I don't think the liberty of people should be affected, but rather that real justice ought to exist, and people who do such things be punished for it. The problem in the West is that we live in a society which no longer punishes breaking the law properly. Or it punishes the wrong people for the wrong reasons. It punishes the guy who steals a chicken with years in jail, while it leaves the one who steals millions of dollars and causes thousands of people to lose their jobs unpunished. — Agustino

If society is no longer properly punishing people who break the law (and by this I mean the right people with the right kind of punishment) it is probably because the justice system and the criminals are cronies. For instance, major crimes are occurring in the financial sector, but few trials are being initiated. Why? Because there is a revolving door between regulatory agency personnel and financial business personnel.

...there no longer exists a code of honor, and social structures do not exist to properly enforce it. That's why we end up with such weak leaders who are unworthy and immoral people. — Agustino

Possibly, but this is limited to certain areas within the various layers of society. If it was generally present, then society would have fallen apart already. It hasn't, but there are definitely pockets of corruption.

We have a growing middle class — Agustino

The middle class is shrinking, not growing; this is a significant problem contributing to the collective problems of society. People lose faith in a society which seems to be facilitating their downward economic and social mobility -- as well they should. When modest dreams of advancement are frustrated (because you couldn't afford to date a new girl twice a month, let alone every night) people
begin to withdraw their loyalty--again, as well they should.

The problem with this is that they end up treating people (women for example) as means to an end, instead of ends in themselves, and my whole point is that people are ends in themselves and ought to be treated as such. — Agustino

I agree that people are ends and not means and should be treated as such; the master narrative in the degraded capitalist culture is quite the opposite: "If you can't help me get ahead, what good are you?"

...Trump is right on this point - there just is no respect for politicians anymore... — Agustino

Politicians getting no respect is a problem that he has compounded several times over. ,,,

These are issues that can be resolved by returning to traditional Western virtues. — Agustino

Maybe, but it depends on which Western virtues one wants to return to. Before the present moment profit became a traditional virtue. Solidarity of the masses is another western virtue. Freedom of speech, even for corporations, is a virtue. Marriage is a virtue, in a sense, whether it has become a nightmarish experience or whether it is blesséd.

I'm all for virtue, but I think that as we go about reclaiming our traditional virtues, we need to clarify just what, exactly, is virtuous and what isn't.

I'm all for virtue, but I think that as we go about reclaiming our traditional virtues, we need to clarify just what, exactly, is virtuous and what isn't. — Bitter Crank

Whatever brings about the most nostalgia... ;)

If society is no longer properly punishing people who break the law (and by this I mean the right people with the right kind of punishment) it is probably because the justice system and the criminals are cronies. For instance, major crimes are occurring in the financial sector, but few trials are being initiated. Why? Because there is a revolving door between regulatory agency personnel and financial business personnel. — Bitter Crank

I agree.

Possibly, but this is limited to certain areas within the various layers of society. If it was generally present, then society would have fallen apart already. It hasn't, but there are definitely pockets of corruption. — Bitter Crank

Growing pockets of corruption, and also a culture which makes corruption seem cool and smart.

The middle class is shrinking, not growing; this is a significant problem contributing to the collective problems of society. People lose faith in a society which seems to be facilitating their downward economic and social mobility -- as well they should. When modest dreams of advancement are frustrated (because you couldn't afford to date a new girl twice a month, let alone every night) people
begin to withdraw their loyalty--again, as well they should. — Bitter Crank

I don't think so. More and more people consider themselves middle class, even though in truth they are not. This middle class deception is part of the tricks that a consumerist society employs to propagate itself. And I disagree that dating a new girl twice a month is a worthy or modest dream for example. People should just look for the right person instead of endlessly date for no real, serious reason. They should be more concerned in growing in intimacy with a person rather than looking for new prospects. That way, there would be a lot more social harmony. And social structures should exist to facilitate this. Right now many people are promiscuous because they simply cannot trust that their partners will be loyal to them, and so they're afraid to make such a commitment.

