General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The used car salesman strikes again [View all]mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)However, we have laws against wars of aggression, and laws against torture. Part of that is that torture has been shown to not work, but also that it's damaging to the society that commits it. Arguably, we have seen the damage done to our society.
the damage done by NOT prosecuting the banks has created a very definite split in the legal system of individual criminals - non-rich people - vs. corporations. Personally, I'm afraid of the idea of getting a mortgage to buy a home because I'm not sure the bank will not just steal it from me. And there's no recourse if they do.
These two things together illustrate that while we have laws, they don't apply to certain people, and that severely undermines the whole idea of having laws. At the very least, it shows that laws aren't what they say they are - a law may say people can't steal, but really mean that poor people can't steal. Worse is the situation that laws exist, but can be applied at the whim of whoever is in power. We see that happening in how anti-corruption laws are applied against one political party. Issa is a screaming example. And it deepens a sense that the whole government, the whole system, is hopelessly corrupted and that people - in a democracy supposedly - really don't have any control.
Without that sense that we live by rules, that the rules apply to everyone, people will take what they can. An example of that happening is the religious people who own businesses feeling free to force their beliefs on their employees. If they have the power to do so, why not? Likewise, if a bank feels like foreclosing on a house so they can get more money, why not? That's the real danger in just letting crimes by important people slide.