Van Dam

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by edew
It's not stealing in the strict legal sense. Well, of course. Who made those "legal" sense?

The representatives WE chose. You and I. And about two thousand years of legal thought and practice.

Enron wasn't stealing either. They just moved money around, and told people that they have a large revenue.

Nope. That WAS stealing, or at least illegal. Otherwise there'd be no investigation and no prosecutions, would there?

If you like, we can have the government legalize rape (and for domestic cases, it was legal until just recently), legalize murder, slavery (you know about this), and whatever else.

If you can convince society to accept those mores, and they in turn to convince lawmakers to reify them, and somehow circumvent court precedent, sure you can. I don't think you'll have much luck in that direction, though.

Saying that the government isn't stealing because they wrote the laws that let them do it is kinda, uh, naive.

Nope. Saying that it isn't stealing because the laws do not so define it. And a society has to decide to abide by common laws and common definitions. If you want to be the Mad Hatter ( or whoever it was ) and insist on your own definitions, go right ahead. Just don't expect a lot of people to go along with you.

Read today's Salon.com headline article about how the Pentagon loses billions more dollars than Enron or WorldCom ever lost. If that's not stealing (and giving the money to the connected), I don't know what is.

Then perhaps you don't...

If there is any illegality involved, it should be investigated and punished. That's why the laws, and agencies charged with their enforcement, are there.

Are there weaknesses, flaws and loopholes in the system? Sure. Is there graft, greed and peculation? Certainly. Are they sometimes winked at, condoned, missed and gotten away with? Absolutely. And your solution is---what? Chuck the whole thing in favor of anarchy? Reliance upon personal honor and morality? Yeah, that'll get us a long way...

I mean, that is, in the most fundamental sense of the word, stealing. When you forcibly take money from someone and give it undeservedly to someone else. That's stealing.

Uh, no. Stealing is just the unlawful taking part. Emphasis on the "unlawful". It's immaterial to whom the proceeds eventually go---that's a separate issue.

I'll tell you what, though. Maybe we could take you off the tax rolls. Let you keep 100% of whatever you earn. Then if youe employer decided not to pay you, you can try to pry the money out of him yourself. You can contract with a private fire service in case your house catches fire. You can hire private security and a bodyguard to keep you safe. We'll charge you a toll every time you want to travel on a public street, sidewalk, or other thoroughfare. When you get ready to retire, don't count on Social Security, Medicare, or access to any public hospital. And by the way, you can't use our currency, so you'd better get started on that barter economy of yours.

Doesn't that sound like loads of fun?

[135711]

the jury made a decision based on the evidence presented, those people are in the best position to make a decision. i'm sure that wading through forensic photographs and etc, helped them come to a fair and swift decision. when the verdict is carried out, the rest of society has the option of sending the deceased their prayers. Just as a post script. I take this very seiously. When I read the names of all of the victims of certain people, I submit their names to my temple so that their names can be inscribed on a memorial Toba and so that everyone can pray for their peace and happyness.

[edew]

Well, there ya go. That solves everything. Why did we even wend through such along thread on this subject anyway. 135711 did everyone right.

You will be adding Westerfield's name to the memorial toba, as a victim of the state, right?

[135711]

we wended through the ting so we could arrive at a consensus, of sorts. that's a very good question, i would have difficulty adding his name to the pot, but i may, there is a moral problem here. if those who submit names to the temple feel that the deceased will find tranquility in the next existence, we may say 'i don't want this person to return tranquil', so we don't submit their names. on the other hand, there are far reaching consequences to lack of compassion, so even though we may find these people repugnant, we still try to lend their soul some small comfort, because we understand that some principles, such as "energy and substance cannot be destroyed only transformed" we will enhance their chances of becoming more enlightened. so, that their next existence, will not produce as much suffering.

[edew]

Do you by chance drink Penta-water?

[135711]

what's that

[It]

Do you think that Daniel's parents are partially to blame?

The reason I ask this is because Daniel's parents may have lived a different lifestlye that some people may find out of the ordinary. They "supposedly" were swingers. If they were, could that have had had made an impact on Daniel future? And is it possiable she would be alive today? If anyone has a chance, you may want to look up the case see what conclusions you might come up with. Personally I don't know if she would be alive today. For all that I know know it might've been a different child that David Westerfield could have had slain. Then again he did know the layout of the house and he did have knowledge of the Van Dame's lifestyle. I know this is an subject and kind of hard to believe that the parents "might" have partial blame for the way they lived. Or maybe not.



Oh since were off the subject of DEATH.......anyone could reply ......... I hope

[135711]

i hate to say it, but yes, i believe her parents lifestyle set the tone. the child was easier to target. if your guardians aren't guarding, where y'at? but naturally the person who comitted the crime does the time.

[It]

I know that it has been awhile and I just wanted to finish up a little for those of you who may want to know.




David Westerfield was sentenced to spend the rest of his life on Death Row while awaiting to be finally put to death. The sentence was given on January the 4th 2003.


In a strange way I feel somewhat pleased but at the same time a bit heart broken that this had occured. The court released some more eviedence and details of the crime. I'm sorry that Daniell Van Dame spent her last minutes of her life in such horror and pain and could only wish that Westerfield could / would suffer the same.