Does The State Have Any Moral Obligations?

[mickthinks]

I agree, but it probably won't work ...

Woah there, dude! What won't work? Neither I, nor Tom, I think, were proposing a policy for action. We were just observing a problem interpreting something Taibbi was reported as saying.

So what is it you are agreeing with? And what do you think is bad and in need of changing?

[Ginkgo]

I agree, but it probably won't work ...

Woah there, dude! What won't work? Neither I, nor Tom, I think, were proposing a policy for action. We were just observing a problem interpreting something Taibbi was reported as saying.

So what is it you are agreeing with? And what do you think is bad and in need of changing?

Fair enough.

As I said in my previous post it is up to the individual to decide if anything needs changing. Basically, is it right to send someone to jail because they steal $3000 dollars from Social Security as compared to $3000,000 in a white collar theft? Too big to prosecute makes perfect sense when everything is taken into account, but is it morally acceptable?

In not then from my point of view there need to be a refocusing of institutional ethics. Most institutions( including government institutions) do have a code of practice.

[bobevenson]

Basically, is it right to send someone to jail because they steal $3000 dollars from Social Security as compared to $3000,000 in a white collar theft? Too big to prosecute makes perfect sense when everything is taken into account, but is it morally acceptable?

Too big to prosecute? What the hell does that mean?

[Ginkgo]

Basically, is it right to send someone to jail because they steal $3000 dollars from Social Security as compared to $3000,000 in a white collar theft? Too big to prosecute makes perfect sense when everything is taken into account, but is it morally acceptable?

Too big to prosecute? What the hell does that mean?

It means that from the government's point of view it isn't worth the risk prosecuting a large financial organization for wrong doings.
There would be a lost at stake. There are millions of share holders who would suffer financial loss. At this stage it is difficult or impossible for financial institutions not to be involved in a global economy. Bringing down or damaging a key financial institution could result in a global crisis.

You prosecute a few individuals from an organization, but you run the risk of someone digging deeper and finding a level of corruption that nobody wants to know about. Too risky if you know what I mean. It is far easier to prosecute some poor slob on the street who is ripping off social services. Everyone dislikes them.

[bobevenson]

Basically, is it right to send someone to jail because they steal $3000 dollars from Social Security as compared to $3000,000 in a white collar theft? Too big to prosecute makes perfect sense when everything is taken into account, but is it morally acceptable?

Too big to prosecute? What the hell does that mean?

It means that from the government's point of view it isn't worth the risk prosecuting a large financial organization for wrong doings.

I'm sure Bernie Madoff and his crew will be glad to hear that.

[mickthinks]

Too big to prosecute [...] is it morally acceptable?

There is more than one questionable assumption hidden in that question, I think. For instance, the link it implies between a moral obligation to avoid commiting a crime, and the moral obligation to prosecute criminals is hardly a self-evident given ...

... there need to be a refocusing of institutional ethics.

... and there you are assuming ethics applies to institutions, which is somewhat begging the question in the OP. Do ethics govern not just persons but also institutions? Can you say why you think they do?

[Ginkgo]

Too big to prosecute [...] is it morally acceptable?

There is more than one questionable assumption hidden in that question, I think. For instance, the link it implies between a moral obligation to avoid commiting a crime, and the moral obligation to prosecute criminals is hardly a self-evident given ...

... there need to be a refocusing of institutional ethics.

... and there you are assuming ethics applies to institutions, which is somewhat begging the question in the OP. Do ethics govern not just persons but also institutions? Can you say why you think they do?

Excellent question.

Two schools of though operate here in light of the fact that the popular assumption is that individuals and institutions have a moral obligation.

There are those who would argue that institutions and natural natural persons so it can only be the case that natural persons have obligations. On the other hand, others would argue that even though institutions are artificial entities so they have moral obligations just like natural persons.

I think it depends on the country you are in. The USA (Supreme Court)has come down on the side that of 1st Amendment in relation to institutions. That is to say, institutions in some circumstances have the same rights as natural persons. For example, institutions have the right of free speech, while in other instances they don't have certain rights. For example,corporations cannot vote in Federal elections.

As far as I am aware in law it is possible to prosecute natural persons who work corporations in a similar way as it is possible to prosecute a corporation as an artificial. In other words, it is possible to do both. My argument is that the latter tends to be avoided because it is difficult and may have unpleasant repercussions.

