Even if He Took Money Cam Newton Did Nothing Wrong

Sorry guys, I didn't realize this had been spun off into a separate thread or I would have followed a little more closely.



So here is the argument.



The NCAA and the universities that participate are a cartel in which the government has a 86% ownership share (only 17 of 119 teams/universities are privately owned). Those colleges pay no taxes on gate receipts or donations, putting potential private competitors at a significant disadvantage (in fact private competitors would actually be funding their government competitors with any taxes that they pay). These advantages are obtained through force.



The proper and just reaction to the use of force on the part of the NCAA and the universities is a comparable use of force against them. In the case of Cameron Newton (or any other college athlete) that includes breaking a contract not to receive any compensation for the services rendered. Thus Cameron Newton would be justified in receiving compensation even though he allegedly signed some contract stating that he would not.



This scenario should be viewed in the same light as though one retailer burned down the offices of a competitor and then signed contracts with the employees of the competitor at lower than previous market wages. The employees are justified in breaking the contracts they signed against the retailer that destroyed the previous employer.



What I hope will happen is that Mr. Newton decides to tell everyone the NCAA is a joke , that he took the money and every other college athlete should be paid a market wage as well. Of course then the IRS would come knocking and that would be an even greater travesty. Maybe he will just be a vocal opponent of the NCAA and "ameteur" athletics. Of course, once he is in the NFL he will be benefiting rather than suffering as a result of the NCAA cartel so he'll probably keep his mouth shut.

jvquarterback wrote:
What matters here is the principle that a son cannot be held responsible for his fathers transgressions. Nope Cameron Newton will win and keep his Heisman trophy.



So by now everyone knows I believe even if Cameron Newton took money himself he did nothing wrong..

POST FAIL. Sorry, but knowingly violated rules of teh NCAA and amateur athletics by taking a pay for play when you are not a professional is wrong. If Cam wanted to get paid and be a pro, he should have entered the NFL Draft. When he chose to take a scholarship and to be classified as an amateur, he did something wrong.



Stop acting like what he did was not wrong if he took a payout. Your take is very Satanic in nature trying to muddy waters, blur lines and justifying all along the way. You are 100% wrong. You are a deceiver with that take.

Lawboy wrote:

What matters here is the principle that a son cannot be held responsible for his fathers transgressions. Nope Cameron Newton will win and keep his Heisman trophy.



So by now everyone knows I believe even if Cameron Newton took money himself he did nothing wrong..

POST FAIL. Sorry, but knowingly violated rules of teh NCAA and amateur athletics by taking a pay for play when you are not a professional is wrong. If Cam wanted to get paid and be a pro, he should have entered the NFL Draft. When he chose to take a scholarship and to be classified as an amateur, he did something wrong.



Stop acting like what he did was not wrong if he took a payout. Your take is very Satanic in nature trying to muddy waters, blur lines and justifying all along the way. You are 100% wrong. You are a deceiver with that take.

just a caution about arguing with jv.A) he's got his own logic so this line of reasoning doesn't work. and B) This line of reasoning will get this whole thread pushed to the (outer-darkness) lounge. At least, that's what happened to the last time I tried arguing your same points. He's convinced the Cam breaking the rules fulfills his capitalistic rights and that there are no ethical dilemmas behind agreeing to not take money and then actually taking money. Agree to disagree and save your fingers.

Lawboy wrote:
Sorry, but knowingly violated rules of teh NCAA and amateur athletics by taking a pay for play when you are not a professional is wrong. If Cam wanted to get paid and be a pro, he should have entered the NFL Draft. When he chose to take a scholarship and to be classified as an amateur, he did something wrong.



Stop acting like what he did was not wrong if he took a payout. Your take is very Satanic in nature trying to muddy waters, blur lines and justifying all along the way. You are 100% wrong. You are a deceiver with that take.

If the mods would like to delete both lawboys response to my post and this one I will of course understand but I will defend lawboys assertion that either myself or my views are satanic in any form.



