Death Penalty

[vegetariantaxidermy]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrent. The conviction rate for crimes like rape is incredibly low - so the penalty needs to be incredibly high. It's also about the strain on the public purse. And also about the allocation of values; making it known that there are limits. From the death penalty, descends a moral order. Without an absolute, there's a proportionality problem. Like with this scumbag, who served 15 years of a life sentence, and killed again after release:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/t ... 06972.html

How is that justice? It's cost the tax payer at least 3/4 million pounds to keep that bastard locked up, so far, and bleeding heart liberals like you in Parliament, and on the parole board, coupled with an overcrowded and expensive prison system, are failing to protect the public.

Are you brain-dead or something? Why don't you take your disingenuousness and libido and fuck off.

[RCSaunders]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it.

Well, of course, and you, and all other would-be tyrants, are just the ones to decide what is the good for everyone else.

If it weren't for your government, "protecting," everyone, murderers were not last very long. It's your social/political system of man-made penal laws and, "retributory justice," that makes those kinds of monsters possible.

If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary. If you cannot defend yourself, or do not have the stomach for it, don't force that responsibility on someone else. (Of course you can pay someone else to provide that defense--with your own money. If you force someone else to pay for it, that is theft.)

[vegetariantaxidermy]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it.

Well, of course, and you, and all other would-be tyrants, are just the ones to decide what is the good for everyone else.

If it weren't for your government, "protecting," everyone, murderers were not last very long. It's your social/political system of man-made penal laws and, "retributory justice," that makes those kinds of monsters possible.

If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary. If you cannot defend yourself, or do not have the stomach for it, don't force that responsibility on someone else. (Of course you can pay someone else to provide that defense--with your own money. If you force someone else to pay for it, that is theft.)

I'm sure you have that right under 'self defence'.

[Vitruvius]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrent. The conviction rate for crimes like rape is incredibly low - so the penalty needs to be incredibly high. It's also about the strain on the public purse. And also about the allocation of values; making it known that there are limits. From the death penalty, descends a moral order. Without an absolute, there's a proportionality problem. Like with this scumbag, who served 15 years of a life sentence, and killed again after release:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/t ... 06972.html

How is that justice? It's cost the tax payer at least 3/4 million pounds to keep that bastard locked up, so far, and bleeding heart liberals like you in Parliament, and on the parole board, coupled with an overcrowded and expensive prison system, are failing to protect the public.

Are you brain-dead or something? Why don't you take your disingenuousness and libido and fuck off.

Milly Dowler - remember her. I've been thinking about this since then. Young women stolen from the world, from their families, and from their futures by ugly headed bastards; and society pays a kings ransom to the criminal justice system and forgets. That piece of shit is costing the tax payer about £50,000 per year. He's eating, sleeping, masturbating, sharing jokes on the landing, watching TV, exercising in the yard. Milly Dowler suffered to her last breath - and her family hurt everyday. How is that justice? He also killed Marsha McDonnell, Amélie Delagrange, and attempted to murder Kate Sheedy - and we buy him dinner!

[Vitruvius]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it.

Well, of course, and you, and all other would-be tyrants, are just the ones to decide what is the good for everyone else.

Tyrant is defined as: a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way. I have no personal interest in political power. So I have to assume, you're saying the death penalty is tyrannical. In what way is it cruel, unreasonable or arbitrary?

If it weren't for your government, "protecting," everyone, murderers were not last very long. It's your social/political system of man-made penal laws and, "retributory justice," that makes those kinds of monsters possible.

This is incomprehensible. Could you rephrase.

If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary. If you cannot defend yourself, or do not have the stomach for it, don't force that responsibility on someone else. (Of course you can pay someone else to provide that defense--with your own money. If you force someone else to pay for it, that is theft.)

Oh, I see - you're an anarchist. That isn't the situation. The situation is one where the tax payer is being fleeced to keep monsters behind bars, and idealism aside, I thought you might have some sympathy with that argument.

[RCSaunders]

Oh, I see - you're an anarchist. That isn't the situation. The situation is one where the tax payer is being fleeced to keep monsters behind bars, and idealism aside, I thought you might have some sympathy with that argument.

I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong, from fleecing them to support those it imprisons to killing thm breaking some law. I recognize all government is evil, but I have no interest in fighting or attempting to change them.

