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

31–40 of 393 posts

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

#31

Post by oblio »

sdoering wrote: post #18
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

As much as I agree with your sentiment, I think you could just as easily quote from the first paragraph of the linked Wikipedia article to find a counter point to your (seemingly) rhetoric question: > Walton cofounded the Children's Scholarship Fund, providing tuition scholarships for disadvantaged youth.

That's not worth $18.2tn, knowing charity it was probably worth a few tens of millions, at best, and was used for tax write-offs.

Plus knowing rich people, he evaded/avoided taxes (probably hundreds of millions, if not billions) that regular Joes making $36.4k a year would never be able to.

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

#33

Post by oblio »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30
8note wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Capitalism ideally means ideal free markets, free of distortion. Starting with market distorting money from birth by definition... distorts markets.

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

#34

Post by lordnacho »

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.

It's a common refrain that people get rich by providing value to others, and I used to think that way as well.

Unfortunately I don't think it really stands scrutiny.

First of all, there's no proper idea of what value is. It's a super deep conversation so I'll just leave that headline for now.

Second, even without a clear explanation of what value is, we can distinguish between value created and value captured. You can easily come up with cases where multiple people have done more or less the same thing but one guy gets more out of it than others. Is that the system we want?

Third, even without an explanation of what value is, we can see that there are people who provide no value but get paid a heck of a lot. Heirs, scam artists of various sorts. Not just straight give-you-nothing for something thieves, but also plenty of way overpaid people who live in the space between totally honest trading and totally dishonest thievery.

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

#35

Post by lovich »

sdoering wrote: post #18
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

As much as I agree with your sentiment, I think you could just as easily quote from the first paragraph of the linked Wikipedia article to find a counter point to your (seemingly) rhetoric question: > Walton cofounded the Children's Scholarship Fund, providing tuition scholarships for disadvantaged youth.

He did that with money he already had, unless he somehow managed to turn a profit off a charity which would be a different concern

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

#36

Post by lordnacho »

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.

Yes but this is a discussion about ought, not is.

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

#37

Post by csallen »

babyshake wrote: post #25
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.

> 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.

True. However, there are two points worth making:

1. The purpose of many laws and regulations that support capitalism is to make it very difficult to capture value without creating it. (When compared to a world without these laws.) 2. It's generally much easier to capture value that you create than to capture value that others create.

The result is that there's a massive incentive to create value for others, and a great deal of rich people and organizations are creating value, even if it's not all of them.

IMO this is under-appreciated and taken for granted in the modern era, as if it couldn't be any other way.

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

#38

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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 obviously doesn't make any sense.

Suppose you have more money than you need and want to be charitable, so you set up some terms under which you'll give some away. A scholarship fund, a shelter, whatever you like. You can set whatever criteria you want, because it's your money.

But then you could also use the criteria "the people who get this free tuition money and housing are your kids." Being able to do this, benefit their kids, is a primary motivator for parents to work to make more money.

And if you can give away the money to anyone you want three seconds before death, it makes no sense to say you can't sign a piece of paper to that effect at any point prior either.

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

#39

Post by drekipus »

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...

I get so tired of comments like this, such low effort brain drainage..

Yes yes we know the glorious Soviet society that was the pinnacle of fair and just.

It's almost like justice and rule of law are separated from the economy and wealth. "But it is not so" - well it should be so, don't ask for further coupling of economic systems.

For law and justice to be fair, liberties need to be given. Not taken.

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

#40

Post by cbozeman »

alephnan wrote: post #11

Well if the suspect was wrongly accused, they'd have to reimburse the damages. Does the FBI have a budget for such things? Does it involve extra paperwork if it passes a certain threshold? Is the issue here profiling of the demographic or the risk ( in terms of cost ).

If the FBI is considering busting down your door, they do not have the wrong person.
Post reply on HN