From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Mar 11 2004 - 03:10:28 GMT
Hi Platt,
P
> I thought I made my position clear. The punishment for lying to government
> authorities shouldn't involve jail time. Otherwise, if you believe in
> equal justice under the law, Clinton should be behind bars.
R
Well, there are significant differences between the two situations which you
may not recognize, but which the legal system does. For example, Martha
lied in a criminal trial, Clinton in a civil trial; Martha lied to cover up
committing a crime, Clinton lied to cover up something that wasn't a crime.
P
> Wonderfully imaginative stories, but missing an essential element--the
> government Judas who leaked the information about the FDA's decision to
> ImClone's president who passed it on. It's amazing to me that no one ever
> mentions the source of the information in the first place. But, then
> again, I'm not really surprised. Governments are not known to investigate
> their own unless there's a political advantage involved.
R
If such person is ever identified, you can bet your Mozart collection that
the SEC and the DOJ will have their head.
P
Furthermore, I'm
> sure your familiar with the old adage "caveat emptor" which casts a
> slightly different light on your examples.
R
Yes, I took a class on it. 'Caveat Emptor' ('let the buyer beware') is a
legal doctrine concerning liability for negligence in torts. It states that
a vendor or manufacturer is under no duty to communicate the existence of
latent defects in his wares unless by act or implication he represents that
such defects do not exist. To steal a quote from Black's, it has been
described as "one of that tribe of anonymous Latin Maxims that infest our
law.... they fill the ear and sound like sense, and to the eye look like
learning; while their main use is to supply the place of either or both."
It's also not law anymore (hasn't been for more than century really). In
every state of our union, all products are now sold with an implicit
warranty of fitness for the purpose for which they are sold (it's called
'caveat venditor', let the seller beware... the theory being that charging
the sellers with responsibility only requires them to be an expert in their
own business, charging buyers with responsibility would require them to be
an expert in every business). But I digress, the bottom line is that
"caveat emptor" has no relevance to my examples at all as it did not have
any weight in criminal matters and even in civil matters it didn't protect
sellers who represented by implication that their goods were without defect
(as both of the sellers in my examples clearly did).
P
> I'm suggesting justice would be better served by treating everyone equally
> under the law.
R
Justice treats equally those who are similarly situated. That is, Clinton
and Martha only deserve to be treated equally if they both did the same
thing. As I said above, their were significant legal differences in the
situations (whether you think those differences should count or not... which
you clearly don't).
P
> Would you elucidate on "satisfactorily completed trials in accordance with
> the law." How come the FDA disapproved the drug before testing was
> completed? I smell a rat.
R
Well I'm not about to explain the entire FDA testing procedures to you (if
you're interested they have a website). Suffice it to say that the trials
have numerous 'testing stages' and drugs are routinely approved and
disapproved at various stages before they move on to final approval. I'm
sorry you smell a rat, but if you don't have any specific allegations about
what you think was suspicious or crooked, I'm at a loss to respond.
P
> Bill Clinton set the precedent for the whole country that it's OK to be
> dishonest.
R
Is this to say that no one lied until Bill Clinton came along? What about
Nixon? Does he share in the scorn you have for lying presidents?
P
Martha watch Clinton perjure himself before a jury and get away
> with it. She saw the Clintons lie, cheat, steal and suffer little
> consequence. She saw the left-wing media cover up for them. Being a good
> liberal herself and Democratic party contributor, Martha must have thought
> that she too could sneak around the letter of the law as the Clintons had
> done.
R
What are you saying? That it's okay to commit crimes if you see other
people do it and get away with it? I sure hope she doesn't use that in her
closing statement to the sentencing judge.
P
> I'm not angry. I pity people who somehow have the childish idea that the
> world owes them a living and that their jobs should be guaranteed for
> life. Jobs are lost everyday for a thousand different reasons but many
> traced back to some form of government interference in the marketplace.
> Adults prepare themselves for the ups and downs of life that are beyond
> their control. Children are dependent on others and need to be taken care
> of. All I want is for individuals to grown up and become the captains of
> their own destinies.
R
I'm curious, do you think employers have any responsibilities to their
employees at all? Do you think Martha deserves any blame at all for the
economic loss many of these people might experience?
> > R
.. And by the way, they're not claiming 'the world owes them a
> > living' (a strawman if i've ever heard one) they're claiming Martha
Stewart
> > owes them a living, and they're right...every employment agreement is a
> > contract. She's about to violate the contract of every employee the
> > company has to lay-off to stay in business.
>
P
> You mean a company is obligated to retain its employees in perpetuity?
> Absurd.
R
In perpetuity? That would be absurd. I'm glad I didn't say anything like
that all. What I said was, Martha's corporation stands a significant chance
of defaulting on the contracts it has made with it's associates and
employees. I said every employment agreement is a contract; every contract
has duties that flow in both in both directions. When one party violates
those duties, consequences apply. Still sounding absurd?
> > R
> > I find your application of that quote to this situation perplexing.
> > Pirsig's argument in the quote above is about not *executing* criminals
> > because every human being might have Dynamic potential. It doesn't
saying
> > anything about not punishing them at all. I mean, how can we tell the
> > difference between a Dynamic Force like Martha Stewart and an ordinary
> > criminal like Ken Lay? Or is he a Dynamic Force as well? What about
> > Dennis Koslowski, do you think they'll be singing his praises in 100
years?
> > Ivan Boesky? Michael Milken? That guy who stuck a gun in my face and
> > stole my wallet last year... was he DQ in disguise as well? Should we
let
> > them all go scott free just because they might be a Dynamic Force? The
> > only difference I can see between Martha and these other criminals is
that
> > she's got her own TV show.
P
> Apply your logic to Clinton and we'll agree.
R
I'm not sure what this means. If you're saying that Clinton might not be a
'dynamic force' then I wouldn't disagree. I have no idea if history will
judge him as saint or sinner. Moreover, I don't think he got off scott
free. He was impeached, censured by congress, lost his license to practice
law, was sued, etc.
P
> She's no more a criminal than Clinton is, yet she gets hard time and
> Clinton gets a slap on the wrist. Do you honestly think justice is served
> when people are treated unequally under the law?
R
As I've already said, there were significant legal differences between the
two situations.
I think we may be nearing the end of the road on this one.
take care,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 03:10:36 GMT