they have to pay a penalty in the form of interest in order to obtain the funds. The other party gives cash, with the promise to pay it back in the future with interest. Risk/Reward for both parties... Debtor pays more/have something they want now... Creditor loses money/earns more in interest. Nobody was forced into that agreement.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Of course I want to get paid if it was possible, but if I can't, why shouldn't I have the person punished if it either discourages him from doing it again, keeps him from doing it again, and teaches people what happens if you wrong people? Again, who doesn't want to prevent crime and undo crimes if they could? But if they can't why would doing nothing be better than punishing the criminal?
    Who says youre doing nothing... in the credit world, if you become known for not paying debts, then other creditors will not lend you money...that is the deterrent. Should we punish creditors who loan people money with no credit checks and 0 money down without seeing how much money the person makes, etc? Should they go to "creditor prison"?

    The credit industry is not very complicated at all... and the risk for loans should fall mainly on those who are giving the money out.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Who pays for prisons now? Who's happy to pay for which prisons and which crimes to be imprisonable?
    This is an apples to oranges comparison, who cares who pays for prisons now... who pays for the war in Iraq? Does the fact that we pay for the war in Iraq make a war in Iran justifiable?



    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Most of us are not victims of rape or murder either, so why should we pay to punish those people?
    That is a great question...probably one that is deserving of a different thread.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    No, everybody will benefit from not having debtors cheat people left and right.
    How so? Please explain to me, how myself as someone not involved in this transaction at all benefits? You also assume all debtors are cheaters, who went out preying on the innocent Bank of America... defrauded them, because when they didnt ask for proof of employment or a W-2 or do a simple credit check and handing over 500,000 on a house with no money down.... the evil debtor should have said "Hey, BoA....wait a minute... I dont deserve this money". And if they had, that would have somehow benefited me...

    Much like every other business, you take calculated risks in the credit industry and as such you have to write some things off and keep going. At the end of the day as long as those paying off their loans outweighs those who default on their loans, then a credit company will make money, most are doing ok...

  7. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    They are no less a victim than creditors who trusted people to pay them back but were refused or betrayed.
    Some people say that those who engage in risky behaviors deserve less attention and recompense than those who don't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Not sure why that matters. And why would that matter to third parties who are paying for prisons.
    It would very obviously matter to third parties because they're not at risk of having some stranger fail to repay a loan to them. Simply because, of course, they don't make loans to strangers. Which means the debtors' prison would either have to be a slavery operation, or those third parties would have to subsidize them--and for the express purpose of aiding lenders in their profitable businesses.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    so would fraud.
    So you're saying fraud isn't illegal or immoral until you fool someone? Or are you saying all borrowers who end up not repaying their loans get said loans with no intent of paying them back? No one ever got a loan with every intention of paying it off, then found themselves in changed circumstances and suddenly no longer able to pay it? Really?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Or committed fraud, or committed force. How else do you force people to pay?
    You can perpetrate fraud without intending to perpetrate fraud? Doesn't that kind of go against the very definition of the word?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    As soon as bullies in society decided it was their business to make it illegal. You think it was always illegal and we always had prisons for them? And courts? Juries? No. These all took time to form, some took longer, some came late, but we've accepted them (oh, no, we didn't, you didn't ask every single person in this room if they agreed to pay to punish rapists and murderers, how dare you steal their money to punish people only you hate)
    Do you always make up your own questions to answer? Do you always call making up your own questions and answering them 'debate'? I very, very clearly did not ask, 'At what point in history did x and y come to be considered crimes?' I very, very clearly did ask, at what point do these acts go from being acceptable behavior to being crimes. If you want someone to ask you only questions that you want to answer, what are you doing here interacting with me? Have you lost your mind?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    WRONG. Legality of actions are human and social constructs. They're only illegal in societies that make it illegal, and only effectively illegal in countries that bother to punish them. Ever heard of "it's not illegal if you're not caught"?
    And how, exactly, does that make me WRONG? Am I WRONG because you really think an illegal act is illegal if you're caught? Are you saying that robbing a bank and escaping scot free is legal? Can you quote me the legislation that says so? Because if you can't, guess what that means? It means that you're the one who's WRONG and I would actually be RIGHT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    would my answer settle anything or will you ask another one? I think they would.
    I suppose it all depends on whether your answer is RIGHT or WRONG.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I think they should, but you must have a better solution.
    I consider it better to have no solution at all than to give corporations a chance to enslave us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I love being vindicated, when arguments fail, blame the system for tricking idiots into being cheaters (call them the real victims) and tell the victims to fuck off.
    This bears no relation whatsoever to what I said. Must be a reading comprehension problem. Let's see if I can reduce it to second grade English.

