Statutes didn't write themselves. Somebody who thinks they have the right to tell you what to do wrote them.
So what?
Saying it's a crime but doing nothing about it is as good as not saying it's a crime.
So what?
No dictionary, not even law dictionaries, say "law" allows government to force people to pay to punish those who break it either. Let's follow dictionary definitions only, shall we?
They don't have to. The laws themselves do. So what?
but it allows a person to legally walk away freely, and tells the creditor he's SOL, and makes it illegal to harass to collect.
Which is beside your point. Which leads me to ask, so what?
the criminal will never admit he had bad intent. but hey, we get to tell him he has bad intent because we read his mind, right?
If he claims he had a good intent when he set out to rape someone, yes, we tell him he had bad intent. But not because we read his mind. Meanwhile, it obviously is possible to take out a loan without bad intent. Even if you lose your job a week later.
Calling me names doesn't make you right.
I didn't call you any names in the quoted passage. If you wish to fit the description, that's your choice.
Wait? am I reading from the SAME GUY who was just complaining to me that prisons will be subsidized by innocent 3rd parties? Well we just found a solution, they'll be paid back that way.
You didn't answer the question. Who benefits? Who benefits? It isn't a hard question.
He can avoid it if he paid off better ways. I don't (since I started this thread, I think I get to give you my position), imprison people unless its last resort, usually when it's beyond reasonable doubt that the person is unable and unwilling to pay, and punishing him is the same rationale as punishing prisoners, to prevent him from hurting more people, and warning other people that's what happens if you wrong somebody, even if it doesn't pay back the victim.
You don't imprison people at all. Which is fortunate, because I see no sign whatsoever that you're patient enough to meet your own burden of proof.
if it did, does it make it better or worse?
It would certainly lead Bank of America to use whatever influence it could muster to have everything imaginable made illegal.
I'm amazed, you're now arguing that prisons for debtors will make too much money and we'll be worrying about where to place the extra money. Before I thought, everybody was arguing that it'll waste too much money and burden taxpayers for nothing in return.
I'm amazed that you're trying to stuff that shit into my mouth. I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and your obvious and pathetically sophomoric attempt to put those words in my mouth (and thus deflect the legitimate point I was making) is not winning you this debate.
You cannot deny that making incarcerations profitable for someone will lead that someone to try to influence the government into incarcerating more people. Noted. You
could have admitted that without stuffing your shit in my mouth.
LMAO, I specifically listed things I argue for that is decreasing government power, what does that have to do with fascism? Are you so desperate you have to pull out your namecalling dictionary to throw everything at me, hoping some stick?
Socialism is about increasing government power. Fascism is about giving every corporate whim the power of law. Which you might understand if you had a dictionary of your own.
I know there is currently a legal difference. But I don't know why and how they are separated. In practical terms, criminal is when the state decides it's their business to enforce a rule, and civil is when the state says they'll still hold a court to hear 2 people argue, but won't stand on the victim's side automatically. You can always settle a civil matter without going to court too.
Then why are you advocating prison for these civil matters? If it were provable as fraud, then the borrower would already be threatened with prison for fraud. This does
not make any prison a 'debtors' prison'. It makes fraud a criminal offense.
just like it's bad enough criminals are being forced to go to prison when they never agreed to be punished for things they enjoy doing, just because the state decided it's their business to force people into certain behaviors.
If that's bad, how is debtors' prison good?
I do actually understand that, and I don't think prisons grow on trees. But somebody here was complaining that debtor prisons will make too much money we'll be worrying where to spend it, so clearly that kind of prison grows on trees.
You are the only person who said that. No one else did. When you get your dictionary, look up 'straw man'.
Don't double it unless it serves more good than harm.
As you yourself described civil matters, this statement leads to the obvious question--good for whom and harm to whom?
Not that it matters. This so-called conversation has left me disinclined to take your word for it anyway.
