You get to take a monetary compensation and to kill them. It is a good thing to seek proper retribution (effectively death penalisation) against a violent offender since there is a zero reoffense rate and no new loss of life.
Forget the potential for abuse
Forget the strange moral proposition that revenge is good
Forget the draconic justifications for the taking of life by the legal institutions that I’m sure Stalin, Hitler, and Ceaser shared…
The fact that you would celebrate it is just disgusting.
Hey, why don’t we extend this to people who get abortions… capital punsihment for them. No repeat offenses and no new loss of life… hey! Let’s get those masturbators too!
So what are alternatives to imprisonment,capital punishment, and blood money? No one’s mentioned it at all I’m pretty curious. Rehabilitation?(which would require imprisonment of course)
Laotzu your arguments don’t seem to go anywhere because it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to make a point other than that maybe the other posters are jerks with no morals. Not that you’re the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just “omg cant believe you said that you have problems” “oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems” What’s the point of all this?
He has not made it at all clear what his stance is (and he actively engages in an ‘elaborate’ game of red herrings I’d advise you to keep out of) but my guess is it would essentially be tightly regulated rehabilitation and community service because imprisonment and death penalty is unjust.
I am not suggesting that an individual has to be free in order to make money. Once a person commits a crime I believe it is reasonable to enslave them until their debt is paid. For a white collar criminal (i.e.: fraud) this may mean nothing more than a tracking anklet and a desk job. For a serial killer this may be full restraints and usage as a human test subject for medical research. Prison factories are a reasonable middle ground in my opinion for people who commit crimes of passion (rape, murder, etc.) in that they are confined and controlled but are still able to be productive.
I agree, it would be wise to show alternatives rather then counter-productive arguments.
The whole idea that prisons are immoral or worse “prison for profit”
Then the idea that I wouldn’t act the same way if I was the one on trial is silly. You have no idea how I would act on trial. Epicurus or Lao, whatever he fancies himself, should ask himsefl, how on earth he is againts violence if he is willing to restrict punishment for murderers?
I agree. I try to avoid responding to posts that contain bickering in them, or at least only respond to the argument side of the post and not the bickering side. Sometimes I fail and get sucked in though.
A crime for passion is not murder. I understand more fully about wrongful accusation and it is no longer a concern.
Ok, so what to do with these killers who didn’t plan it beforehand? We throw them in private slave labor camps (that’s basically what a free market prison would be).
And what, because there is more incentive for personal accountablity there is NO potential for abuse AT ALL now? That’s quite a jump.
It is deduced from the actor’s ranking of means and ends. It is in Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State .
Not what I asked for, and an appeal to authority. Do you have any EMPIRICAL evidence for that? Or do you just feel it, in your heart/intellect? If you know anything about me, it is that I strongly differ than anything can be known, or to put it more precisely “verified” (becuase you can know plenty, but you can’t know that it’s true. Nor can you empirically, but at least you know that way it holds true for us inter-subjectively) logically. Without evidence, the best you can hope for is a guess. Evidence > Math > Logic (imho)
And this is my last post I am going to address to you.
That’s ok, your choice. Just to let you know, it’s not an ad hominem to call your views barbaric. Only if I attempt to say that the barbaric nature of your disgusting views make your argument any less valid, which I did not.
Well, you have a claim on the assets they made whilst they were alive
Yes, but by definition that is less than a claim on the assets made in the past plus the profits of production in the future. You can get all of their assets and kill them, or you can get all of their assets plus have them work to pay more over time. I would rather have more than less.
Are you comparing murderers to people who get abortions and masturbators? If so, then you probably have problems.
Do we have to play with semantics again, because it gets annoying.
It does logically follow from the argument, so your attempt to just throw out fallacies, frankly, is incorrect.
In some communities (certainly not one I would want to live in) aborters and/or masturbators would be criminals.. more specifically, murderers. It’s capital punishment for them, according to the argument.
Laotzu your arguments don’t seem to go anywhere because it doesn’t seem like you’re trying to make a point other than that maybe the other posters are jerks with no morals. Not that you’re the only one, the personal bickering seems like a waste of time, does anyone agree? Its just “omg cant believe you said that you have problems” “oh yea well you said THAT so you have problems” What’s the point of all this?
I’m not quite arguing that. I am saying they have morals… disgusting morals where it’s good to stand around like a vulture waiting to take from the dead whatever they can.
He has not made it at all clear what his stance is (and he actively engages in an ‘elaborate’ game of red herrings I’d advise you to keep out of) but my guess is it would essentially be tightly regulated rehabilitation and community service because imprisonment and death penalty is unjust.
Would my having a stance make your stance/argument any more/less valid/invalid, and/or righteous/barbaric?
It would perhaps give a new perspective on the discussion don’t you think? Your opinions on other people’s stances please you just fine I’m sure, but without the input of the alternatives to imprisonment I don’t understand where this discussion is going.
