Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 393 posts

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#21

Post by settrans »

eesmith wrote: post #15
seibelj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#22

Post by 8note »

seibelj wrote: post #4
testemailfordg2 wrote: post #2

Just as light bends under the influence of gravity....Looks like rule of law also bends under the influence of capitalism...

In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.

I'm sure plenty of Soviets became rich by providing value to other people today. The main way to become elite regardless is to be born that way, capitalism or not. The rest is noise

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#23

Post by LudwigNagasena »

exogeny wrote: post #19

America is much more racist than you think, and if you don't think so, you should probably talk to more POC.

Yeah, that certainly sounds like an issue of race and not of class. I guess in racially homogenous societies wealthy people don’t get any preferential treatment by police in any way whatsoever.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#24

Post by 8note »

settrans wrote: post #21
eesmith wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.

On death, what right do you retain to that property? Under a more capitalist system, your children could not inherit, and instead have to start from the bottom like everyone else.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#25

Post by babyshake »

seibelj wrote: post #4
testemailfordg2 wrote: post #2

Just as light bends under the influence of gravity....Looks like rule of law also bends under the influence of capitalism...

In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.

> At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people.

You become rich by capturing value. Often times, as Silicon Valley and its investors like to remind the world, a lot of value is also being provided so it is indeed a win-win. But you don't become rich by providing value.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#27

Post by LudwigNagasena »

eesmith wrote: post #15
seibelj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.

What value did John T. Walton provide that was worth US$18.2 billion? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Walton

Kids have obvious value to their parents. That’s like one of the most basic evolutionary instincts.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#28

Post by adhesive_wombat »

sdoering wrote: post #16
seibelj wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people. There will always be elite people. At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. In socialism you become elite by stealing from your comrades and forcefully eliminating the competition.

While I agree with the Soviet part (or any political system for that matter) I doubt the pro capitalist generalization would stand to scrutiny: > At least in capitalism you become rich by providing value to other people. One could easily find examples that counter these points. I doubt pyramid schemes (think Madoff's schemes) or crypto scams are the only counter-examples possible. These more often than not come from…

It can be trivially shown to be not true by considering that some people are a toxic drain on a company, costing them immense amounts of money, torpedoing productivity, ruining morale and yet continue to draw a salary for years and years.

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#29

Post by kingkawn »

88840-8855 wrote: post #10

People with money and power have it better. Yes, clear, thanks for yet another confirmation. This is why I could never enjoy NYC. As a normal middle class dude you always feel everywhere that you are a nothing: no fame/no power/no money = people are rude, aggressive, hostile to you. I never felt that in London, which is a quite comparable city to NYC. I felt welcome in most places despite not being rich or famous.

NYC gives you the city you look for in it

Re: FBI Didn't Knock Down a Suspect's Door Because 'It Was an Affluent Neighborhood'

#30

Post by LudwigNagasena »

8note wrote: post #24
settrans wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's obviously not how property rights work. Sam Walton was entitled to bequeath his wealth to his heirs however he saw fit, subject to any applicable estate and inheritance taxes.

On death, what right do you retain to that property? Under a more capitalist system, your children could not inherit, and instead have to start from the bottom like everyone else.

That’s not capitalism. That’s some kind of meritocratic (anti?-)utopia. Capitalism is when you can do with your property whatever you want including giving it away to whomever you want.
Post reply on HN