    Banks found a way to sell bad loans to other people and leave it to them to collect. This made banks happy to make any loan they could, even to people who couldn't pay them off. It doesn't matter if these people were trying to commit fraud or just stupid. The banks wanted to lend to them either way, so they could package and sell the bad loans to someone the bank was trying to defraud.

    Now, if a bank isn't above doing that, either to another bank or to an individual investor, why would a bank be scrupulous about not making bad loans in order to get slaves (given the opportunity)? Are you really going to tell me no state ever passed stupid laws to get more people in their chain gangs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Nope. I never said I was arguing for either principle or practicality. I don't think there's anything wrong with being practical, I just don't think you're holding yourself to the same rules you do to me. I am not aware that lack of debtors prison is a founding principle of this nation, nor do I see why. It's not like you preserve or want to preserve every single founding principle of this nation (all the good stuff like not letting women and blacks vote).
    Obviously I do not want to preserve everything about the eighteenth century, or I wouldn't be arguing against a system of slavery that you seem to favor. That said, blacks were never prevented from voting in this nation unless they were slaves, or subject to Jim Crow laws (and I don't know of any federal Jim Crow laws). Nevertheless, a lack of debtors' prison is a founding principle of this nation. I cannot help you with your ignorance problem, obviously--you claim to be ignorant of the 'why' even though I have explained it, so you're obviously wilfully ignorant and you're free to be wilfully ignorant. I can turn on a light, but I can't make you open your eyes.

    I'm not holding you to any 'rules', I am merely winning this debate. If you aren't interested in either principle or practicality, I guess you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. Which, I guess, explains why you keep arguing points you've already lost. Either that, or your a troll hoping to make us all look like we're as pointless and obstinate as you're acting in this thread. Either way, I hope you're enjoying yourself.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 07:27 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes
    In the long run we're all dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge
    The attempt to regulate, control, and prescribe all manner of conduct and social relations is very old. It was always the practice of primitive peoples.
    In an insane world, crazy is the new sane.

  8. #37

    Default

    Credit rating system. Collateral. Caveat faenerator.

    No debtor prisons needed.
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  9. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    And how, exactly, does that make me WRONG? Am I WRONG because you really think an illegal act is illegal if you're caught?
    Yes, unless you're going to tell me it's illegal just because somebody says so.

    Are you saying that robbing a bank and escaping scot free is legal?
    It would be a very short way of saying "the law doesn't matter to those who can get away". But yes.

    Can you quote me the legislation that says so?
    Can you force me (or anybody) to follow a law they manage to escape?

    Because if you can't, guess what that means? It means that you're the one who's WRONG and I would actually be RIGHT.
    Your definition of illegal is being able to cite a law that says something is illegal?

  10. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Credit rating system. Collateral. Caveat faenerator.

    No debtor prisons needed.
    doesn't bankruptcy mess that up?

  11. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    You can perpetrate fraud without intending to perpetrate fraud? Doesn't that kind of go against the very definition of the word?
    what's your point? that you are happy to punish thoughts/intentions?

  12. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    It would very obviously matter to third parties because they're not at risk of having some stranger fail to repay a loan to them. Simply because, of course, they don't make loans to strangers. Which means the debtors' prison would either have to be a slavery operation, or those third parties would have to subsidize them--and for the express purpose of aiding lenders in their profitable businesses.
    oh, so you DO know the benefits of a debtor prison, the same reason you know the benefits of a criminal prison. So why did you ask me?

    Yes, all prisons are slavery operations because prisoners never asked to be enslaved, and third parties are always forced to pay for people they either don't want punished, don't need punished, or want punished, just not on their dime. What you keep getting back at is. A DEBTOR PRISON IS NO WORSE THAN ANY OTHER PRISON.

  13. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    doesn't bankruptcy mess that up?
    Then your problem is bankruptcy law not with debtors prisons. No?
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  14. #43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Then your problem is bankruptcy law not with debtors prisons. No?
    I definitely have a problem with bankruptcy law. and a debtor prison would be useless if not impossible if bankruptcy was allowed.

  15. #44

    Default

    Tpoints, is there anything that you've argued for on RPF that doesn't call for increasing the power of the state?