I’m sure everyone here would love a world where no one is imprisoned. But everyone’s running on limited ideas on how to deal with criminals so could you help out, and tell us what you think should be done? Otherwise this all just feels like self-glorification of some sort.
I am also opposed to prison but not blood money/legalised contractual killing. A harsh restitution system and outlawry was effectively in place long before the evolution of the state. This meant that murder, rape, etc. were the exception not the norm. I made the mistake of saying that crimes of passion were not murder above; generally these crimes would constitute murder (and thereby initiation of aggression which can be effectively met, in the market, by retalliation, i.e. contractual killing) but in the exception of certain cases where, say, John who kills another Fred because he killed his wife. But John must have evidence to prove Fred killed his wife when Fred’s insurance schemes or family members come his way otherwise he too will be accountable for by contractual killing. John can kill Fred himself or employ another body to do so. But I really don’t care if someone got high on drink or drugs, or got really emotional and killed someone else in a rage for no justifiable reason; their action is still purposeful behaviour and they will be subject to contractual killing. I don’t suport Micaah’s belief though, where John gets to ‘enslave’ Fred and force him to work off the debt. No party can lawfully detain another party, this is slavery.
Laotzu’s objections are mainly to do with fairness but life is not fair. I am 99% sure he supports a scheme where murderers and psychopaths are ‘looked after’ by the community, where they see a therapist on a regular basis and do community service, etc. But you can’t really be sure. I would oppose this anyway on the grounds that it is a highly utilitarian scheme which does not make the murderer liable for their actions.
It does NOT “logically follow” from that argument. And don’t you dare ask me to prove why your argument is incorrect. The burden of proof lays on you. Simply, stating the ethos of a community has nothing to do with the main question. Abortion and masturbation has nothing to do with initiation of violence or how we have to deal with criminals who cause damage to other individuals. Someone who aborts or masturbates isn’t causing any damage to others except himself, if any.
You are also aware that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.
Pulling things out of your ### and sugar coating them with your feelings is not going to make them true.If you plan on arguing try proving your point without giving us your subjective opinion.
See here:
This is like that time when you said that wealth redistribution and charity is the same thing. Somehow, I can’t forget that.
Fed is more powerful than the govnmt. The fed controls the capital by sanction of govnmt force. life is measured in time, time is money. Therefore money is life, or rather a representation of life expended. Control the money, control the lives of those who use it.
If the market does not bare a toll price, the road and subsequent buisnesses on that road suffer. Rates will normilize.
As stated by others, private banks will offer a variey of products and services. The market will weed out the malinvestment.
In the abcense of regulation by force a monopoly, will eventually fail.
3rd party arbitration.
Friends, family or ins. companies could.
Good questions, but not the end. Questions are the birth of rational thought. Dont stop. Deliver.
It does NOT “logically follow” from that argument. And don’t you dare ask me to prove why your argument is incorrect. The burden of proof lays on you. Simply, stating the ethos of a community has nothing to do with the main question. Abortion and masturbation has nothing to do with initiation of violence or how we have to deal with criminals who cause damage to other individuals. Someone who aborts or masturbates isn’t causing any damage to others except himself, if any.
You are also aware that Evilsocialist and Clayton stated that petty offences have absolutely no penalty.
I’ll do whatever I dare, tyvm.
The question; is murder a significant justification for legally sanctioned killing? Answer yes (according to some other than myself).
So I point out that in some communities abortion and/or mastiurbation are considered murder… are you going to force your pro-choice beliefs on them?
If you don’t see how the accusation in fact did follow, I have nothing to say. It does. Just like
wealth redistribution and charity is the same thing
follows, if you’re talking about whether or not giving money to people who didn’t earn it causes an incentive problem.
If I catch you stealing bubble gum in my candy store, I have every right to physically hold you until I can get your name, number, contact information and other relevant information that I will need to potentially file suit against you and/or collect restitution. If you try to run away without giving this information, I would be within my rights to forcibly restrain you (say, tie you to a chair or put handcuffs on you). Of course, this can only be for a very short duration and only for the express purpose of gathering the pertinent information (i.e. not for slapping you around) without it becoming kidnapping, assault or imprisonment. The concept of lawful detainment is the legal basis of the English gaol (jail) which was only ever supposed to be a very temporary holding place. The jurisdictions that I’m aware of prohibit holding a person in a jail for more than 14 days without a hearing regarding their physical custody (habeus corpus). In cases of gross crimes, such as murder or rape - espeically if committed by a poor person who is unlikely to be able to pay any fines levied against him and therefore has every reason to run - some form of detainment may be lawful. What will decide when detainment is lawful and when it is not is lawsuits by relatives of those who are unreasonably detained against the party who so detained them, arguing that the detention was, in fact, kidnapping or imprisonment. The spectre of being sued for kidnapping or imprisonment would be a pretty high bar on how sure you are that someone is, in fact, guilty before detaining them in some kind of lockup.
I hope this is not a reference to my position. I don’t know whether revenge is “good” or “evil”, it is what it is and it’s part of human nature. So, we have to deal with it.