So long as most people want government, because they believe a government will provide them safety, security, and make a nice society for them and pick up after them when they screw up their life and want someone one else, they call their, "leaders," to take the responsibility for their choices by telling them what to do and not do, believimg they have some kind of virtue because they are patriotic, "law abiding citizens," there will always be government. Until people want to take responsibility for their own lives, do their own learning and thinking, willing to take the risk of surviving and prospering on their own merits and productive efforts, there will be governments, and those who have chosen them will suffer the conseqeunces--but its not my business to interfere in how others choose to live their lives.

[Vitruvius]

Oh, I see - you're an anarchist. That isn't the situation. The situation is one where the tax payer is being fleeced to keep monsters behind bars, and idealism aside, I thought you might have some sympathy with that argument.

I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong, from fleecing them to support those it imprisons to killing thm breaking some law. I recognize all government is evil, but I have no interest in fighting or attempting to change them.

I'm talking in terms of political theory; not casting personal aspersions. The ideas you've expressed are anarchist ideas; regardless of how you behave in your daily life. I think the anarchist position is false, because there are public goods, like garbage collection, street lights, national defence, education, health - that would not be produced by the free market. The criminal justice system is another public good - that can only be organised through government. I'm aware, that previously you said:

If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary.

But imagine how that would play out. It wouldn't be the death penalty for the most grievous and inhumane of crimes; it would be the death penalty because your dog shit on my lawn. Justice has to be taken out of the hands of individuals - and entrusted to an institution, because people are not capable of the kind of objectivity necessary to proportionality.

So long as most people want government, because they believe a government will provide them safety, security, and make a nice society for them and pick up after them when they screw up their life and want someone one else, they call their, "leaders," to take the responsibility for their choices by telling them what to do and not do, believimg they have some kind of virtue because they are patriotic, "law abiding citizens," there will always be government. Until people want to take responsibility for their own lives, do their own learning and thinking, willing to take the risk of surviving and prospering on their own merits and productive efforts, there will be governments, and those who have chosen them will suffer the conseqeunces--but its not my business to interfere in how others choose to live their lives.

You seem to speak to a much earlier time; perhaps a hunter gatherer time - when people lived in kinship tribes of between 40-120 individuals. Those days are gone. Tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups, and those societies - on whatever scale, needed laws, and the enforcement of laws by an objective authority. Government is inevitable; bad government is not. There's an fundamental question in politics about where one draws the frontiers of the state - about what is a legitimate responsibility of government, and what isn't - that relates to the size of the state, and the consequent burden of tax. To argue for small government is a legitimate position; anarchism is not.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

... he should be hung ...

... because everyone knows two wrongs make a right, and it will bring Sarah Everard back to life, Right? Well, perhaps not! Why do so many blood-thirsty vengeful people think their viciousness is some kind of virtue. Do they really think killing and harming other human beings actually makes anything better?

Yes. If I didn't think it was to the good, I wouldn't call for it. It's not about revenge, it's about deterrent. The conviction rate for crimes like rape is incredibly low - so the penalty needs to be incredibly high. It's also about the strain on the public purse. And also about the allocation of values; making it known that there are limits. From the death penalty, descends a moral order. Without an absolute, there's a proportionality problem. Like with this scumbag, who served 15 years of a life sentence, and killed again after release:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/t ... 06972.html

How is that justice? It's cost the tax payer at least 3/4 million pounds to keep that bastard locked up, so far, and bleeding heart liberals like you in Parliament, and on the parole board, coupled with an overcrowded and expensive prison system, are failing to protect the public.

Are you brain-dead or something? Why don't you take your disingenuousness and libido and fuck off.

Milly Dowler - remember her. I've been thinking about this since then. Young women stolen from the world, from their families, and from their futures by ugly headed bastards; and society pays a kings ransom to the criminal justice system and forgets. That piece of shit is costing the tax payer about £50,000 per year. He's eating, sleeping, masturbating, sharing jokes on the landing, watching TV, exercising in the yard. Milly Dowler suffered to her last breath - and her family hurt everyday. How is that justice? He also killed Marsha McDonnell, Amélie Delagrange, and attempted to murder Kate Sheedy - and we buy him dinner!

Ok. You are brain dead.

[RCSaunders]

Oh, I see - you're an anarchist. That isn't the situation. The situation is one where the tax payer is being fleeced to keep monsters behind bars, and idealism aside, I thought you might have some sympathy with that argument.

I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong, from fleecing them to support those it imprisons to killing thm breaking some law. I recognize all government is evil, but I have no interest in fighting or attempting to change them.

