The Law and it's benifactors - Page 2

Aerozord · 10-22-2011, 12:00 AM

yes I agree it is a balance, and the reason they are in their station of politics is their ability to manage the balance of political, economic, and popular power.

Truth is thanks to telecommunication and globalization, as well as consumer reliance, and many other factors the eventuality of a hyper-corporation controlled is simply a reality. People are not willing to do what they must to stop it and really the governmental limitations are the only thing slowing it down. My point is they want this to stay slowed down to keep their own positions from becoming unneeded.

If not for legal limitations corporations could just run roughshod over the population.

Aldurin · 10-22-2011, 12:03 AM

I have to agree with Geminex's stance on the issue. Law is created with the intent of maintaining social stability for everyone, despite it's abuse by the rich. It's intent is neutral while the result is definitely not.

Also, "the rich" needs to be more closely defined. Is this simply anyone with a fuckton of money and the ability to spend it? Is it douchebags that inherited 99.999% of their wealth? Or is it people who decided to have the initiative and be resourceful enough to actually work their way from the bottom up and grab success by the balls?

Depending on how this is categorized can influence the issue. Rich people that don't work for their money will likely be compared to despots and that is not necessarily a bad analogy, since they basically have power thrown at them without necessarily having any experience actually running anything that'd qualify them for influencing law. But if it's people that actually earned their way to being considered rich then it is reasonable to see them having influence by using the same drive and resourcefulness that got them rich (which in itself is perfectly reasonable since they ARE working for that power and along the way they probably gained some administrative experience which would further qualify them for making law). And when you do work your way to the top then you probably garner some degree of respect and influence from the sheer fact that other top-level people see them as potentially powerful.

To shorten the last paragraph, the laws are surely heavily influenced by people that happen to be wealthy, but the result of that influence could easily be considered in different ways depending on who "the rich" are. It could be people that don't deserve such power using it how they feel or it could be people that have experience running things and just happened to earn their way to being rich along the way.

Jagos · 10-22-2011, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aldurin

Also, "the rich" needs to be more closely defined. Is this simply anyone with a fuckton of money and the ability to spend it? Is it douchebags that inherited 99.999% of their wealth? Or is it people who decided to have the initiative and be resourceful enough to actually work their way from the bottom up and grab success by the balls?

I believe it's safe to say that it's not necessarily the blue collared workers, but the ones that are CEOs, stockholders, and bankers that don't deal with the public, instead making work off of holding investments and businesses.

Aerozord · 10-22-2011, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jagos

I believe it's safe to say that it's not necessarily the blue collared workers, but the ones that are CEOs, stockholders, and bankers that don't deal with the public, instead making work off of holding investments and businesses.

wait, but I'm a CEO, stockholder, and incredibly poor.

Azisien · 10-22-2011, 01:23 AM

Do you own shitty stocks and have a crap company?

Aerozord · 10-22-2011, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azisien

Do you own shitty stocks and have a crap company?

well I do NOW. Though company is more small then crappy. People seem to confuse business owner with "rich", most business owners work 80 hour weeks and are below the poverty line.

Amake · 10-22-2011, 03:09 AM

If you steal a thousand dollars you're likely to spend a few years in prison. If you steal a million dollars you're probably spending many years i not life in prison. If you steal a billion dollars chances are you'll spend less than a year in a minimum security prison. If you steal a trillion dollars odds are good you get a government bailout. It's not that law is necessarily written by the rich, but somehow no legal system has yet been created that has shown itself able to treat the rich like common folks.

And that's not exactly a recent discovery. To quote Anacharsis, circa 600 BC: "Laws are like cobwebs, for if any trifling or powerless thing falls into them, they hold it fast, but if a thing of any size falls into them it breaks the mesh and escapes."

Magus · 10-23-2011, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aerozord

wait, but I'm a CEO, stockholder, and incredibly poor.

That's cause you're dealing with the public and actually running your company instead of sending down commandments from the top of your ivory tower!

10-22-2011, 12:00 AM	#11
Aerozord So we are clear Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Former murder capital of the world Posts: 13,824	yes I agree it is a balance, and the reason they are in their station of politics is their ability to manage the balance of political, economic, and popular power. Truth is thanks to telecommunication and globalization, as well as consumer reliance, and many other factors the eventuality of a hyper-corporation controlled is simply a reality. People are not willing to do what they must to stop it and really the governmental limitations are the only thing slowing it down. My point is they want this to stay slowed down to keep their own positions from becoming unneeded. If not for legal limitations corporations could just run roughshod over the population. __________________ "don't hate me for being a heterosexual white guy disparaging slacktivism, hate me for all those murders I've done."

10-22-2011, 03:09 AM	#17
Amake Keeper of the new Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: A place without judgment Posts: 4,506	If you steal a thousand dollars you're likely to spend a few years in prison. If you steal a million dollars you're probably spending many years i not life in prison. If you steal a billion dollars chances are you'll spend less than a year in a minimum security prison. If you steal a trillion dollars odds are good you get a government bailout. It's not that law is necessarily written by the rich, but somehow no legal system has yet been created that has shown itself able to treat the rich like common folks. And that's not exactly a recent discovery. To quote Anacharsis, circa 600 BC: "Laws are like cobwebs, for if any trifling or powerless thing falls into them, they hold it fast, but if a thing of any size falls into them it breaks the mesh and escapes." __________________ Hope insistent, trust implicit, love inherent, life immersed

10-22-2011, 12:03 AM	#12
Aldurin Lakitu Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 4,648	I have to agree with Geminex's stance on the issue. Law is created with the intent of maintaining social stability for everyone, despite it's abuse by the rich. It's intent is neutral while the result is definitely not. Also, "the rich" needs to be more closely defined. Is this simply anyone with a fuckton of money and the ability to spend it? Is it douchebags that inherited 99.999% of their wealth? Or is it people who decided to have the initiative and be resourceful enough to actually work their way from the bottom up and grab success by the balls? Depending on how this is categorized can influence the issue. Rich people that don't work for their money will likely be compared to despots and that is not necessarily a bad analogy, since they basically have power thrown at them without necessarily having any experience actually running anything that'd qualify them for influencing law. But if it's people that actually earned their way to being considered rich then it is reasonable to see them having influence by using the same drive and resourcefulness that got them rich (which in itself is perfectly reasonable since they ARE working for that power and along the way they probably gained some administrative experience which would further qualify them for making law). And when you do work your way to the top then you probably garner some degree of respect and influence from the sheer fact that other top-level people see them as potentially powerful. To shorten the last paragraph, the laws are surely heavily influenced by people that happen to be wealthy, but the result of that influence could easily be considered in different ways depending on who "the rich" are. It could be people that don't deserve such power using it how they feel or it could be people that have experience running things and just happened to earn their way to being rich along the way.

10-22-2011, 01:23 AM	#15
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Do you own shitty stocks and have a crap company?