I support Ron Paul's billFollow

Sure. But one has to make the argument that another way is "better", don't they? When we imposed laws which prevented people from resolving their difference by beating on each other with sticks and rocks, we didn't just declare that to be bad and outlaw it, did we? We replaced the sticks and rocks with enforceable civil action. Now, if you have a dispute with your neighbor and can't resolve it without resorting to "violence", the violence you use is legally defined. We didn't eliminate the concept that each individual has a right to redress his problems with his neighbor, we just replaced the tolls he uses to do it.

When someone blankly argues that capitalism is "bad", but doesn't also argue how another replacement is "better", their argument is meaningless.



People as a group will make different decisions than people as individuals though. The point is that we should endeavor to limit the decisions we make as a group to only those which are necessary. For example: If a group of people want to eat dinner, each individually is free to choose what they eat, right? But what if we decide that instead of each person preparing and eating their own meal, we'll all collectively prepare a single meal which we'll all share? Sounds great, right? Might even save some money. But here's the problem. Where before each person could eat what they wanted, now presumably the whole group will vote on what to eat and everyone has to eat the same thing.

The fact that the whole is made up of individuals doesn't change the fact that once decisions for the whole are made collectively, the individual's liberties are infringed. That's not bad by itself, but it means that we should only enforce collective decisions when it's necessary. By denying that there's any infringement because it's still the same people making the decision, you're effectively side-stepping the issue of individual liberty. IMO that's a really really bad idea.



Nope. I just recognize that "the government", regardless of how it's made up, will never make the exact same choices for each individual that the individuals would have made for themselves. It's somewhat axiomatic in fact. That's *why* we create governments in the first place. But it's important to recognize this fact and always keep it in mind when we consider what things to allow the government to do.

It was pretty poor, but don't sell yourself short. I think you're a serious competitor here.

And you're saying that people, as a group, will perhaps eschew capitalism? Huh. I thought capitalism was just the natural state of affairs for people. Sounds like "Because that's what people do!" was a pretty poor reason then, even ignoring the previous criticisms of your logic.

Of course if you throw a blanket over the problem, draw some eyes on it and call it the Government Monster, you can pretend that the problem (such as it is) isn't people, it's "government".

That's exactly how it works for me here too, except that in Oz some of the hospitals are State owned and run, while others are privately owned and run, and the government will pay for your private hospital care if the local public hospital is out of beds. Clinics and Specialists are private businesses, the doctors determine the care you need, and my little government medicare card pays for most or all of my care there.

Private Health Insurance companies also exist, and I can choose to join one of those and get fancier hotel-like treatment and a guaranteed individual room in a private hospital, plus a few little extras, by paying for Health Insurance.

No you didn't; you just didn't have any reply for the rest, so instead you make another asinine statement. Mr. Jim, from his perspective, didn't give up his rights willingly. Unless, of course, this is the one serial killer who kills 24 people, doesn't attempt to hide it, and then turned himself in, going "Hey guys, I've surrendered my rights! You're right, lock me away now.". Society with its laws chooses that these actions merit your rights becoming forfeit and took them from Mr. Jim when they arrested and convicted him.

It's very apparent you don't have the intellectual capacity for this, so you bore me.

Yay! Death panel

Yes I'm cool with supporting a murderer. If I support the death penalty, then I become a murderer myself.

If we allow people to take tit for tat revenge on each other for wrongs done, then we become like the beasts who attacked us in the first place. An eye for an eye, a beating for a beating, a rape for a rape, a kill for a kill? I prefer handing over to a disinterested 3rd party (the criminal justice system) to mete out some measure of justice, deterrent, and keep the public safe from harm. A 3rd party who can step back from an emotional situation and not let things run out of hand in revenge vendettas that pass down through generations.

Justice is better than Revenge.

I'd rather be morally better than the criminal. I don't want him hurt the way I was hurt. I want him reformed, contrite, chastened, and returned to society prepared to participate in it in a civilised way, having refound some morals. Not mistreated and alienated so he loses all human empathy he had left, and can't rejoin human society afterwards.