I'm talking in terms of political theory; not casting personal aspersions.

I didn't think you were, but you do misunderstand. I have no, "political theory," (which is what I mean by a-political), and I have no ideology. (You can see, "What I Don't Believe.")

The ideas you've expressed are anarchist ideas; regardless of how you behave in your daily life. I think the anarchist position is false, because there are social goods, like garbage collection, street lights, national defence, education, health - that would not be produced by the free market. The criminal justice system is another social good - that can only be organised through government.

That's absurd. Not one of those things requires a government to supply them, with the exception of the absurd idea of, "national defense." (Do you really want politicians collecting your garbage, running power plants and the power grids, educating your children, or providing your medical care?) The government does not provide one thing of real value to anyone and all that it takes credit for is actually performed by non-government individuals paid by the government with money confiscated by force (taxes) from others who could otherwise pay for all those services and products they chose themselves if the government had not confiscated their wealth. Even if there were something that required an agency of force to supply, a society would be better off without it than be enslaved by a government in order to have it.

As for, "national defense," threats of aggression only come from government and are alway only against other governments. Individuals neither start or fight wars, only governments do. Governments have no interest in defending individuals, only in defending the government.

I'm aware, that previously you said:

I am not an anarchist, I If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary.

But imagine how that would play out. It wouldn't be the death penalty for the most grievous and inhumane of crimes; it would be the death penalty because your dog shit on my lawn. Justice has to be taken out of the hands of individuals - and entrusted to an institution, because people are not capable of the kind of objectivity necessary to proportionality.

How would what play out? So long as there are governments no such scenario will happen, and there will always be government so long as most people want some agency of force to supply their security, and guarantees of the kind of life they think they want and believe they have a right to things just because they were born, and do not have to earn them. (I certainly would not trust them to defend anything.)

I happen to agree with one phrase you used, though you did hot intend it, "Justice has to be taken out of the hands of individuals," if there is to be real justice; but you forget, every politician and government agent is an individual and it is into their hands people like you have placed the administration of what you call justice.

So long as most people want government, because they believe a government will provide them safety, security, and make a nice society for them and pick up after them when they screw up their life and want someone one else, they call their, "leaders," to take the responsibility for their choices by telling them what to do and not do, believing they have some kind of virtue because they are patriotic, "law abiding citizens," there will always be government. Until people want to take responsibility for their own lives, do their own learning and thinking, willing to take the risk of surviving and prospering on their own merits and productive efforts, there will be governments, and those who have chosen them will suffer the conseqeunces--but its not my business to interfere in how others choose to live their lives.

You seem to speak to a much earlier time; perhaps a hunter gatherer time - when people lived in kinship tribes of between 40-120 individuals. Those days are gone. Tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups, and those societies - on whatever scale, needed laws, and the enforcement of laws by an objective authority. Government is inevitable; bad government is not. There's an fundamental question in politics about where one draws the frontiers of the state - about what is a legitimate responsibility of government, and what isn't - that relates to the size of the state, and the consequent burden of tax. To argue for small government is a legitimate position; anarchism is not.

Not at all. There have always been, "political systems, whether called tribal leaders, or kings, or gods. I advocate no social scheme ever tried before and certainly none of the horrible forms of oppression modern political sociologists are trying to foist on the world. Nevertheless, throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

[Vitruvius]

Oh, I see - you're an anarchist. That isn't the situation. The situation is one where the tax payer is being fleeced to keep monsters behind bars, and idealism aside, I thought you might have some sympathy with that argument.

I am not an arnarchist, I am a-political. I recognize anything a government does to others against their will is wrong, from fleecing them to support those it imprisons to killing thm breaking some law. I recognize all government is evil, but I have no interest in fighting or attempting to change them.

I'm talking in terms of political theory; not casting personal aspersions.

I didn't think you were, but you do misunderstand. I have no, "political theory," (which is what I mean by a-political), and I have no ideology. (You can see, "What I Don't Believe.")

The ideas you've expressed are anarchist ideas; regardless of how you behave in your daily life. I think the anarchist position is false, because there are social goods, like garbage collection, street lights, national defence, education, health - that would not be produced by the free market. The criminal justice system is another social good - that can only be organised through government.