I agree that people are ends and not means and should be treated as such; the master narrative in the degraded capitalist culture is quite the opposite: "If you can't help me get ahead, what good are you?" — Bitter Crank

I agree with this criticism of capitalism.

Before the present moment profit became a traditional virtue. — Bitter Crank

I don't think profit is a virtue.

I don't agree with conservatism of the type you find in the UK for example. — Agustino

Then we're on the same page in that respect.

I would also not describe myself as a liberalist in anyway. — Agustino

In the 'Political Affiliation' thread, you described yourself as a Classical Conservative liberal.

Only liberal in the sense that I think people should have moral freedom to make their choices. Conservative in the sense that those choices can be criticized and there exists a standard of judgement that can be used to distinguish between right and wrong objectively.

So, more of a social liberalism, and not economic liberalism?

Perhaps, but that may be going too far as well. The main point is that I agree with the need for freedom of choice to exist in moral matters, because if right behavior was forced, then moral excellency would be impossible - moral excellency simply is freely choosing right over wrong.

I do believe in moral equality of all people (in religious terms that we're all equal before God). That may come close to social liberalism. Economic liberalism not really - I think the core value should be taking care of and respecting people, and this value should come prior to one's own individual freedom.

True. It's a natural act, and self-interest is present within human nature, so if they can exploit the situation for the sake of themselves - even if it's at the expense of others, then they will do so. — Sapientia

To use something like 'human nature' (qua 'natural law', perhaps biologically coded) to explain the current situation of tax evasion I think is mystifying. That is, mystification in the sense that it confuses something social, transient, and materially/historically contextual for some ontological essential nature of the universe. Thus the mystification happens on the metaphysical level, for even the biological (as Darwin has shown) is always in a state of flux, and transition, adapting dialectically with the environment (as the sum of material, historical circumstances which construct the 'situation').

The speed an ease at which the ruling classes of society can transfer mass sums of accumulated capital across the globe, and the particular mapping of the globe into tiered sectors regulated by international monetary and regional/inter-national governing institutions, the transfer of sovereignty mostly to international institutions, and predominantly to the economic sphere in the hands of a small minority of mostly international capital: all of these things go into why the practices revealed in the PP are common place among the capitalist and political classes.

I think that it's a bit of both. Why else would anyone want to safeguard their wealth to begin with? More for me, less for society. And these aren't small sums of money that we're talking about. Greed is the motive, reason is the method. — Sapientia

Again, we can talk about greed and various motives, only as a description of ideology in reference to the concrete historical situation.

I think it is 3 steps forward, 2 steps back, and has always been that way. Invent democracy, then get taken over by royalty. Free the slaves, then oppress them socially and economically with Jim Crow laws or segregation. The general trend is forward, but with lots twists and turns along the way.

In my world travels, I found that what passes for traditional and conservative values is just a paper thin illusion. When I lived in a conservative Muslim country, where 80-90% of women in government offices and schools wear headscarves. But then I came across old movies, newspapers and magazines and there hardly any women wore headscarves. I did some research and found that it was a movement pushed by a few self-righteous wealthy people trying to place themselves at a higher moral level than the rest of the country, then either pressured people to go along with them, or they jump on the bandwagon to gain a wealthy aura by association. It seemed more obvious looking in from the outside at a foreign culture, but eventually I realized the same thing was happening back home. All these conservative, religious or traditional values are actually very recent innovations. A reaction against some perceived threat to authority. The Taliban are actually very similar to American evangelicals behind all the superficial differences. They actually hate and love the same things, but they draw their authority against a different backstory. In reality, the things they have "always traditionally opposed" are concepts that didn't exist until recently. The "golden age" they seem to think they are trying to resurrect never existed outside of fairytales. The Taliban, ("the students" in Arabic), started as a revolt to Soviet occupation in the 70's and 80's. Before then, Afghans were fairly liberal and cosmopolitan. The current wave of American Christian fundamentalism is a fairly recent invention. If you went back a century, the Christians of that era had completely different values.

