Is Corbyn right about "requisitioning" property from the rich?

[luiz]

ITT someone even offended by people speaking against austerity.
Comedy never stops, yet the act got old fast.

Nobody is offended by people speaking against austerity. People tend to be offended when they are accused of mass murder far before even the investigation is done, though.

That's because non-terrorist sympathizers have this bourgeois idea that murder is bad, and that being accused of it is also bad. A Hugo Chavez butt-kisser and Hamas cheerleader wouldn't know that, of course, since he actively praises and supports the killing of innocent civilians and children.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Would you support going after the families of terrorists? Because we don't do even that, even though terrorists are deliberately killing young children. And if someone suggested going after the families of terrorists, he would be called a nazi monster. But you would go after the families of bad constructors?

Not particularly. the motivations of terrorists are different. Greed is generally the factor in shoddy construction or big financial scams that take advantage of and put people at risk. The best punishment for those is impoverishment. And putting their family at risk might serve to deter them. For example, if Donald and Jared are found to have been entangled with laundering Russian mob money, the family (all those involved in the company and the children and wives) should forfeit all their wealth without any path to recover it or accept aid other than government poverty programs. Likewise, those folks in England who approved/promoted substandard material in the burned building or failed to fix sprinkler systems to save money or make additional profit, should suffer impoverishment too. No jail time. The best punishment for greed is to make them permanently poor.

 

[Mise]

It's a dumb idea. We can easily afford to put the victims up in hotels or B&Bs, pay for their food, clothes and transport costs, make sure their kids can get to and from school, and get them back to relative normalcy. They should not be sleeping on mattresses in sports centres. We don't need to seize assets in order to do this; we have plenty of resources at our disposal to provide safe housing for these people.

 

[metalhead]

Most of the assets of the rich should be requisitioned on principle. But we can be nice about it and wait until they die.

 

[El_Machinae]

Would you support going after the families of terrorists? Because we don't do even that, even though terrorists are deliberately killing young children. And if someone suggested going after the families of terrorists, he would be called a nazi monster. But you would go after the families of bad constructors?

This was a great counterpoint. Made me ponder.

In business, people underwrite debt. So any debt that is underwritten by family is obviously collectible. But also, this idea that we shouldn't go after family would bloom into the situation where contractors would hide assets by giving them to families just before being sued.

I like your point, though. And it's a great direct chastisement of what BJ wrote. I find my brain is pointing out all the differences in the analogy, to distinguish it from terrorism. But that's beside the point. The impoverishment would happen to the contractor, and if he co-owned assets with family, those would be at risk too. Especially if they were bought using the contractor's labor.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This was a great counterpoint. Made me ponder.

In business, people underwrite debt. So any debt that is underwritten by family is obviously collectible. But also, this idea that we shouldn't go after family would bloom into the situation where contractors would hide assets by giving them to families just before being sued.

I like your point, though. And it's a great direct chastisement of what BJ wrote. I find my brain is pointing out all the differences in the analogy, to distinguish it from terrorism. But that's beside the point. The impoverishment would happen to the contractor, and if he co-owned assets with family, those would be at risk too. Especially if they were bought using the contractor's labor.

Terrorism is a different animal from fraud based on greed. I would keep the two very separate. My whole point is that those who perpetuate construction fraud (for improved profit etc.) and financial fraud to steal from others, fear being poor more than they fear jail or fines. To avoid both detection and incrimination, they will hide their ill gotten wealth among family members and in hidden bank accounts. By imposing and enforcing impoverishment upon all who benefited from those deeds, the stakes are raised. You don't get a few years in jail and then a return to your previous wealth and lifestyle. Maddoff is in a minimum security prison in Butler NC for life. I'd rather see him and all his family in a homeless shelter or in public housing living off $800 a month in Waterloo IA.

When people either sanction or use substandard materials in construction such that they put lives at risk, they need know that their decisions will change their life too. When substandard or dangerous materials are used in construction, somebody made a decision to use them. Often, somebody approved that decision. Those are the criminals. If the 70+ deaths in London were caused by poor and criminal decisions by individuals, the decision makers' lives should feel the pain of losing everything too. The next guy might think twice about not repairing the sprinkler system.

The punishment should fit the crime and the criminals should know that what they do will impact those they care about as much as them. What do do with the confiscated wealth is a different matter.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

With paid compensation, as one assumes is intended here, this literally already happens pretty constantly. Including in London where it's called compulsory purchase.