As far as the last paragraph is concerned this is the extent of my knowledge on the subject. I could stand corrected.

P.S. I don't live in the USA

[SpheresOfBalance]

This morning I listened to Amy Goodman's interview of Matt Taibbi on Democracy Now about his new book, The Divide:

" Award-winning journalist Matt Taibbi is out with an explosive new book that asks why the vast majority of white-collar criminals have avoided prison since the financial crisis began, while an unequal justice system imprisons the poor and people of color on a mass scale. In "The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap," Taibbi explores how the Depression-level income gap between the wealthy and the poor is mirrored by a "justice" gap in who is targeted for prosecution and imprisonment. "It is much more grotesque to consider the non-enforcement of white-collar criminals when you do consider how incredibly aggressive law enforcement is with regard to everybody else," Taibbi says."
http://www.democracynow.org/
http://www.amazon.com/Divide-American-I ... the+divide

The book is about the difference in prosecutions between the rich versus the poor.The rich often are not prosecuted, while the poor slob often winds up in jail when the "stop and frisk" police find a joint in his pocket. Having formerly been a prosecutor, I found the interview to be fascinating.

Few people realize that the office of the prosecutor is the most powerful office in government.

Would you believe that during the Clinton and Bush administrations the Justice Departments prosecuted Wall Street banker/crooks and sent many to prison? BUT, TAIBBI SAID, DURING OBAMA'S FIVE YEARS IN OFFICE THERE HAVE BEEN ZERO PROSECUTIONS!

During the interview, Taibbi casually referred (as self-evident) to the government's "moral obligation" to prosecute the banker/crooks.

I disagree. Only human beings have moral obligations. Governments have only those obligations that are defined by law, only legal obligations.

What do you think?

Yet law was initially laid down due to moral obligations, and is the only way it should be. Laws that are about money, should be abolished, as the slavery that they are. Of course it's total BS that white collar crimes go unpunished, they should especially be punished.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"Assume that the ex-KKK leader has been tried and convicted of the shootings. State in detail how you would control him."

Control is not required.

All that's needed is: one bullet (fired from one gun, directed by one capable person) in his head.

Four-legged mad dogs are accorded this mercy, why not the two-legged variety?

Some people are just trigger happy, slightly askew of normal thinking, like a mad dog. I think those that think killing a retard is the answer to their crime, instead of a testament of the shooters cowardice, should shoot themselves instead, proving how brave they really are.

[bobevenson]

Laws that are about money, should be abolished, as the slavery that they are.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

[SpheresOfBalance]

The silly idea that laws are anything but anthropomorphized is a joke. Every single idea man has ever had, is man-centric, usually benefiting the one with the initial idea. Sometimes these conversations blow me away, with their blatant smoke screening. Just because man invents other supposedly different words, outlining different concepts, doesn't mean they are actually removed from the basic selfish animal wants and desires, that actually spawned them. Pretty much, man is a stupid animal, that will lie, cheat, steal and kill to serve his selfishness, and it doesn't matter whether they're white, blue or any other conceivable colored collar, meant to delineate a selfish concept, as they're all just the same stupid animals serving the same stupid self promoting means. More and more, some days, I pray for that one asteroid the size of Texas, hitting the planet at 100,000 MPH, fuck the stupid animal in all it's using, denial and deception! At this stage it sometimes seems that we need to wipe the slate clean and start over, as mans too stupid to get it.

Where's my coffee, I need my coffee!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Laws that are about money, should be abolished, as the slavery that they are.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bob, some laws are in place only for the sake of money, to be gained by the 1 percent-ers.

[bobevenson]

Laws that are about money, should be abolished, as the slavery that they are.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bob, some laws are in place only for the sake of money, to be gained by the 1 percent-ers.

Please specify one of those laws that you think are made to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Laws that are about money, should be abolished, as the slavery that they are.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Bob, some laws are in place only for the sake of money, to be gained by the 1 percent-ers.

Please specify one of those laws that you think are made to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor.

Off the top of my head...

The illegalization of marijuana, for instance. And I shall not elaborate, so you'll surely step in it! But we should really leave tbieter's thread alone. So...

Do you really want to pursue this? Yes or No?

[bobevenson]

The illegalization of marijuana benefits the rich at the expense of the poor? If marijuana were legal like regular cigarets, it would Improve quality and reduce price to the consumer. I think you need to come up with another example.