  16. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Yes, unless you're going to tell me it's illegal just because somebody says so.
    It's not illegal because 'somebody' says so, it's illegal because the statutes say so. Go buy yourself a dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    It would be a very short way of saying "the law doesn't matter to those who can get away". But yes.
    Getting away with a crime doesn't mean the crime isn't a crime. Go buy yourself a dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Can you force me (or anybody) to follow a law they manage to escape?
    Nowhere in the definition of 'law' will you find the word 'unbreakable'. Can we start a chip in and buy this individual a dictionary already?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Your definition of illegal is being able to cite a law that says something is illegal?
    I really can't lay claim to it being my definition. Which you would already know if you had a damned dictionary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    doesn't bankruptcy mess that up?
    No. Bankruptcy records exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    what's your point? that you are happy to punish thoughts/intentions?
    Obviously not. My point is that you cannot set out to rape someone with good intent, then have circumstances change on you which then turn your rape into bad intent. Obviously. Clearly. And in terms so plain that only a fool, an idiot, or the wilfully ignorant could possibly misunderstand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    oh, so you DO know the benefits of a debtor prison, the same reason you know the benefits of a criminal prison. So why did you ask me?

    Yes, all prisons are slavery operations because prisoners never asked to be enslaved, and third parties are always forced to pay for people they either don't want punished, don't need punished, or want punished, just not on their dime. What you keep getting back at is. A DEBTOR PRISON IS NO WORSE THAN ANY OTHER PRISON.
    But when the prisoner is put to work, someone benefits from that work. Who benefits? A debtors' prison pays the lender when it makes money off the prisoner's labor. Does your local prison pay Bank of America when it turns a dollar (or saves a contractor dollar) because of a convicted rapist's labor?

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Tpoints, is there anything that you've argued for on RPF that doesn't call for increasing the power of the state?
    How else can you troll this site?
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 07:39 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes
    In the long run we're all dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge
    The attempt to regulate, control, and prescribe all manner of conduct and social relations is very old. It was always the practice of primitive peoples.
    In an insane world, crazy is the new sane.

  17. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I definitely have a problem with bankruptcy law. and a debtor prison would be useless if not impossible if bankruptcy was allowed.
    Then your focus should be on that. Otherwise, Credit rating system. Collateral. Caveat faenerator.
    Something, something, something...Whatever my rage for the day.

  18. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Tpoints, is there anything that you've argued for on RPF that doesn't call for increasing the power of the state?
    I've called for getting rid of bankruptcy protection. I've called for not banning employers from asking for facebook passwords. I've called for allowing private property owners to make rules on their own land (such as not allow guns, or not having handicap parking)

  19. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I've called for getting rid of bankruptcy protection. I've called for not banning employers from asking for facebook passwords. I've called for allowing private property owners to make rules on their own land (such as not allow guns, or not having handicap parking)
    There's a word for people who want corporations to hold unlimited power, and for governments to serve their every need. They're called fascists.

    Something else you'd know already if you only had a dictionary.

    I know many would-be liberals and other victims of public education and the mainstream mafi--er, I mean media can't tell the difference. But that does not make this libertarian forum a haven for you fascists. Sorry.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 07:46 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes
    In the long run we're all dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge
    The attempt to regulate, control, and prescribe all manner of conduct and social relations is very old. It was always the practice of primitive peoples.
    In an insane world, crazy is the new sane.

  20. #49

    Default

    Beautiful...so weve come to an agreement here. Fix a broken bankruptcy system and no debtor prison is needed... much like fixing a broken drug policy would eliminate the need to put many non-violent drug users in prison...

  21. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    It's not illegal because 'somebody' says so, it's illegal because the statutes say so. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
    Statutes didn't write themselves. Somebody who thinks they have the right to tell you what to do wrote them.

    Getting away with a crime doesn't mean the crime isn't a crime. Go buy yourself a dictionary.
    Saying it's a crime but doing nothing about it is as good as not saying it's a crime.

    Nowhere in the definition of 'law' will you find the word 'unbreakable'. Can we start a chip in and buy this individual a dictionary already?
    No dictionary, not even law dictionaries, say "law" allows government to force people to pay to punish those who break it either. Let's follow dictionary definitions only, shall we?

    I really can't lay claim to it being my definition. Which you would already know if you had a damned dictionary.
    see above.
    No. Bankruptcy records exist.
    but it allows a person to legally walk away freely, and tells the creditor he's SOL, and makes it illegal to harass to collect.

    Obviously not. My point is that you cannot set out to rape someone with good intent
    the criminal will never admit he had bad intent. but hey, we get to tell him he has bad intent because we read his mind, right?

    , then have circumstances change on you which then turn your rape into bad intent. Obviously. Clearly. And in terms so plain that only a fool, an idiot, or the wilfully ignorant could possibly misunderstand.
    Calling me names doesn't make you right.


    But when the prisoner is put to work, someone benefits from that work. Who benefits?
    Wait? am I reading from the SAME GUY who was just complaining to me that prisons will be subsidized by innocent 3rd parties? Well we just found a solution, they'll be paid back that way.

