Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

 

2010-01-12 13:48:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5356|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No one is saying people with money should be able to operate above the law. There have been several solutions offered to the contrary.

I'm not calling you a communist. Just immoral and unjust.
By your code of morality and justice, which of course it is your prerogative to believe.
At the very least of course, but if that was all why would I be wasting my time?

You haven't thought it through. About as well as you thought through "paper money" on the other thread. I know it, more importantly you know it, and that's all that matters to me.
Considering every single person that has weighed in during the course of this thread has taken a diametrically opposed view to your own, perhaps you should reread it and rethink your position. You didn't 'win' anything in this thread except what you bludgeoned out of CP with your incessant attacks on minor points. If that constitutes a victory for you then you're no better at debate than lowing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-01-12 13:48:25
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6553

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

At the very least of course, but if that was all why would I be wasting my time?

You haven't thought it through. About as well as you thought through "paper money" on the other thread. I know it, more importantly you know it, and that's all that matters to me.
Hahaha. As if. Can I be childish too by rementioning the contradiction of your position in this thread that you made in the flat tax rate thread? You're a waste of time. Good luck building all them jails.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2010-01-12 13:50:21)

2010-01-12 13:55:05
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85
I already told you what I already told John. Taxes are completely intertwined with economics. Justice should be independent of it. Not everyone is equal in the eyes of the IRS - we should strive for everyone to be equal in the eye of the law.
2010-01-12 14:00:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6553

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I already told you what I already told John. Taxes are completely intertwined with economics. Justice should be independent of it. Not everyone is equal in the eyes of the IRS - we should strive for everyone to be equal in the eye of the law.
lol. Shift the goalposts if it suits you. Until you can find a way of not bankrupting a nation by having every petty criminal under the sun incarcerated or being led around by enforcers picking up rubbish you can continue with your idealistic philosophical fantasyland. If a system of fines remains then economics forms part of and becomes intertwined with the law and its administration. Period. I don't agree with abolishing fines. You think they should be abolished. Like I said, good luck building all those jails.
2010-01-12 14:05:57
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85
1. Community service

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses.

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders

Three solutions that don't require any more state resources and maintain equal punishment for everyone. You don't want to hear them. You would rather tell me to go build jails over and over.

Fines shouldn't be abolished. Fines should be the same for everyone. I've said this a lot already.
2010-01-12 14:20:00
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6553

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

1. Community service

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses.

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders

Three solutions that don't require any more state resources and maintain equal punishment for everyone. You don't want to hear them. You would rather tell me to go build jails over and over.

Fines shouldn't be abolished. Fines should be the same for everyone. I've said this a lot already.
You hadn't actually explicitly stated them until now, although I didn't read the first 3 or 4 pages of the thread. What I was talking about only made sense if there was no point 3. Obviously if there is then, in terms of speeding, then the magnitude of the fine is irrelevant provided the threshold number of offences for removal is low. I don't think point 1 is practical as a first port of call for the fairly common offence of speeding.
2010-01-12 14:23:28
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85
/facepalm

Okay fine then, let's just say read the whole thread and call it pretty close like we did a bunch of posts ago.
2010-01-12 14:50:49
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6769|PNW

CameronPoe wrote:

lol. Because a €50 fine will deter multi-millionaires from speeding?! What planet are you morons on?
I happen to agree with this. It isn't right that a traffic fine should be so crippling to poor people when it does nothing to deter rich people from speeding and putting everyone else's lives in danger.
2010-01-12 15:51:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

lol ridiculous...you didn't even ask how fast they were going.

$2000 because they are well off. Not because it was an extreme hazard, not because they are a repeat offender.
Good point...  fines should be more heavily influenced by the extremity of the offense than by your income.

Personally, I think the best option would be to create an equation that determines the fine amount with these two factors involved, but with a heavier factor of the offense itself.
2010-01-12 15:55:37
PureFodder
Member
+225|6283
Punishments should be equally deterent whatever your financial situation.

Community service or fines based on income are the obvious ways to ensure this. Otherwise you can be rich enough to disregard the law.
2010-01-12 23:15:02
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6220|teh FIN-land
maniac still hasn't explained how fining a pauper 100 bucks is the same as fining a millionaire 100 bucks beyond tha bare fact that the sum is the same the effect and detterent is NOT - which is why his argument is rubbish, independent of any considerations of jail time, community service or whatnot. Time to give up maniac?

Still hasn't explained why 'if you can't pay the fine don't do the crime' is OK since it also equals 'if you CAN pay the fine do whatever you want' which is basically what he's arguing.

The fines ARE the same for everyone if it is a PERCENTAGE of your earnings as has been explained many times over yet you DON'T GET IT. /facepalm right back atcha.