To use something like 'human nature' (qua 'natural law', perhaps biologically coded) to explain the current situation of tax evasion I think is mystifying. That is, mystification in the sense that it confuses something social, transient, and materially/historically contextual for some ontological essential nature of the universe. Thus the mystification happens on the metaphysical level, for even the biological (as Darwin has shown) is always in a state of flux, and transition, adapting dialectically with the environment (as the sum of material, historical circumstances which construct the 'situation'). — Shevek

I think you've missed the mark there. Natural? Yes. Law? No. It's about human nature, not the nature of the universe. And I'm not ruling out the highly unlikely possibility that human nature can change to such an extent that the selfish aspect disappears. What I'm saying is not at all mystical; it is in fact a common sense observation.

Also, to suggest that this aspect of human nature is transient or has only been present in certain phases throughout history or in certain historical contexts is very misleading. I can assure you, no perfectly altruistic and cooperative utopia can be found in human history. There has always been those who are selfish, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon. You'd have to have your head in the clouds to believe otherwise.

That's all for now, because I'm on a lunch break, and I don't have much time.

One of the reasons we're not seeing much US persons in the Panama Papers: Delaware.

And what a shitty IT unit at MF. How can you not notice a transfer of 2.6 TB of data?

I think you've missed the mark there. Natural? Yes. Law? No. It's about human nature, not the nature of the universe. And I'm not ruling out the highly unlikely possibility that human nature can change to such an extent that the selfish aspect disappears. What I'm saying is not at all mystical; it is in fact a common sense observation. — Sapientia

It's mystifying when it serves as a reductionist explanation for something like contemporary practices of tax evasion. Why the practices revealed in the PP are so common-place and widespread among the elites (enjoying a state of exception not afforded others who can't purchase such services) is a historical, economic, and political matter. Greed doesn't need to enter into play anywhere here: you could be the most ethically conflicted and altruistic individual but recognize that it is the most rational decision to make to stay competitive, within the logic of how the modern global capitalist economy is concretely organized. Concretely, that is, as a contingent matter of decisions being made, laws and treaties being written, a state of the political balance between power structures, and so on. It is mystifying when such matters are 'explained away' by some ontological or natural necessity, whether it be the divine right of kings or 'human nature'. As it tells us that, 'well what do we expect, it's just human nature, nothing we can do about it'.

Also, to suggest that this aspect of human nature is transient or has only been present in certain phases throughout history or in certain historical contexts is very misleading. I can assure you, no perfectly altruistic and cooperative utopia can be found in human history. There has always been those who are selfish, and that doesn't seem likely to change anytime soon. You'd have to have your head in the clouds to believe otherwise. — Sapientia

Greed is nothing new, we can find it in the ancient literature. This is not my point. My point is however, that greed takes on a particular precedence and form within whatever historical and social situation you find yourself in. There are no perfectly altruistic and cooperative utopias that we know of in history, but there are endless examples of societies that heavily constricted the socially acceptable ways in which greed could be manifested (if at all). Who cares if there are no examples of perfect anything? It's entirely meaningless when it comes to things like societies, and doesn't add anything here.

I would actually argue that greed isn't natural at all, but is entirely socialized. But I don't really need to say that to argue what I'm arguing. All I really need to say is that whatever 'natural drives' may be there, they're completely transformed and given meaning, value, and normative character when interpreted through language, culture, and ideology. And what's more, there's a reality to the material circumstances that don't give a damn about how virtuous you are, you're forced to do 'greedy' things just to survive.