    A debtors' prison pays the lender when it makes money off the prisoner's labor.
    He can avoid it if he paid off better ways. I don't (since I started this thread, I think I get to give you my position), imprison people unless its last resort, usually when it's beyond reasonable doubt that the person is unable and unwilling to pay, and punishing him is the same rationale as punishing prisoners, to prevent him from hurting more people, and warning other people that's what happens if you wrong somebody, even if it doesn't pay back the victim.

    Does your local prison pay Bank of America when it turns a dollar (or saves a contractor dollar) because of a prisoner's labor?
    if it did, does it make it better or worse? I'm amazed, you're now arguing that prisons for debtors will make too much money and we'll be worrying about where to place the extra money. Before I thought, everybody was arguing that it'll waste too much money and burden taxpayers for nothing in return.
    Last edited by Tpoints; 02-04-2013 at 07:46 AM.

  22. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CT4Liberty View Post
    Beautiful...so weve come to an agreement here. Fix a broken bankruptcy system and no debtor prison is needed... much like fixing a broken drug policy would eliminate the need to put many non-violent drug users in prison...
    sounds about right.

  23. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There's a word for people who want corporations to hold unlimited power, and for governments to serve their every need. They're called fascists.

    Something else you'd know already if you only had a dictionary.

    I know many would-be liberals and other victims of public education and the mainstream mafi--er, I mean media can't tell the difference. But that does not make this libertarian forum a haven for you fascists. Sorry.
    LMAO, I specifically listed things I argue for that is decreasing government power, what does that have to do with fascism? Are you so desperate you have to pull out your namecalling dictionary to throw everything at me, hoping some stick?

  24. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    There's a word for people who want corporations to hold unlimited power, and for governments to serve their every need. They're called fascists.

    Something else you'd know already if you only had a dictionary.
    Tpoints doesn't get the difference between civil matters and criminal matters. It's bad enough that they jail men who can't afford to pay alimony awarded by the state, when no prior contract had been entered into. He doesn't understand that the solutions to bad behavior don't always come from the state, and thinks prisons grow on trees. We already have the largest incarceration rate in the world....hey...why not double it?

  25. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Tpoints doesn't get the difference between civil matters and criminal matters.
    I know there is currently a legal difference. But I don't know why and how they are separated. In practical terms, criminal is when the state decides it's their business to enforce a rule, and civil is when the state says they'll still hold a court to hear 2 people argue, but won't stand on the victim's side automatically. You can always settle a civil matter without going to court too.

    It's bad enough that they jail men who can't afford to pay alimony awarded by the state, when no prior contract had been entered into.
    just like it's bad enough criminals are being forced to go to prison when they never agreed to be punished for things they enjoy doing, just because the state decided it's their business to force people into certain behaviors.

    He doesn't understand that the solutions to bad behavior don't always come from the state, and thinks prisons grow on trees.
    I do actually understand that, and I don't think prisons grow on trees. But somebody here was complaining that debtor prisons will make too much money we'll be worrying where to spend it, so clearly that kind of prison grows on trees.

    We already have the largest incarceration rate in the world....hey...why not double it?
    Don't double it unless it serves more good than harm.

  26. #55

    Default

    Tpoints, why are you trolling again? The article you linked to isn't even about debtors' prisons, that's just a tag line to set up some snark.
    “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”

    - SAMUEL ADAMS

  27. #56
    Lone Coyote ClydeCoulter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Here, for a little while longer
    Posts
    9,892
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Say, if I owe money to 4 institutions, but I'm unable to make payments on one (the least needed, say electric company) but able to keep up payments to the other 3. Now, the electric company cuts off my electric and sends me to prison until paid for previous services. This causes me to be delinquent on the other 3. So, then I must stay in prison longer to pay those off. Hmmmm

