Quote of the day—Wraith

The Constitution doesn’t matter.  The law doesn’t matter.  We live in de facto anarchy, where it all comes down to who’s got the biggest gang, the most guns and the most sociopathic outlook on life.

Seriously, folks–that’s how it is.  This country won’t even follow Iceland’s lead in prosecuting the plutocrat banksters.  It won’t hold any Proglodyte accountable for their actions, but will hold every one of us accountable for the actions of others.  It’s never been plainer that it’s Who You Are or Who You Know that determines whether you’re subject to the law of the land.

So if you expect even one politician to face any consequences at all for their treasonous actions, you’re dumber than Joe Biden.  Period.

March 21, 2013
Comment to Quote of the day—Magpul Industries Corp.
[He’s got a point.

I’ve been recently thinking that even true anarchy with people contracting with private firms and individuals for dispute resolution, and construction and/or maintenance of common resources (roads, forests, lakes, rivers, etc.) might be a better “government” model than what we have now.

What we have now is that some subset of the people adhere to the rules simply because they are the rules and those people end up being at a severe disadvantage to those that don’t play by the rules with a very low risk of punishment.—Joe]


6 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Wraith

  1. I think it might be an explicitly desired effect on the part of the state, to replace the religious feelings people have about, well, religion, with religious feelings about “the law”.

    I can’t even count the number of times I’ve tried to get people to understand the difference between “legal or illegal” and “ethical or unethical”. Even if they don’t share my particular flavor of ethics, it’s just this unending repetition of “But that’s what the law says!”

    “The Law”, and “Money” (fiat currency, anyway) are basically just great big (mostly) consentual common hallucinations. It’s a piece of paper with a number on it. It’s only worth anything because generally, everyone agrees it’s worth something. It’s obviously not backed by anything these days. Likewise “The Law” is mostly what the majority of people will call the Police to enforce. And yes, obviously, the Police are generally not subject to the same law, and neither are the very rich / politically well connected.

    It’s like the worst parts of anarchy, without even the ability to contract with a new community.

  2. I used to be an anarchist. Then I realized that it was just like communism–great in theory, but not so much in practice, because both go against human nature.

    Anarchy can’t last, because there are always going to be people who crave power over others, and there are all too many people willing to give them that power. Either because they want to be with the guys on top, or they want to be taken care of. That’s never been more obvious than now.

  3. Pingback: SayUncle » Anarchy

  4. “This country won’t even follow Iceland’s lead in prosecuting the plutocrat banksters.”

    Did the people he’s namecalling actually break any laws?

    (And I want specifics! Name names and name statutes. Doing so would make for a first, since people making such demands have historically been very bad at telling me which specific law they think was broken.)

    If not, then it’s not “anarchy” that they’re not being prosecuted – it’s the rule of law.

    • Here’s a start. You may wish to read the archives of the referenced site. However, you’d best grab a beverage and pack a lunch, because Mr. Denninger(who is more intelligent in the world of finance than I could ever hope to be)has been vivisecting the outright theft and fraud prevalent in our financial system for quite some time.

      This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of FACT. Something is either legal or illegal, and what the banksters have been doing is absolutely, literally ILLEGAL.

      Yes. They DID break laws. Lots of them. And no one in any position of authority is going to do squat about it.

      To what conclusion does that lead…? 😕

  5. How about bank robbery? or Fraud? or a failure to exercise due diligence in lending money (a failure to perform their fiduciary obligations)?

    The ones in charge had to know that the paper they were selling was bad, otherwise they wouldn’t have been selling so much of it. If it had been a good investment, they would have kept it. That has to be some sort of fraud right there.

    The senators who twisted the arms of the bankers into making all those bad loans are guilty of extortion of some flavor or another. They were using my money to buy votes.

    The brokers who sold all those mortgages probably misrepresented the super risky investments to their buyers. It doesn’t matter if they “didn’t know”, because part of their job is to know.

    The people who bought these pieces of paper without making sure that they were properly backed by a property deed are guilty of some sort of embezzlement or con or malfeasance.

    It isn’t hard to identify the guilty – it is harder to find someone who is genuinely innocent. I am sure that the main function of all the laws and memos and paperwork and contracts-with-fine-print is to provide enough ass-covering material that it would take mega man-years to get a conviction of the entry-level banker, and more to get the supervisor who told him to “just make the loan and let me worry about the details.” The very existence of all these excuses and all the bucks being passed in a circle is evidence to me that they knew all along that it would blow up in their face, and they just wanted to get their quarterly bonus before it did.

Comments are closed.