EXACTLY! The answer is no one and there should be no such thing as a victimless crime. My mind can be changed, but no examples come to mind at the moment
Does that mean you believe drunk driving should only be a crime if there is an actual victim who is injured?
I donāt really want to do a deep dive here. Can someone tell me if the loans were actually all paid back?
No because you are endangering others. If you werenāt, have at it. Any other hypotheticals?
Itās my understanding that everything was paid back as agreed
I donāt entirely disagree with your thought process here. Iām just curious how far you would take it.
So if you were at work and someone broke into your house, watched some netflix for a few hours and then left before you came back, is that a crime? What if he does it several times a month?
Letās say you have him on video doing this, but you have never actually run into him.
Cocaine should be illegal because at least some cocaine users potentially cause harm, so that society is better off banning cocaine even if there are some people who can use it āresponsiblyā. Likewise, even if these particular transactions for Trump donāt hurt anyone, if fraudulent behavior such as this can cause harm in theory, then we should maybe seek to curtail it. Iām fine with saving banks from themselves so they make fewer bad loans and we need to do less cleanup to save the economy.
Since trump has a history going back 40 years of putting banks in precarious situations and renegotiating deals when up against a wall of ruin, I doubt all these deals went according to Hoyle.
The banks donāt claim fraud because they donāt want to piss trump off.
This is actually an interesting example and I donāt want to take the easy road by saying he ābrokeā something of mine because my house was locked when I left or that heās stealing my Netflix or internet connection and stealing should be a crime. So Iām just gonna go with the answer that itās possible to victimize someone without them knowing it. For example, if you record someone in the shower or having sex without their consent or knowledge, most reasonable people would agree that they are victims even if no one was harmed
Good example tho. I like being made to think and see if my positions can remain consistent under extreme conclusions. Iām not sure itās always necessary to do however
Surely some bank robbers share the same intentions?
For purposes of discussion, letās not distinguish them according to formality of process imo.
Iām actually shocked you think this way and my first thought was that itās not a very progressive or liberal way to think. But maybe I have a conservative way of thinking sometimes?
Whatās your stance on online poker or gambling in general? Should it be outlawed because some people canāt gamble responsibly?
This is a deep subject that could be the topic of another thread imo
Iām not very convinced by this line of reasoning.
Many laws have little to do with what happens is one particular instance. As mentioned, drunk drivers as a whole endanger others, even if you made it home with no incident.
Fraud and mis-stating of assets causes financial harm in general, even if nothing bad happened in this particular instance.
If I misrepresent to my bank that I have home insurance, and nothing bad happens, thatās not the pointāthe point is that in cases when something bad does happen (e.g. my house burns down), the bank gets harmed.
Edit: I will admit that this particular āwe got himā is unsatisfying, for some of the reasons you mention
lol I really opened up a can of worms here, didnāt I? My initual intention was simply to point out that this is like #532 on my list of Trump transgressions on the seriousness scale
We can have a conversation about how violent crimes absolutely should be treated differently than non violent crimes imo, but itās beyond the scope of this thread. If someone steals out of a need to feed their family, I would consider that more of an unfortunate case of society letting that individual down rather than visa versa
If they rob or steal for non survival reasons, I think thatās more of a mental health issue than it is a crime. Whenever possible, I believe in rehabilitation over retribution and punishment if that makes sense
Activity that endangers others should be illegal. I have no qualms with that
This was my initial question. What financial harm is caused? I outlined the one thing I could think of and admitted I may be missing other factors
I get it and like I said before, Iām not advocating bank fraud or trying to suggest that itās okay. Iām just unsure what the severity of punishment should be in cases where no one was harmed
I have conflicted views on this. I definitely donāt like unregulated gambling. I have all sorts of ideas like online gambling sites being required to send quarterly win/loss statements so people canāt lie to themselves about how much they are losing.
Overall, Iām a statist who thinks the #1 lesson of the pandemic is that we can have some sort of libertarian trust that people can make their own decisions.
The banks are victims. I just donāt really care that theyāre victims. If it wasnāt Trump Iād probably celebrate someone ripping off the banks. It is Trump, so Iām not going to give him credit, but I donāt really care.
He didnāt even really rip them off (in this instance). It just makes this more hilarious, heās getting clipped for the most ticky-tack BS imaginable. Itās making him nuts, heās committed so many crimes and THIS is where they get him. LOL!
prostitution
The punishment is also an indication to others. And when they commit the fraud they donāt really know if anyone will be harmed. So a more lenient sentence in the case of someone who committed fraud but actually did no harm to whom they defrauded sends a mixed message. Punish them as if harm was caused.
alcohol, cars that can go faster than the speed limit, every single prescription pill on the market, lifting weights, the entirety of the stock market, lighters, any/all SHARP OBJECTS all should be illegal because at least some users potentially cause harm.