When force is used against you or a potential employer, you are entitled to use force against the perpetrator of said force (or do you disagree?). This includes breaking contracts with the perpetrator of said force.



The several government-owned universities in question are tax-funded and pay no taxes. The potential employers of Mr Newton enjoy no such special advantage. Forced into this disadvantageous position they cannot employ Mr Newton as the market would dictate in the absence of the force used against them by the universities. The potential employers and Mr Newton are therefore justified in the use of force against the organizations that gain their advantage through the use of force. This includes breaking any contracts in which they said they would neither give nor receive compensation for services rendered.



There is nothing satanic about such an argument. In fact it is the initial perpetrator of the force that acts in a satanic manner. I will make no comment on people who support such use of force.

Those non-profit university by law have to pay and withhold payroll taxes and I bet they did not. In that case they broke the law.



And on the otherside. Every gifted athelete now will have his dad asking for money. Even if the son did nothing wrong the university or its boosters did.

words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words words

It might be "wrong" to have taken it, but I can't blame him. Either way, he is THE BEST college football player. Isn't that what the Heisman trophy is for? Not for the best college football player who is also the most morally sound. Just my opinion.

Sheesh. Either we have rules or we don't. Being really good ought not to exempt you from the rules. Saying he did not know that his dad was pimping him and Papa miraculously coming up with $50,000 SUV and a repaired church out of the blue is as credible as Iran saying they are building centrifuges for purely academic and civil purposes. If you don't like the rules, change them.

What you don't seem to get is that the current system in place already favors the schools with the most money, the slickest recruiters and the boosters that don't respect the rules with the $100 handshakes.



By that respect, it also hurts the little guys that actually respect and keep the rules, like BYU.



Whether players should get paid or not; when they do it with rules in place to prevent it, it creates an uneven playing field that only makes it more difficult for our Cougars to succeed.



I'm for anything that helps BYU athletics and against anything that hurts it. SEC teams and Pac 10 teams and boosters spending cash to "buy" players and improve their teams hurts BYU.



Now the part about tax evasion is a joke... if you dont' think others should pay taxes on their gains, then you're either a fool, or you prefer to pay your part and let others off the hook. You bet Cecil Newton should be prosecuted for tax evasion if they can prove he received money that he didn't claim and pay taxes on; what makes him better than average joe?

I think this thread and the opinions stated in the OP need to steal the "This is factless" thread title.



Or possibly it could be "donated" to the thread. After all, he did earn it. And when force is used, force must be answered upon by an opposite force.

The title of the thread should be, "even if you break the rules, you aren't guilty as long as you think it's a bad rule."



Hey! We should get JVQB to represent Brian David Mitchell!



"Your Honor, yes, my client kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Yes he raped that 13-year-old girl nearly every day over the nine-month period he imprisoned her. Yes he transported her across state lines. Yes he plotted to kidnap other young girls. But you see, he didn't do anything wrong. You see, I don't think these laws are good. They are preventing my client from pursuing happiness as he defines it. And that pursuit is in inalienable right! So if you want to be a communist, and a socialist, and deny him God-given rights, then punish him. I won't. He hasn't done anything wrong!"

I'm not sure why anyone would read any of this stuff or any other thread started by jvqb. Dude's got crazy ideas and comes across as way too militant and rude. Seems like Cougarboard would be a better fit for him.

kitic77 wrote:
The title of the thread should be, "even if you break the rules, you aren't guilty as long as you think it's a bad rule."



Hey! We should get JVQB to represent Brian David Mitchell!



"Your Honor, yes, my client kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Yes he raped that 13-year-old girl nearly every day over the nine-month period he imprisoned her. Yes he transported her across state lines. Yes he plotted to kidnap other young girls. But you see, he didn't do anything wrong. You see, I don't think these laws are good. They are preventing my client from pursuing happiness as he defines it. And that pursuit is in inalienable right! So if you want to be a communist, and a socialist, and deny him God-given rights, then punish him. I won't. He hasn't done anything wrong!"

Hear hear!

A moose once bit my sister...