'robin hood' bankers

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

Then there is a legal system which should be able to be used to gain redress by those wronged.

You can't just go around taking other people's property, regardless of whether you're Abromovich or a crusading bank manager.

You're on to a loser here ninky.

how many people ever have property returned to them that is stolen? given that all property at some stage comes from natural resources, the only one of which we can possibly lay claim to ever really 'owning' being our own lifespan in terms of time, how can it be considered that anything ever really and truly belongs to anyone anyway?

the only thing that confers property on us is of course the system which by consensus (or indifference) allows certain people to maintain and acquire more - generally at the expense of others.

if we compare society to a family with several children, can you imagine it being seen as fair that a parent would distribute goods, clothing, food etc on the basis of which child was brighter, faster, more attractive etc, which child they liked better, or which child simply helped themselves to more or manipulated resources from its siblings? yet this is precisely what the current system allows.

if there was indeed a just and fair system then i doubt these robin hood bankers would have done what they did. yet when you see some poor person struggling even to put food in their mouths whilst someone else who has used bribery and corruption jets off to their own private island it is hard to consider our system as adequate in providing justice.


as for abramovich, he was arrested and imprisoned for theft of government property at one point but whether that can be considered adequate redress for all the dodgy dealing that went on is highly debatable. the level of security he needs to protect himself suggests a certain number of people around and about who don't consider the system to have redressed their wrongs.

dopester

ninky wrote: »

how many people ever have property returned to them that is stolen? given that all property at some stage comes from natural resources, the only one of which we can possibly lay claim to ever really 'owning' being our own lifespan in terms of time, how can it be considered that anything ever really and truly belongs to anyone anyway?

At the banquet table of nature, there are no reserved seats. You get what you can take, and you keep what you can hold.

Hunter-gatherer groups had no concept of private property, including about land. The big shift leading to the concept of property and private-ownership, was when humans began to settle the land, to farm it, and those groups needed to stop wandering groups coming to take the harvest. They had made their plot their own. Fencing or hedges and force of course. Rightly so... they'd done the work, so right to stop others coming to take the rewards.

I'm not disputing that crime can pay, and pay very well. That the light sentences which often come with crimes where someone is actually caught. Legal process where prosecutors have often traded guilty pleas for lessser sentences even for brutal crimes, routinely released from overcrowded prisons after only serving small fractions of of their sentence... so criminals may often have rational contempt for the law.

Los Angeles detective Robert E.Readhimer specialised in investigation of metal thefts. He told Los Angeles Times that even metal thieves who steal hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of property are routinely jailed on misdemenor counts and quickly released. One suspect was said to face no more than ninety days in jail for his seventeenth conviction.

We've got less corruption in the UK than in Russia, and a legal framework which has developed over the years. There is a lot of unfairness in the world, a lot of crime and corruption and people skimming off way more than their due or worth. There are also people worth their great wealth and who've brought wealth to others and advanced the economy with their work.

Highlighting those who are suspect to how they've acquired their wealth to undermine concept of private property in a quest for easy income redistribution (or outright theft) isn't a path I'm going to get on. It takes down the good and honest, along with the bad.

Increased claims and actions to undermine private ownership/private property/"too much wealth in one hands so justified to take" seems to me it would lead to a much more unstable, unhappy and possibly violent society when it's unstable already. I'm on the side of law and order with what I believe is still an honest majority, whilst hoping those who knowingly scam money (including some bankers) meet justice for their crimes.

ninky_2

dopester wrote: »

Increased claims and actions to undermine private ownership/private property/"too much wealth in one hands so justified to take" seems to me it would lead to a much more unstable, unhappy and possibly violent society when it's unstable already. I'm on the side of law and order with what I believe is still an honest majority, whilst hoping those who knowingly scam money (including some bankers) meet justice for their crimes.

you make some good and interesting points here. however, i'm not justifying a generalised 'take' of private property, but rather that in some cases there may have been some moral justification for the bank employees helping poorer customers through tough times. in some cases it was reversing bank charges, in others it involved 'borrowing' from richer clients and even adding interest due (albeit without their consent).

generali asked if i would mind having my property redistributed. well, i'm not in the league of super rich so removing any worthwhile level of my money would likely lead to homelessness or deprivation. however, if i had spare properties and large amounts of disposable income then actually i don't think i would mind.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

generali asked if i would mind having my property redistributed. well, i'm not in the league of super rich so removing any worthwhile level of my money would likely lead to homelessness or deprivation. however, if i had spare properties and large amounts of disposable income then actually i don't think i would mind.

The thing is the line of rich and poor is dramatically variable depending who you ask. Many defined as in poverty here, by world standards are far from poor. Where do you draw that line? Where current taxation lines are? That puts many receiving hand backs in the league of rich.

What you see as spare might well be income for employees maintaining that.

I just don't know: somethings seem to big a question, raising more questions than answers.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

you make some good and interesting points here. however, i'm not justifying a generalised 'take' of private property, but rather that in some cases there may have been some moral justification for the bank employees helping poorer customers through tough times. in some cases it was reversing bank charges, in others it involved 'borrowing' from richer clients and even adding interest due (albeit without their consent).

generali asked if i would mind having my property redistributed. well, i'm not in the league of super rich so removing any worthwhile level of my money would likely lead to homelessness or deprivation. however, if i had spare properties and large amounts of disposable income then actually i don't think i would mind.

I have no knowledge of your personal situation but you are probably hugely rich by the standards of most of the world's population - certainly once you include your consumption of goods and services provided by government.

The problem once you go down this road of bank managers redistributing other peoples' money without their permission (in this case the bank managers have stolen from the bank shareholders, many of whom may be poor by UK standards) is who can and can't do this? Who gets to decide who is worthy and who isn't?

carolt

Lots of people steal from me legally - like the govt - who randomly redistribute my taxes to spend on a whole load of !!!! they shouldn't have, like MPs expenses. That's stealing.

Don't see any prosecutions, though.

By comparison, stealing to help others less fortunate seems very noble by comparison.

I certainly think there are occasions where a moral law should overcome a technical law.

lostinrates

[QUOTE=carolt;27012269
I certainly think there are occasions where a moral law should overcome a technical law.[/QUOTE]

I think there are occasions where moral law should set precident for change in actual law. Thankfully our legal system has the capacity to evolve. (although has been to fast to keep up with n technicalities in recent years!)

Generali

This forum is very strange sometimes. People with broadly left wing views seem to be against tax but in favour of theft....

ninky_2

carolt wrote: »

I certainly think there are occasions where a moral law should overcome a technical law.

and this is why robin hood is such a persistent folk hero. we have to set our own moral standards sometimes and i admire those who are willing to live by them even at high personal risk. there are many instances when people have technically broken the law for a higher moral purpose.

i'm not talking about shades of grey of wealth but i don't think anyone would argue that the likes of abramovich are mega wealthy and could easily lose a few bob without worrying too much about it.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

and this is why robin hood is such a persistent folk hero. we have to set our own moral standards sometimes and i admire those who are willing to live by them even at high personal risk. there are many instances when people have technically broken the law for a higher moral purpose.

i'm not talking about shades of grey of wealth but i don't think anyone would argue that the likes of abramovich are mega wealthy and could easily lose a few bob without worrying too much about it.

I'm sure that most of sub-Saharan Africa feels the same about you.