Edited, Apr 25th 2010 8:55am by Aripyanfar

You do the crime, you do the time. Actions have consequences.

But given that the vast majority of prisoners have mental illnesses I think we should be pouring a heap more resources into mental health services in prisons. Help give people the life skills to handle problems and emotions constructively instead of lapsing into dysfunctional behaviour when they can't cope. Only 5% of prisoners are "normal", completely emotionally stable people who have gotten greedy and taken advantage of other people in a more or less extreme way.

The way prisons function now, they are set up to make emotional/mental illnesses WORSE. Sensory deprivation, high stress situations anyone? Why pressure cook people so they are more likely to re-offend afterwards?

Safe security and containment has to be paramount, of course, but I'd like to see prisoners get the opportunity to learn to design and hand-craft furniture and decorations. If they can't get any good at one type of thing, they can barter what they are good at making for what another is good at making. They go into a cell with almost nothing, while they do time they get to enrich their surroundings with the colour and comfort of things that they can take pride in making and owning, and taking with them when they leave. Things that give them a sense of achievement and improvement, not just loss and degradation for their time in prison.

They could be taught landscaping, seed sprouting, seedling raising, gardening skills. composting, mushroom raisng, worm-farming. Vegetable gardening, small scale shicken farming for fresh eggs. When they're on rec, they are not GIVEN gardens, but allowed into gardens that THEY MAKE from scratch. Again, gaining skills, learning civilised hobbies, or civilised work skills. Learning constructive stress relieving activities.

Turning over their own veges and eggs to the common kitchens, learning to cook healthy meals, taking turns serving up, eating meals that they have part ownership of. If prisoners are too high-risk and antisocial to trust with each other's food, then harvesting, cooking alone in small segregated kitchens with healthy ingredients supplied to make up for what they can't grow, and eating their own food. Nutritionists and scientists have proven over and over again that healthy food makes for more balanced and stable emotions. More balanced and stable prisoners will theoretically make less problems, and have a higher chance of reforming.

My idea is not to hand them a more healthy lifestyle on a platter, but to teach them skills, give them materials, and get them to work hard for things that hopefully they can ultimately enjoy and be rightfully proud of. As a leaving tool they should be given information about where to shop for the starter materials Outside, Resume help and job interview training.

Physically don't trust a prisoner as far as you can throw him. If he breaks rules or behaves badly then as calmly as possible mete out the appropriate isolation or temporary removal of goods punishment. But give him respect and treat him like a human being. If you treat him like dirt and scum, all he'll see is dirt and scum around him, nothing but people and life to hate or despair over. That's what got him there in the first place.

Well. If we're going to derail...



This is completely false. I don't blame you for repeating it, since it's such a dramatic statistic that it appears to strengthen your position. But you probably should have done a bit of research first. Heck. We debunked this the last time it was brought up in a thread on this forum.

It's the "who were put to death" part which is false. It's a complete fabrication designed to twist the meaning of an otherwise accurate statistic. The real data is that 1 out of 7 people convicted of murder and sentenced to death (but not yet executed) are later found to be innocent. Remember. This includes every single person who successfully appeals their conviction. What that shows isn't that we're executing innocent people, but that our appeals process works. And that appeals process helps to ensure that innocent people do *not* get executed. But toss in a few extraneous words and it makes it seem like it's the other way around.




Yes. But the statistic you quoted doesn't actually say anything about how many innocent men were actually executed. Well... Not the *real* statistic the one you quoted is based on anyway. I don't feel like digging up the old thread we had on this, but likely real statistics for innocent people executed in the US is incredibly low. Obviously, we can't know for sure, but you can extrapolate based on rates of failures of a large number of appeals finding innocent people in other areas of crime. You kinda have to assume that somehow magically people convicted of murder, which has the highest burden of proof, and then those who are sentenced to death, which provides the greatest opportunity for re-examination of the evidence, would end out failing to establish innocence at a rate a couple orders of magnitude higher than any other crime or punishment in our society in order to even be able to mathematically assume that a single innocent person has been executed in the US in the last century.


The numbers of total executions carried out just isn't that high.