Hi everyone,

Here is a fairly brief post about how crime doesn't pay.

Basically, I argue that the best way to look at metaphorical lawsuits, of which I've filed none (my zeros are different), is that they are strong in proportion to how effective they would be in real-life court under reasonable assumptions. It's not the same thing as "looking suspicious" from an econ perspective--it's when you cross the line and break US law, criminal or civil, that you have to watch out even more, even if you think you'll never get formally prosecuted.

One of the top things I've noticed recently is: Mob companies and other mob organizations that brazenly and unashamedly commit crimes, "daring" people to try to hold them accountable. The thing is, the metaphorical lawsuit is strengthened by the idea that a hypothetical real-life court showdown would be like getting a nuclear missile launched you, and that's the the "doomsday threat" that provides a sense of deterrence and gives meaning to the out-of-court dispute and how it is resolved. The ultimate threat is court--the party who would win clearly based on the facts and on the laws has the advantage.

Anyway, returning to the "big trend"...the big idea is, I think a common metaphorical lawsuit punishment is requiring that firms that refuse to comply lose security privileges. You could think of that as a vicious way to punish a firm--don't sue the firm, sue the firm's security firm, and obtain a quiet (metaphorical) specific performance ruling, ordering the firm to cease and desist aiding and abetting the mob firm, i.e., stop helping them brazenly commit crimes by providing them security, for money or otherwise.

I think a lot of loose and formal entities that provide security probably quietly respect this anyway...if a firm starts to be evil, security firms might voluntarily do a less serious job, perhaps claiming that it is not fraud because of duress...the security firm could claim that it is threatened by the mob firm in particular, and must continue providing light security and the illusion of full security to avoid being attacked.

The enforcement mechanisms of "metaphorical lawsuits" like this aren't always clear, but yes, it's a great idea to never break laws, even as a favor for some "friend entity"...many lawyers are very extremely motivated to punish illegal activity, sometimes quite viciously and quietly, in or out of court. Just don't break laws, it isn't worth it, no matter what people tell you. You can break other people's religious traditions--this is America--but breaking laws, especially serious ones, is not a recipe for success in your life. I myself even try to stay 5 mph under the speed limit at all times when I can.

-Philip White (philipjwhite@yahoo.com)

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:25:11 PM UTC-5, B.H. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Here is a fairly brief post about how crime doesn't pay.
>
> Basically, I argue that the best way to look at metaphorical lawsuits, of which I've filed none (my zeros are different), is that they are strong in proportion to how effective they would be in real-life court under reasonable assumptions. It's not the same thing as "looking suspicious" from an econ perspective--it's when you cross the line and break US law, criminal or civil, that you have to watch out even more, even if you think you'll never get formally prosecuted.
>
> One of the top things I've noticed recently is: Mob companies and other mob organizations that brazenly and unashamedly commit crimes, "daring" people to try to hold them accountable. The thing is, the metaphorical lawsuit is strengthened by the idea that a hypothetical real-life court showdown would be like getting a nuclear missile launched you, and that's the the "doomsday threat" that provides a sense of deterrence and gives meaning to the out-of-court dispute and how it is resolved. The ultimate threat is court--the party who would win clearly based on the facts and on the laws has the advantage.
>
> Anyway, returning to the "big trend"...the big idea is, I think a common metaphorical lawsuit punishment is requiring that firms that refuse to comply lose security privileges. You could think of that as a vicious way to punish a firm--don't sue the firm, sue the firm's security firm, and obtain a quiet (metaphorical) specific performance ruling, ordering the firm to cease and desist aiding and abetting the mob firm, i.e., stop helping them brazenly commit crimes by providing them security, for money or otherwise.
>
> I think a lot of loose and formal entities that provide security probably quietly respect this anyway...if a firm starts to be evil, security firms might voluntarily do a less serious job, perhaps claiming that it is not fraud because of duress...the security firm could claim that it is threatened by the mob firm in particular, and must continue providing light security and the illusion of full security to avoid being attacked.
>
> The enforcement mechanisms of "metaphorical lawsuits" like this aren't always clear, but yes, it's a great idea to never break laws, even as a favor for some "friend entity"...many lawyers are very extremely motivated to punish illegal activity, sometimes quite viciously and quietly, in or out of court. Just don't break laws, it isn't worth it, no matter what people tell you. You can break other people's religious traditions--this is America--but breaking laws, especially serious ones, is not a recipe for success in your life. I myself even try to stay 5 mph under the speed limit at all times when I can.
>
> -Philip White (philip...@yahoo.com)

One way to look at this: When a party is exposed to "doomsday-type catastrophic threats" that adversaries could act on, but simply would prefer not to waste time on, that establishes the exposed party as "very unsafe," i.e., open to being attacked and vulnerable--weak, maybe not competitive, in need of some big changes *that it should actively seek to get made for it* to become safer.

That is one good way to exploit "doomsday threats," and it is relevant both to why I constantly respond to trolls who try to smear me--I have been smeared, and it is important for me to show that I am actively responding to my unfortunate vulnerability that is not my fault--I don't invite this sort of catastrophe and I do work hard to fix it, in spite of idiots who commit crimes and ruin their lives to try to damage me. If I just sat there, it would say, "I am leaving myself open to more 'doomsday threats,' and I am the kind of person that you should evacuate from, because I don't work hard enough to try to fix my wild problems I've had to face." It's not my fault and I don't *have to* fix my problem in this way, quite aggressively actually, but it is in my interest to work on it because I can it is easy, even though I shouldn't have to fix it and would be an OK person if I didn't try and it was never my fault and others shouldn't be punished for being unable to do what I can. Part of the point is, NOT ONE SINGLE VALID ACCUSATION against me has been presented by those who would attack my reputation; I've been called gay, a loser, a hate criminal, "big-headed," and many other false things...not one allegation against my good name has stuck or been established as even remotely likely to be true, which is a win for me...the naysayers' spokesmen, which I assume "nymbot" and "wij" were/are, have presented zero sound arguments for why I would deserve to be targeted. Elizabeth Warren and others have failed to present a good case against me, completely.

This idea is also relevant to Ukraine...working to mitigate nuclear and other catastrophic threats, defending against them as well as possible, makes any nation look safety conscious and serious about its economy and safety. One thing the Americans and other Western powers have failed to see is how scathingly they are likely reviewed for adjudicating that my offered differential equations ideas are "not needed or wanted enough"; Russia's economy will ache, and so will the economies of the US and other western powers, for reckless disregard for addressing an existential vulnerability.

It is of course also relevant to vigilante/stalker/hate criminal/Confederate "operations" to try to "hunt" me...engaging in such actions makes you look extremely reckless, like endangering your wife or children with dangerous weapons, which no one should ever do. Who in their right mind would want to marry or even socialize with someone that reckless and dangerous and apparently oblivious to all danger? If you participate in illegal person-hunting operations, you may feel bold and tough in your mind, but you look extremely unwise and unsafe to be around. You will likely wind up with very few friends or other contacts until you seek help for your behavior problems.

-Philip White