In fact in Finland as far as I am aware you DO get fined more the faster you are speeding, but it's still a percentage of your earnings, which IS the same percentage for everyone thus AFFECTS EVERYONE EQUALLY. Jayzuz wtf is wrong with you why don't you get that.
2010-01-12 23:31:38
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85
It's like I'm supposed to be riled up, but I'm not because it's just like we're back to page 1. I could either type out a new response or copy/paste three old ones that all respond equally well because I've responded to a series of people the exact same points and each one seems to fail to read the responses to the previous. Not to mention no one has yet attacked the moral reasoning of same laws for everyone regardless of income, at least Poe acknowledged it is a personal ideal.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.
yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!

ho hum. I still stand by our fine Finnish system of adjusted speeding fines, and think they'd also be reasonable if put in place for many other misdemeanours punishable by fines.

p.s. LOL at Harmor bailing from this one
You also seem to have missed the bit about jail time or community service.
That is where you stopped responding. You want to go you start here.
2010-01-12 23:37:21
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6220|teh FIN-land
What's to respond? It's a good system as it is. I think you're wrong and your arguments regarding eqeuality before the law are totally backward...

I thought we were discussing the system that IS (at least I was). i.e. the OP regarding paying fines commensurate with your income.
2010-01-12 23:43:34
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85
Fine, I'll re-respond so you understand where the argument went.

ruisleipa wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People should stop committing crime is what they should do. If you can't pay the price, don't do the crime.
yeah right, but YOU'RE saying that if you CAN afford to pay the price then go ahead and do the crime.

i.e. rich bloke speeding can easily afford 50 bucks so what the hell speed away rich boy!
No, that is not what I said. I said that the punishment should be equal to to the crime, not equal to someone's pocketbook. If you're looking for a deterrent then you should implement some other form of punishment, such as

1. Community service

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses.

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders

so that you can both equally apply the laws to all people that commit the same offense, but at the same time dissuade people to whom a flat fine isn't significant from speeding.
2010-01-13 00:21:16
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6672|Canberra, AUS
3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders
That's kind of irrelevant to this case. You still have the problem that those who are loaded still get, in essence, a near-free pass to speed once.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-13 00:23:06
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

Spark wrote:

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders
That's kind of irrelevant to this case. You still have the problem that those who are loaded still get, in essence, a near-free pass to speed once.
Are you seriously going to argue that you want penalties that keep people from getting even a single speeding ticket?
2010-01-13 00:34:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6672|Canberra, AUS

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Spark wrote:

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders
That's kind of irrelevant to this case. You still have the problem that those who are loaded still get, in essence, a near-free pass to speed once.
Are you seriously going to argue that you want penalties that keep people from getting even a single speeding ticket?
No, but if the penalties should actually penalise. If you break the law and the system is so weak that you don't even care, then there is a problem with the system.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2010-01-13 00:51:02
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

Spark wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Spark wrote:


That's kind of irrelevant to this case. You still have the problem that those who are loaded still get, in essence, a near-free pass to speed once.
Are you seriously going to argue that you want penalties that keep people from getting even a single speeding ticket?
No, but if the penalties should actually penalise. If you break the law and the system is so weak that you don't even care, then there is a problem with the system.
sooooo...remove licenses from repeat offenders.
2010-01-13 04:14:08
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
1. Community service - OK

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses - still doesn't punish people evenly

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders - rich people just take taxis
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-01-13 04:22:51
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6613|do not disturb

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Community service - OK

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses - still doesn't punish people evenly

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders - rich people just take taxis
1 would certainly be a humbling experience.
2010-01-13 11:13:21
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

1. Community service - OK

2. Increment absolute value of fines with number of offenses - still doesn't punish people evenly

3. Removing licenses from repeat offenders - rich people just take taxis
2. Why not?

3. and? Do you want to keep people from speeding or do you want to take money away from rich people?
2010-01-13 16:45:07
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6288|Éire
For those of you who were advocating jail-time for speeders in this thread, here is a little dose of reality from Britain this week...

Prison population 'should be cut' by third, say MPs
2010-01-13 20:27:48
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2. Why not?

3. and? Do you want to keep people from speeding or do you want to take money away from rich people?
2. I thought we'd covered this, a $200 fine for someone making $200k/yr is laughable.
3. To stop people speeding. Taking their license away will be a temporary annoyance, whereas for a poorer person it may mean not working.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-01-13 20:29:10
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX

Braddock wrote:

For those of you who were advocating jail-time for speeders in this thread, here is a little dose of reality from Britain this week...

Prison population 'should be cut' by third, say MPs
Irrelevant, either you want to stop speeding or you don't.
You apparently don't.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-01-13 20:31:14
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6704|67.222.138.85

Dilbert_X wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

2. Why not?

3. and? Do you want to keep people from speeding or do you want to take money away from rich people?
2. I thought we'd covered this, a $200 fine for someone making $200k/yr is laughable.
3. To stop people speeding. Taking their license away will be a temporary annoyance, whereas for a poorer person it may mean not working.
2. So step up the amount drastically.
3. Firstly I don't see how taking someone's license away is a temporary problem. No one said how easy it is to get back, if it is even possible. Secondly you would put a proven reckless driver on the road because that is the transportation to work?

 

Pages: 1 … 5 6 7 8

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard