|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 10:46 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
So when your hagwon boss doesn't pay you according to the contract, that crime is???
|
If your boss doesn't pay because his business doesn't have the funds to pay it is not a crime. It could be financial mismanagement, it could be that he even has funds in a legally separate business or account that is not available to the business that owes the payment for your labors. It is not always a crime when workers don't get paid.
If your boss clearly owes you your pay and has the ability to pay and doesn't pay by some intent or as a willful act and not because of some mistake, misunderstanding or financial inability to pay, the crime is called "Theft of Services."
To rise to the level of fraud, it would have to be provable that your boss intended to employ you without paying you from the outset, that he contracted with you knowing and intending to cheat you at a later date.
It could also rise to the level of fraud if after originally intending and actually paying according to the terms of the contract, the employer made plans to continue to employ you and to cheat you at a later time. This again is difficult to prove as many businesses fail and were hoping to have funds available to pay, but don't, and while they may have known they were in difficult financial circumstances and they may have been aware of the risk of missing payroll, it has to have been their intent to miss making payroll to cause their failure to pay to become an act of fraud.
Many struggling businesses fail to pay their employees right before total failure of the business. This is not a crime.
Likewise, many borrowers who intended to pay back their loans, even large ones, find themselves in a position where they are unable to pay. This is not a crime and the police should not be involved at all. This is a civil matter and the lender will just lose.
Lenders know and expect to lose a certain percentage of their principal balances. It is built into the rating system that determines who gets a loan. It is built into the pricing system that sets interest rates charged to borrowers. Less risky borrowers pay lower rates and conversely.
A peaceful, civil society in a free national has no business including the government, the police or violence in these matters.
When participants on either side of these peaceful transactions choose to use violence or actual fraud, then we need to resort to some form of police and court system intended to prevent, reduce and punish those who breach the peaceful, voluntary nature of our civil society. Even in these cases, the police should be working to reduce or prevent violence and they should not be the cause of violence as in the extant case in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I haven't done something worthy of you beating me to a pulp? |
Why do you love violence so much? Is this an aspect of your upbringing or an aspect of your essence? |
So if I rip off a nice sum of money what are going to do? File a lawsuit against me? Send me a strongly worded letter? Have my assets seized.
In order to pull these off and make them work you need some kind of enforcement measure.
You do realize that there are people out there who just don't give a hoot and will take what they can until someone forceibly stops them right?
With 95% of the reasonable population you use the courts and whatnot. But there is that 5% that seems constitutionally incapable of responding to things in a reasonable orderly manner.
Have you ever loaned something of significant value to someone who has refused to give it? Had them just lauigh at the threat of the police or legal action? Guess what? If you refuse to use force the police might have to.
That's just reality. It's sad, but it's how things are. |
How does sending in SWAT get the money back then? The legally prescribed methods DOES get some or all of the money back . Liens on assets including their home, garnishment of wages. Fines..
I am at a loss how SWAT going brandishing guns gets the money back? By scaring them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I haven't done something worthy of you beating me to a pulp? |
Why do you love violence so much? Is this an aspect of your upbringing or an aspect of your essence? |
So if I rip off a nice sum of money what are going to do? File a lawsuit against me? |
Yes, that's precisely what I would end up doing. Under no circumstances would I assault you.
Putting that aside for a moment, though, my question was genuine and beyond the scope of merely this discussion (which doesn't in and of itself interest me all that much). You've called for violence in a number of situations (at times even mob violence), and that very honestly leaves me wondering why you have the love of violence you do. Were you raised that way, or is it something in you that simply strains for release? More curiosity than criticism, and I'd enjoy hearing your insights on the matter. I've been thinking about people's fundamental natures a lot lately. |
View on human nature and life experience.
Let me just say that the rules for the 95% of society that is fairly reasonable are completely different than that other 5%.
For that 95%, violence is not necessary, not even as a last resort.
But there is 5% of the people out there that just don't care about anything else (and growing thanks to our crappy penal system).
When you try to tell someone who has already been to prison and has no credit and thinks the courts are corrupt that you will harm their credit, take them to court, and maybe they'll be thrown in prison, that doesn't really work.
Now if force/violence is used, that might work.
Violence is a terrible remedy with most people. With some people it is highly effective. It should not be disregarded simply because it is "distasteful" or ineffective for many.
Think about it, if DebtPlus called you about an overdue bill what would you do? What would any normal American do? Procrastinate and procrastinate. Maybe move to their next sublet. Now if Rocco & Nunzio's Debt Contacters (We contact your kneecaps) shows up, are you going to pay up? Absolutely.
So if in fact it is within your power to pay up, but instead you are just duffing it, what does that say about human nature and your intent to pay?
Think about it, how come you never hear about a gun store being robbed?
| Quote: |
| Liens on assets including their home, garnishment of wages. Fines.. |
What if you're dealing with someone who has no property or bank accounts or jobs?
Or for more well-to-do types, what about those that know how to just delay and delay the system through courts and red tape?
Seriously, it sounds like everyone here is assuming the people in these cases are reasonable middle-class American who have morals and something to lose. Not everyone is like that.
| Quote: |
| I don't have a problem with Steelrails' obsession with violence so much as his continued willful ignorance when it comes to debt collection, its common process, and the law surrounding it. |
All of which I consider a farce given the fact that you have NETs over here openly bragging about how they intend to live abroad and never pay a cent on their student loans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't have a problem with Steelrails' obsession with violence so much as his continued willful ignorance when it comes to debt collection, its common process, and the law surrounding it. |
All of which I consider a farce given the fact that you have NETs over here openly bragging about how they intend to live abroad and never pay a cent on their student loans. |
Add to that: I also have a problem with the personal assumptions Steelrails makes.
Anyway, if you knew remotely something about the subject, you'd know debtors go through hell, and some of them go through hell even though they pay their bills. That's right, that's why all the legal process exists: to make sure the banks actually have the note and own the mortgage.
But you're so on about this mythical predatory debtor that you won't be able to see that the greater bargaining power the banks have allow them to get away with everything but murder. Of course, now you want coercive force to be available to creditors as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Let me just say that the rules for the 95% of society that is fairly reasonable are completely different than that other 5%.
For that 95%, violence is not necessary, not even as a last resort.
But there is 5% of the people out there that just don't care about anything else (and growing thanks to our crappy penal system). |
So why not just not lend that 5% money instead of beating the living crap out them when they, in totally predicable fashion, don't pay you and, due to their mode of living, have no actual property the courts could seize on your behalf? You're usually big on personal responsibility, so instead of allowing anyone stupid enough to lend to that 5% to engage in legal violence, why not just force them to learn from their stupid mistake? If it would require violence to recover a loan from someone -- due to them both being totally unwilling to obey court orders, having no seizable property, and having no regular income that can be garnished -- you shouldn't be lending them money at all.
You usually seem big on personal responsibility, so why does the idea of, "Well, you were stupid to lend that ex-convict hobo drug addict $10,000 dollars, you're just going to have to live with the results of your stupidity," lose out to the idea of, "Well, that money is probably unrecoverable, but let's beat the living tar out of that ex-convict hobo drug addict just to make sure?" It can't just be raw utility; once you've reached the point of, "Loan unrecoverable by any means other than violence," you've almost definitely also reached the point of, "Loan unrecoverable period."
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Think about it, how come you never hear about a gun store being robbed? |
Sometimes you do.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't have a problem with Steelrails' obsession with violence so much as his continued willful ignorance when it comes to debt collection, its common process, and the law surrounding it. |
All of which I consider a farce given the fact that you have NETs over here openly bragging about how they intend to live abroad and never pay a cent on their student loans. |
If they ever move back to the States and get a job, their wages will be garnished in order to pay those delinquent loans, along with hefty penalties. And if they send large quantities of money back to the States that becomes vulnerable to seizure. If they really want to avoid paying a single cent of their loans, they're essentially choosing exile as their punishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
Let me just say that the rules for the 95% of society that is fairly reasonable are completely different than that other 5%.
For that 95%, violence is not necessary, not even as a last resort.
