Drunk woman ruins $423k of art on horror first date - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=ThatCrazyGmanV2;53015568]god that fucking made me cringe... just the idea of something that important being trashed by a drunk eugh god that's horrid[/QUOTE] I cannot stand warhol and the whole dada/postmodern movement, but even i had to shiver at that thought. Original works that have an impact on the world are innately precious beyond financial terms. Fucking senseless to ruin them. [sp]though to be fair you could just go to the store and buy another can of soup and declare it art again so maybe that's why they left it off the damages[/sp] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53016852]The system is horribly stacked for the rich. Once you're rich, it's pretty easy to stay rich, to keep getting richer, and to manipulate the laws further. [/QUOTE] Well i have good news for you, and that's that hereditary wealth/estates disappear within three generations 95% of the time. And that the hypothetical class of the 1% is an amorphous group of ever changing individuals, and not a rigid caste inaccessible to the [DEL]surfs[/DEL] working class.

[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;53019164]I cannot stand warhol and the whole dada/postmodern movement, but even i had to shiver at that thought. Original works that have an impact on the world are innately precious beyond financial terms. Fucking senseless to ruin them. [sp]though to be fair you could just go to the store and buy another can of soup and declare it art again so maybe that's why they left it off the damages[/sp] Well i have good news for you, and that's that hereditary wealth/estates disappear within three generations 95% of the time. And that the hypothetical class of the 1% is an amorphous group of ever changing individuals, and not a rigid caste inaccessible to the [DEL]surfs[/DEL] working class.[/QUOTE] Yep how things happened historically is definitely exactly how things will go on in a radically changing world from the old order. Yep. I can't fault that logic guy.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;53017490]What is "security" Stay in school.[/QUOTE] Don't be immature. Security exists for private homes aswell. It's not as black and white as you seem to think.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53019220]Yep how things happened historically is definitely exactly how things will go on in a radically changing world from the old order. Yep. I can't fault that logic guy.[/QUOTE] That's how it works today in the west/individualistic capitalist lightly regulated markets, and both are the exception to the historical rule, specifically against things like social caste systems or theocracies or other arbitrary distribution systems. The fact that that wealth does not stay "locked" and it's A) in the interests of the wealthy to re-inject their money back into the system and that B) that the wealth does not accrue at the feet of those that do not earn it (the overwhelming majority of the time) is proof that we've done things right. Don't predicate your ideas on resentment of people who're slightly better off than you are. You'll only end up with destructive solutions with destructive intent.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53016959]No, but I don't really have any sympathy for them. Wealth disparity is reaching some of the worst levels we've seen. It's worth keeping in mind who needs actual sympathy.[/QUOTE] I find it hard to hate new money just on the basis that they're rich. the guy worked his way up from fuck all to rich as hell on nothing but his own ability. maybe the guy is a prick, but it's not related to him being rich.

[QUOTE=butre;53019595]I find it hard to hate new money just on the basis that they're rich. the guy worked his way up from fuck all to rich as hell on nothing but his own ability. maybe the guy is a prick, but it's not related to him being rich.[/QUOTE] Being a prick often has A LOT to do with getting rich. Not saying all rich people are pricks or anything, but there are many who make sacrifices of character for extra dosh (and the more comfortable you are with extorting people/using tax havens/outsourcing labor, all of which are morally not so great, the better of a chance you have at becoming super rich)

[QUOTE=PunishedMod;53018512]Lol owned. Can't say I feel that bad for insanely rich people getting pwned by having a house too big to find their guest[/QUOTE] I'm not exactly fond of a very large deal of the rich either but this is way less about the rich and way more about the fact that it's original art.

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;53019793]I'm not exactly fond of a very large deal of the rich either but this is way less about the rich and way more about the fact that it's original art.[/QUOTE] There's tons of original art; what would be your proposed solution? How would you properly regulate something like this?

[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;53019793]I'm not exactly fond of a very large deal of the rich either but this is way less about the rich and way more about the fact that it's original art.[/QUOTE] If we value these original works so much as a society, then they should not be allowed to be personal property at all. Im not a fan of Warhol though so im not too torn up about it

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53016852]The system is horribly stacked for the rich. Once you're rich, it's pretty easy to stay rich, to keep getting richer, and to manipulate the laws further. How do you stop this? I don't know. Wealth is power in our society, and there are people with more wealth and power than we can fathom, and they're stacking the decks even more in their favour. You can say "That's not all rich people' and you might be right, but the reality of the situation is that the Charles and David Kochs of the world, as well as the Mercers, and numerous other billionaire dynasty families from around the world are actively working to get more power. I'm not sure why we should just be in awe of them for their wealth. I'm not sure why we should act like they're role models. They're powerful parasites.[/QUOTE] So where in this is the evidence the guy is an asshole

[QUOTE=Tigster;53020478]So where in this is the evidence the guy is an asshole[/QUOTE] Well he's rich so he's automatically bad /s

[QUOTE=Tigster;53020478]So where in this is the evidence the guy is an asshole[/QUOTE] Where did I say the guy was an asshole? I didn't. It seems you, and a few others are very keen to shove words into my mouth, about things I didn't say. I didn't at any point talk about this guy being an asshole. My one statement about this one guy was that I just don't have sympathy.

[QUOTE=Socram;53016344]Why is he an asshole exactly? Just because he has more money than you? I don't understand this mentality[/QUOTE] no, because he's exorbitantly rich [QUOTE=Tigster;53020478]So where in this is the evidence the guy is an asshole[/QUOTE] thats easy, its in the part where he lives in a 20 million dollar mansion and privately owns multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of original art pieces

There's something to be said about art or other stuff of historical significance should be primarily offered for the public to buy (if the owner is selling) - but if the public can't pay a reasonable price, I don't see what exactly is to be done that wouldn't also basically just be stealing. There's also limited museum space, so buying up a gazillion works of art would just be sorta dumb - many would end up being displayed nowhere. Make online digital versions available, if you really, really want the public to see the works.