That's absurd. Not one of those things requires a government to supply them, with the exception of the absurd idea of, "national defense." (Do you really want politicians collecting your garbage, running power plants and the power grids, educating your children, or providing your medical care?) The government does not provide one thing of real value to anyone and all that it takes credit for is actually performed by non-government individuals paid by the government with money confiscated by force (taxes) from others who could otherwise pay for all those services and products they chose themselves if the government had not confiscated their wealth. Even if there were something that required an agency of force to supply, a society would be better off without it than be enslaved by a government in order to have it.

As for, "national defense," threats of aggression only come from government and are alway only against other governments. Individuals neither start or fight wars, only governments do. Governments have no interest in defending individuals, only in defending the government.

I'm aware, that previously you said:

I am not an anarchist, I If you or your property or your loved ones are threatened by someone else, you are responsible for defending those things yourself, even if that means killing the one making the threat, if necessary.

But imagine how that would play out. It wouldn't be the death penalty for the most grievous and inhumane of crimes; it would be the death penalty because your dog shit on my lawn. Justice has to be taken out of the hands of individuals - and entrusted to an institution, because people are not capable of the kind of objectivity necessary to proportionality.

How would what play out? So long as there are governments no such scenario will happen, and there will always be government so long as most people want some agency of force to supply their security, and guarantees of the kind of life they think they want and believe they have a right to things just because they were born, and do not have to earn them. (I certainly would not trust them to defend anything.)

I happen to agree with one phrase you used, though you did hot intend it, "Justice has to be taken out of the hands of individuals," if there is to be real justice; but you forget, every politician and government agent is an individual and it is into their hands people like you have placed the administration of what you call justice.

So long as most people want government, because they believe a government will provide them safety, security, and make a nice society for them and pick up after them when they screw up their life and want someone one else, they call their, "leaders," to take the responsibility for their choices by telling them what to do and not do, believing they have some kind of virtue because they are patriotic, "law abiding citizens," there will always be government. Until people want to take responsibility for their own lives, do their own learning and thinking, willing to take the risk of surviving and prospering on their own merits and productive efforts, there will be governments, and those who have chosen them will suffer the conseqeunces--but its not my business to interfere in how others choose to live their lives.

You seem to speak to a much earlier time; perhaps a hunter gatherer time - when people lived in kinship tribes of between 40-120 individuals. Those days are gone. Tribes joined together to form multi-tribal social groups, and those societies - on whatever scale, needed laws, and the enforcement of laws by an objective authority. Government is inevitable; bad government is not. There's an fundamental question in politics about where one draws the frontiers of the state - about what is a legitimate responsibility of government, and what isn't - that relates to the size of the state, and the consequent burden of tax. To argue for small government is a legitimate position; anarchism is not.

Not at all. There have always been, "political systems, whether called tribal leaders, or kings, or gods. I advocate no social scheme ever tried before and certainly none of the horrible forms of oppression modern political sociologists are trying to foist on the world. Nevertheless, throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

Okay.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

[Vitruvius]

throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

[RCSaunders]

throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You will have to ask them. I cannot judge how anyone else chooses to live their life or what is right for them. Everybody is different and there is no one way for human beings to live, which is what is wrong with every social/political system that attempts to force everyone one to live the same way and according to someone's idea of how society is supposed to be.

Those I described, do not fit any profile, they are just individuals who have chosen to be totally responsible for their own lives, guided by their own best reason, demanding nothing of anyone else, totally willing to succeed or fail on their own merits. Exceptional does not mean better, just different. I'm sure if you ask anyone of those who have chosen to live by their own lights they would say it was better for them, because it is the only kind of life to them that is worth living.

Eccentrics.

[RCSaunders]

throughout all history and today there have been and are exceptional individuals who are never part of or support any political or social organization or system, are never members of any collective or movement, who live their lives as they chose, never a threat to anyone else, and always benevolent in all their relationships with others.

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

[Vitruvius]

I assuming you mean 'people like you' What about all the people who don't fit this profile?

You're wasting your time. The world of RC Saunders begins and ends with RC Saunders. I try to tell him about political theory that exists in the world, to which his ideas conform - and he simply cannot comprehend what I'm saying and accuses me of misunderstanding, because he doesn't believe in political theory, or anything! Politically it's anarchism, philosophically it's solipsism - but I don't suppose he believes in that either! Psychologically, I'm thinking psychopathy, but probably not of the serial killer variety! Probably!

The best you can do is call me a, "solipsist," "anarchist," and, "psychopath." I've been called much worse--surely you can do better than that.

I'm not calling you anything. What would be the point? You don't believe in it!