  28. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Statutes didn't write themselves. Somebody who thinks they have the right to tell you what to do wrote them.
    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Saying it's a crime but doing nothing about it is as good as not saying it's a crime.
    So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    No dictionary, not even law dictionaries, say "law" allows government to force people to pay to punish those who break it either. Let's follow dictionary definitions only, shall we?
    They don't have to. The laws themselves do. So what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    but it allows a person to legally walk away freely, and tells the creditor he's SOL, and makes it illegal to harass to collect.
    Which is beside your point. Which leads me to ask, so what?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    the criminal will never admit he had bad intent. but hey, we get to tell him he has bad intent because we read his mind, right?
    If he claims he had a good intent when he set out to rape someone, yes, we tell him he had bad intent. But not because we read his mind. Meanwhile, it obviously is possible to take out a loan without bad intent. Even if you lose your job a week later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Calling me names doesn't make you right.
    I didn't call you any names in the quoted passage. If you wish to fit the description, that's your choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Wait? am I reading from the SAME GUY who was just complaining to me that prisons will be subsidized by innocent 3rd parties? Well we just found a solution, they'll be paid back that way.
    You didn't answer the question. Who benefits? Who benefits? It isn't a hard question.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    He can avoid it if he paid off better ways. I don't (since I started this thread, I think I get to give you my position), imprison people unless its last resort, usually when it's beyond reasonable doubt that the person is unable and unwilling to pay, and punishing him is the same rationale as punishing prisoners, to prevent him from hurting more people, and warning other people that's what happens if you wrong somebody, even if it doesn't pay back the victim.
    You don't imprison people at all. Which is fortunate, because I see no sign whatsoever that you're patient enough to meet your own burden of proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    if it did, does it make it better or worse?
    It would certainly lead Bank of America to use whatever influence it could muster to have everything imaginable made illegal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I'm amazed, you're now arguing that prisons for debtors will make too much money and we'll be worrying about where to place the extra money. Before I thought, everybody was arguing that it'll waste too much money and burden taxpayers for nothing in return.
    I'm amazed that you're trying to stuff that shit into my mouth. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and your obvious and pathetically sophomoric attempt to put those words in my mouth (and thus deflect the legitimate point I was making) is not winning you this debate.

    You cannot deny that making incarcerations profitable for someone will lead that someone to try to influence the government into incarcerating more people. Noted. You could have admitted that without stuffing your shit in my mouth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    LMAO, I specifically listed things I argue for that is decreasing government power, what does that have to do with fascism? Are you so desperate you have to pull out your namecalling dictionary to throw everything at me, hoping some stick?
    Socialism is about increasing government power. Fascism is about giving every corporate whim the power of law. Which you might understand if you had a dictionary of your own.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I know there is currently a legal difference. But I don't know why and how they are separated. In practical terms, criminal is when the state decides it's their business to enforce a rule, and civil is when the state says they'll still hold a court to hear 2 people argue, but won't stand on the victim's side automatically. You can always settle a civil matter without going to court too.
    Then why are you advocating prison for these civil matters? If it were provable as fraud, then the borrower would already be threatened with prison for fraud. This does not make any prison a 'debtors' prison'. It makes fraud a criminal offense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    just like it's bad enough criminals are being forced to go to prison when they never agreed to be punished for things they enjoy doing, just because the state decided it's their business to force people into certain behaviors.
    If that's bad, how is debtors' prison good?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    I do actually understand that, and I don't think prisons grow on trees. But somebody here was complaining that debtor prisons will make too much money we'll be worrying where to spend it, so clearly that kind of prison grows on trees.
    You are the only person who said that. No one else did. When you get your dictionary, look up 'straw man'.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    Don't double it unless it serves more good than harm.
    As you yourself described civil matters, this statement leads to the obvious question--good for whom and harm to whom?

    Not that it matters. This so-called conversation has left me disinclined to take your word for it anyway.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 02-04-2013 at 08:12 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by John Maynard Keynes
    In the long run we're all dead.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calvin Coolidge
    The attempt to regulate, control, and prescribe all manner of conduct and social relations is very old. It was always the practice of primitive peoples.
    In an insane world, crazy is the new sane.

  29. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tpoints View Post
    how is breaching contract any less the government's business than fraud?
    Breech of contract is not deliberate dishonesty used to trick people out of their property. It is simply failure to keep a promise. Fraud is a kind of theft, a predatory action. Breech of contract is just business. Made a bad deal? Too bad for you.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  30. #59
    Member jkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    OhiO baybeeeeee
    Posts
    6,002

    Default

    the UNITES STATES OF AMERICA *is* a debtors prison

    L00k around...

  31. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So what?
    Statute were written by people, so ultimately something is illegal, by your definition, because somebody says so. Something you denied.

    So what?
    Practicality doesn't matter to you? Sorry then!

    They don't have to. The laws themselves do. So what?
    Laws themselves do? Says who/what/where?

    Which is beside your point. Which leads me to ask, so what?
    this essentially means the state is using force to favor debtors and wrong creditors. Are you in favor of that?

    If he claims he had a good intent when he set out to rape someone, yes, we tell him he had bad intent. But not because we read his mind.
    then why?

    Meanwhile, it obviously is possible to take out a loan without bad intent. Even if you lose your job a week later.
    Ok, you have a point, people are punished differently if they intended to commit a crime vs accidentally harmed somebody. But lack of intent doesn't always mean you are completely off the hook.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •