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

41–50 of 393 posts

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

#41

Post by lovich »

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.

If you’re dead you don’t get to make decisions anymore. These sorts of arguments would have more weight if the parents actually transferred the wealth earlier than their death or shortly before it, but they want to retain all the power that comes with that capital and then pick the winners in the next round of the economy by bequeathing it to their children.

If we want any sort of system even approaching a meritocracy then you should not be able to will away such vast estates that people can control entire companies or never work again a day in their life solely off the inherited assets

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

#42

Post by arcticbull »

drekipus wrote: post #39
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.

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

The opposite of end-stage capitalism isn't Stalinism. It's very American to view the opposite of "capitalism" as the Soviet Union, but the truth is there's a whole spectrum in between socialism and capitalism, totalitarianism and libertarianism.

In my opinion this criticism is just as low-effort.

> It's almost like justice and rule of law are separated from the economy and wealth.

I respectfully disagree. Societies with less inequality tend to be more peaceful. Economic policy and social policy are very much intertwined.

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

Law and justice is by definition the restriction of liberties to support a functioning society - not the giving of liberties. You begin with the full universe of liberties and law/order is all about choosing which ones are sacrificed by whom to optimize along a certain axis.

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

#43

Post by exogeny »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #23
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.

They're inexorably linked in this country. That shouldn't even need to be pointed out.

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

#44

Post by drekipus »

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…

Yes, the point of capitalism is that people can do that, but shouldn't. And it should work in tandem with whatever social system that's set up, (justice, laws, morals, ethics, etc)

Pyramid schemes steal a great amount of wealth, and should be regulated. Regulated capitalism is the good thing. The thing is, pyramid schemes aren't run by the state (or shouldn't be) and you don't have a gun to your head forcing you to participate.

I almost feel like "unregulated capitalism" is just a straw man argument that others get tricked into trying to defend.

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

#45

Post by LudwigNagasena »

oblio wrote: post #33
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A mere change in market equilibrium doesn’t constitute a market distortion.

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

#46

Post by watwut »

ncmncm wrote: post #9

Maybe we should be asking why they are so eager to break down other people's doors, instead of harassing them for not breaking down just this one.

The very same people who are pointing out this were complaining about aggressive police tactic for years. It is not instead.

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

#47

Post by AnthonyMouse »

oblio wrote: post #33
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not how that works. It's just the opposite.

If someone doesn't expect to live much longer but can still provide a significant amount of value to others, their incentive to do it is that they can decide how the money gets used, i.e. they can give it to their kids or otherwise choose who gets it after they're not around to use it anymore.

Take that away and you take away their incentive to earn money they soon won't be alive to use themselves, which is a huge distortion.

Meanwhile people starting off with money allows them to use it, but that doesn't imply inefficiency. They don't lack the incentive to use it for something productive.

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

#48

Post by pmontra »

oblio wrote: post #33
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production vs collective ownership, which is communism. Everything else is a consequence. I can think of state owned companies competing on price or privately owned companies colluding in a cartel to keep prices up or down, basically with no market, or any other combination. Even China's market way to socialism.

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

#49

Post by patrick451 »

cbozeman wrote: post #40
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.

Wow, you are naive. I guess they may as well execute them on the spot too. Judge and jury and the fifth amendment be damned.

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

#50

Post by watwut »

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.

> In the Soviet Union the high level apparatchiks lived in better housing, away from the common people.

Tho, after USSR fell, inequality in Russia went up by a lot. And it gave rise to what are now oligarch - the mix of very powerful mafia and business with very little constraints on them at the time. And that situation made Russians appreciate Putin, going full circle back to authoritarianism and imperialism.

Post reply on HN