It just happens for profit or infrastructure reasons, and is targeted at poor people, instead of targeting rich people for housing the homeless, which I guess makes it not communist?

Just going to quote this because I have to ask: why is it okay (i.e. no media uproar) when it's done to the poors?

 

[Kyriakos]

Just going to quote this because I have to ask: why is it okay (i.e. no media uproar) when it's done to the poors?

Cause the poors are like Poland: one unable to defend oneself is not really worth existing, amiriteinoriginalgerman

 

[Flying Pig]

The punishment should fit the crime

Isn't that the fundamental problem with this, though? It's a pretty basic principle of civilised, liberal society that we only punish people for their own actions. We indirectly punish people fairly regularly - if a family's only breadwinner steals a car, the rest of them are going to lose out - but stepping that up to direct and deliberate punishment of innocent people for the 'crime' of having bad people who care about them is something you only really see in the nastier sort of dictatorships.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you are at an out-of-control house party while in control personally, you're still boned when the five-o show, no? Might not be able to blame minors, but you could probably blame significant others, spouses, and people determined to benefit in the manner of spouses. I guess what differentiates the guilt by association in the two situations other than one is complicated to enforce and the other one is much easier? I mean, that's a legitimate reason to differentiate them, but that can't be all there is, I have to be missing something.

 

[Lexicus]

That like saying "child murder exists" and that by default child murder is necessary for society. I mean, if your entire conception of society is a collection of hateful, mean-spirited violent thugs and that we should aspire to nothing better, then, well, I got nothing.

Uh, his signature literally says "Take the Red Pill" in all caps, of course this is what he believes.

there's nothing wrong as long as proper standards are met.

Right, except this ignores the fact that 'proper standards' are often dictated by exactly those interests who benefit from having standards that don't actually prevent anything like this from happening, because, ya know, cost savings...

 

[Commodore]

Not particularly. the motivations of terrorists are different. Greed is generally the factor in shoddy construction or big financial scams that take advantage of and put people at risk. The best punishment for those is impoverishment. And putting their family at risk might serve to deter them. For example, if Donald and Jared are found to have been entangled with laundering Russian mob money, the family (all those involved in the company and the children and wives) should forfeit all their wealth without any path to recover it or accept aid other than government poverty programs. Likewise, those folks in England who approved/promoted substandard material in the burned building or failed to fix sprinkler systems to save money or make additional profit, should suffer impoverishment too. No jail time. The best punishment for greed is to make them permanently poor.

Not only would such punishments be unconstitutional in the US, they would be morally wrong as well. Families should never be punished or held responsible for the actions of an individual in that family.

 

[Ajidica]

Uh, his signature literally says "Take the Red Pill" in all caps, of course this is what he believes.

I try and assume the best in everyone, even Red Pillers.

 

[Traitorfish]

Isn't that the fundamental problem with this, though? It's a pretty basic principle of civilised, liberal society that we only punish people for their own actions. We indirectly punish people fairly regularly - if a family's only breadwinner steals a car, the rest of them are going to lose out - but stepping that up to direct and deliberate punishment of innocent people for the 'crime' of having bad people who care about them is something you only really see in the nastier sort of dictatorships.

That sounds a bit like the distinction between dropping a bomb on a hospital and dropping a bomb on the insurgents on the roof of the hospital.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Not only would such punishments be unconstitutional in the US, they would be morally wrong as well. Families should never be punished or held responsible for the actions of an individual in that family.

What if the family members are reasonably aware of the source of those benefits? Should family members report the crimes of their spouse and children? Where do you draw the line for responsibility in such matters? If I steal $100 million and buy my wife a $10 million bungalow on Maui that she then owns, is she not party to my crime?

Which part of the constitution are my suggestions violating?

 

[Commodore]

Which part of the constitution are my suggestions violating?

The "corruption of blood" clause. Technically, that clause only deals with treason however, I'm sure a court would find it very easy to expand the meaning of that clause to include other crimes as well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks; I read up on that. It's interesting and a court case at a minimum would be needed to expand it. An amendment would never get through without lots of impoverishment verdicts. What about the rest of the post?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Many more buildings have now been found to have the substandard, hazardous insulation. so what should be done about those who are part of the bad process of getting that installed?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Did anyone else read the news report where the cause was said to be a faulty fridge freezer?

 

[Hrothbern]

Did anyone else read the news report where the cause was said to be a faulty fridge freezer?

yes
It was a whirlpool under some local brand

EDIT
I found the link back, a hotpoint fridge
http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/23/news/whirlpool-london-fire-grenfell-tower/index.html