Some folks view themselves as global citizens, therefore they have no "state created" enemies-- while I am not intimate with all the reasons for MR's criminal status---it seems to be the heavy hand of government with its control mechanisms being challenged/violated here rather than a true sense of morality. surf
Marc Rich (1935-2013) Dead
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Some folks view themselves as global citizens, therefore they have no "state created" enemies-- while I am not intimate with all the reasons for MR's criminal status---it seems to be the heavy hand of government with its control mechanisms being challenged/violated here rather than a true sense of morality. surf
Surf, I'll make this easy for you. Let's change the variable from oil to sexual trafficking of children keeping all other things constant. Both people are trading something that is very lucrative. Both people may not even have an interest in the commodity itself, just the money. So let me ask you this, if a guy named Marc Smich made billions of dollars buying and selling children into sexual slavery, would you admire him as being ambitious? Look, he just cares about the money, a child is simply a commodity that has a value in the black market. There is a lot of edge in the market for one who is willing to trade. So what is the difference. Most sexual traffickers btw are NOT pedophiles. They are traders. They are simply buying a product cheap and selling it for a premium. The product is cheap for a reason. But that reason is why there is an edge.
Don't get hung up on the oil part or the lifestyle. Look at this objectively. It should matter not what variable we use in this equation if it's ill gotten. It's just that on this site, you say billionaire oil trader and guys get excited, you say sexual trafficking and the first thought is disgust. You are blinded by the variable. So remove the variable and use the same equation and see if you get the same result. THIS is how you analyze data objectively.
Come on Mav--- the slavery, sexual or otherwise of anyone is morally reprehensible-- you don't need the state to tell you this. Your comparision is totally irrelevent. The question is how was it ill gotten? was it in violation of a made up state regulation or a violation of someone elses inherent rights?
Say if China says its illegal for you to use Google as a search engine-- do you listen to them? Same thing goes for MR-- If the United States says something, should he listen?
surf
yeah, I am submissive--not------ go back to your nanny state, it has some more brainwashing to do.
Surf, you need to read more of Vic's books. You need to be objective. You are fixated on the variable. The variable could be anything. In statistics they use a random variable. Stop focusing on the variable and focus more on the equation. It should solve the same.
I disagree. You threw a red herring into the conversation by attempting to equate violating a law of the state ( don't do business with our enemy) with violating laws against clearly the most extreme morally reprehensible actions. You don't see the difference? surf
I can't believe I fully agree with Surf...
No it can't. As Surf promptly noted, there is a huge difference between variables that almost everyone find repulsing to trade and ones that a state decides to be forbidden. Just because a powerful entity declares something to be banned, that doesn't mean dealing with it is against my morals, be it downloading torrents, using marijuana or trading oil, etc.
Not to mention when the state itself seems to be breaking the very laws it is making, one might have an even stronger moral arguments for breaking the laws... Why should the citizen be more lawful then the state???
No it can't. As Surf promptly noted, there is a huge difference between variables that almost everyone find repulsing to trade and ones that a state decides to be forbidden. Just because a powerful entity declares something to be banned, that doesn't mean dealing with it is against my morals, be it downloading torrents, using marijuana or trading oil, etc.
Not to mention when the state itself seems to be breaking the very laws it is making, one might have an even stronger moral arguments for breaking the laws... Why should the citizen be more lawful then the state???
While I agree with most of the negatives, I guess I have an incidental humorous story. A buddy and I went out east to visit another friend who was attending Boston College. We all went back to NYC for a 24 hour binge of stupidity that could rival Hunter S Thompson's Fear and Loathing. Early on we were dropping a dollar bill on a fishing line and retracting when someone reached for it. At some point a guy turns around and reaches for it and we do our thing. The guy goes ballistic, and calls us mother f***ers, who are going to get our asses killed, and he'd love to be the one. In our state, we laughed our asses off instead. About 5 years later I saw Rich on TV. I am certain to this day that was the guy. At this time in life I know he was absolutely right on how stupid we were at the time, but that is about my only brush with someone famous, or infamous. lol