It's mystifying when it serves as a reductionist explanation for something like contemporary practices of tax evasion. Why the practices revealed in the PP are so common-place and widespread among the elites (enjoying a state of exception not afforded others who can't purchase such services) is a historical, economic, and political matter. Greed doesn't need to enter into play anywhere here: you could be the most ethically conflicted and altruistic individual but recognize that it is the most rational decision to make to stay competitive, within the logic of how the modern global capitalist economy is concretely organized. Concretely, that is, as a contingent matter of decisions being made, laws and treaties being written, a state of the political balance between power structures, and so on. It is mystifying when such matters are 'explained away' by some ontological necessity, whether it be the divine right of kings or 'nature'. As it tells us that, 'well what do we expect, it's just human nature, nothing we can do about it'. — Shevek

It shouldn't be mystifying to point out two simple truths behind the Panama Papers:

1. These people had selfish motives.

2. The political and legal system allowed it occur.

Nor should it be mystifying to point out the simple and self-evident truth that selfishness is a part of human nature, and has been from the beginning.

The reason that you and Zizek are wrong to think that this can rightly be characterised as a purely rational act without the selfish motive, is that, firstly, as Hume rightly said, reason is the slave of the passions, and secondly, these people weren't naive enough to be unaware of what they were doing and the consequences of their actions. What makes it selfish is that they did so in spite of the consequences. You're guilty of selfishness the moment you knowingly jump on the band wagon. To argue otherwise is not only mistaken, it actually plays right into their hands and feeds the apologist narrative, precisely at a time when we need to speak out against these fiends and display unity in the face of adversity.

Your last sentence riled me up the most, as it couldn't be further from the truth. It doesn't tell us that there is nothing that we can do. On the contrary, we don't need to drastically alter human nature in order to better prevent this sort of injustice from occurring. We aren't powerless to act; that's just what they want us to believe.

Greed is nothing new, we can find it in the ancient literature. This is not my point. — Shevek

You don't need to rely on historical literature to know that. You just need to know a thing or two about human nature. The historical literature just tells us how this aspect of human nature manifested.

My point is however, that greed takes on a particular precedence and form within whatever historical and social situation you find yourself in. There are no perfectly altruistic and cooperative utopias that we know of in history, but there are endless examples of societies that heavily constricted the socially acceptable ways in which greed could be manifested (if at all). — Shevek

Well, I agree with your point, then... although that last qualification in the brackets gives the highly misleading impression that there has ever been a society in which there was not a single way in which greed manifested itself in a form that was socially acceptable. But the word I used was "selfishness", i.e. self-interest at the expense of others, and looking back through history right up to contemporary times, countless examples can easily be found. It can be found in slavery, serfdom, and in the capitalism of today.

I would actually argue that greed isn't natural at all, but is entirely socialized. — Shevek

Pah!

But I don't really need to say that to argue what I'm arguing. All I really need to say is that whatever 'natural drives' may be there, they're completely transformed and given meaning, value, and normative character when interpreted through language, culture, and ideology. — Shevek

That's pretty vague, but I think I agree. I don't see this as detracting from my point.

And what's more, there's a reality to the material circumstances that don't give a damn about how virtuous you are, you're forced to do 'greedy' things just to survive. — Shevek

In some cases that is true, but it'd be preposterous to claim that to be true of the case under discussion. As if these vastly wealthy individuals were forced into avoiding tax! No, that'd be ridiculous, so I hope that that's not what you're suggesting.

Comes to mind the Channel Islands too. Just like corruption isn't corruption when it has been made legal and is called campaign financing... and the money isn't given in a brown paper bag directly.

Usually it's places like Switzerland, Cyprus or places that aren't favoured by Anglo-American money where "outrageous" tax havens are.

2.6 TB of data being transferred over a year or two isn't something that noticeable, especially at huge firms like this one. So, the IT department couldn't possibly have figured out something was up. You can probably steal 2-3 gigabytes a day and it wouldn't raise eyebrows.

Low standards. Over 2 years that's an average of 3.6 GB in a lawfirm. That means mostly text documents. That's huge and should've been noticed, which probably means the guy worked in the IT department.

Yeah, that's true, but from what I've heard, a lot of the documents are image form and not text.