But there is 5% of the people out there that just don't care about anything else (and growing thanks to our crappy penal system). |
So why not just not lend that 5% money instead of beating the living crap out them when they, in totally predicable fashion, don't pay you and, due to their mode of living, have no actual property the courts could seize on your behalf? You're usually big on personal responsibility, so instead of allowing anyone stupid enough to lend to that 5% to engage in legal violence, why not just force them to learn from their stupid mistake? If it would require violence to recover a loan from someone -- due to them both being totally unwilling to obey court orders, having no seizable property, and having no regular income that can be garnished -- you shouldn't be lending them money at all.
You usually seem big on personal responsibility, so why does the idea of,
"Well, you were stupid to lend that ex-convict hobo drug addict $10,000 dollars, you're just going to have to live with the results of your stupidity," |
Exactly.
Lenders are just investors. Investors take risk. They earn a return for that risk.
In a free market they are allowed to invest or lend or they may choose not to.
In a free market they are allowed to charge any interest rate they choose, and the borrower is allowed to borrow or choose not to.
If either party makes a bad deal, they are adults and they live with the consequences of their actions, but the initiation of force is prohibited.
In the case of fraud, failure to pay, or some other conflict, arbitration, courts and other peaceful legal procedures are available, short of the initiation of force.
Do not make loans to bad risks. If you choose to do so, and you lose your money, too bad. You may not initiate force to collect.
Basic principles of a libertarian society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Think about it, if DebtPlus called you about an overdue bill what would you do? What would any normal American do? Procrastinate and procrastinate. Maybe move to their next sublet. Now if Rocco & Nunzio's Debt Contacters (We contact your kneecaps) shows up, are you going to pay up? Absolutely.
|
So, using that line of thought, we should decriminalize the mafia loansharking businesses then?
This is becoming farcical. I can only assume Steelrails is having a laugh at our expense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Friend Lee Ghost
Joined: 06 Jun 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Gant said authorities fear the stolen firearms will end up in the hands of violent criminals. |
Ya think?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, using that line of thought, we should decriminalize the mafia loansharking businesses then? |
I see no problem with these kind of informal loans.
After all people who have their credit severely damaged need to get loans somehow.
And unlike banks who loan you money when you don't need it, these kinds of private loans ARE there for your desperate times.
The more desperate the situation, the more desperate the collateral. I see no problem with this.
| Quote: |
| If either party makes a bad deal, they are adults and they live with the consequences of their actions, but the initiation of force is prohibited. |
Why? If the only way to compel redress is through force, isn't force a legitimate option?
Hate to break it to you, but you take force of the table and there are people who will run roughshod over you.
| Quote: |
| n the case of fraud, failure to pay, or some other conflict, arbitration, courts and other peaceful legal procedures are available, short of the initiation of force. |
Explain to me how you get them into court without force?
| Quote: |
| If it would require violence to recover a loan from someone -- due to them both being totally unwilling to obey court orders, having no seizable property, and having no regular income that can be garnished -- you shouldn't be lending them money at all. |
I agree, but that might not be known at the time of the loan. Perhaps they act in good faith for the first half of the loan, but a change in circumstances on their end results in them wanting to willfully refuse to pay.
Take for example a millionaire singer or athlete or CEO. They want a line of credit on a house or boat. Seems like a reasonable loan. They have money, are a pillar of the community, and have something to lose. But then a divorce, followed up by a newfound taste for cocaine or whatnot and all of a sudden they are on the fritz. You send them notice after notice. The government takes action. Some property gets seized, but maybe what was owed to you doesn't get to you because of delay after delay in court. Maybe the person ignores every court summons. Well then its time to arrest them. Do they come peacefully? Maybe, maybe not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Quote: |
| So, using that line of thought, we should decriminalize the mafia loansharking businesses then? |
I see no problem with these kind of informal loans.
After all people who have their credit severely damaged need to get loans somehow.
And unlike banks who loan you money when you don't need it, these kinds of private loans ARE there for your desperate times.
The more desperate the situation, the more desperate the collateral. I see no problem with this. |
And how does a person get severely damaged credit? lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
