GasBandit
Staff member
Lately we seem to be embracing a lot of concepts that previously were considered beyond the pale. It's frightfully easy to redefine what is and isn't an option in the right circumstances.
Death Penalty
- Thread starter David
- Start date
- Status
Necronic
Staff member
Maybe, but if you think that your political energies are best served chasing that dragon then you my friend have given up on any useful contribution to the politic body. That is a fight you will have a hell of a time winning. Even the limited measures bypassing due process and habeus corpus in the Patriot Act have been demonized to hell and back. Moreover, are you willing to pay the toll it would take to get something like that passed? Because to really get that passed you would have to get in bed with Sarah Pailan and people far far worse.
Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
Like I said in the other threads, politics isn't about taking ideological stands and fighting battles you can't win. It's about looking at what works, and what you can get, and getting it done. One inch at a time.
I
Iaculus
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Depends on what return you're getting for that 2% of innocent casualties, doesn't it?
GasBandit
Staff member
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.
I think the faint hope clause is a load of crap regardless... I don't think a killer like Olson should even be allowed to apply for parole.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that proponents of the death penalty feel that the criminal justice system is infallible enough to commit people to death, but fallible enough to allow murderers to walk free with parole?
Anyways, I still stand by my previous point. The only argument from either side that doesn't rely on correlative statistics, reasoning processes that may not apply to murderers, or moral values that are ambiguous and mutative depending on who is looking at it, is the FACT that it costs more. That's the only hard argument in either direction. Everything else is emotional or bad science, in either direction.[/QUOTE]
People always use that ol' if 2 innocent people are put to death out of 100 guilty ones then the system is flawed. I think 2% chance of error is pretty good odds.[/QUOTE]
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.
GasBandit
Staff member
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Claire Wolfe[/FONT]
C
crono1224
Easy for you to say. If it was you or a loved one that made up the 2% you'd be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]
Chances are that if you or a loved one made up the 98% you'd still be screaming bloody murder.[/QUOTE]
Hey here is a million dollars sorry that we killed your wife.
I like the argument that the 2% killed innocently is worth the probable 2%+ saved by deterring potential murders. Here is the only problem one can be backed up by fact (people who have been proven to be wrongly executed), the other you can't really say who wouldn't have murdered because of it.
Necronic
Staff member
Which is why politics is so deplorable, corrupt and ineffective.[/QUOTE]
And the alternatives are better? Are we to wait for a truly benevolent despot or oligarchy to step forward to lead us? Perhaps that's why so many people are waiting for the End of Days: They want some kind of Messianic figure to take undisputed power so they no longer have to think for themselves.[/QUOTE]
The proper alternative is to reduce political influence to a minimum by adhering to the concept of the citizen-legislator as intended by the founders. The government was supposed to be part-time, and the legislators would then GO HOME to their real jobs and lives in their respective communities. The idea that someone could actually make their living in politics full-time was abhorrent. Of course, now we've gotten away from that. It's taken a few hundred years, but we've gotten to that point where we've managed to proverbially replace the 1 tyrant 1000 miles away with 1000 tyrants 1 mile away. When Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be periodically refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants," he wasn't just coming up with a cool quote for Ed Harris in The Rock... he meant that it was inevitable that those who wish to hold power will eventually find a way to keep it to themselves, and that the destruction and "reset button" of the system were the only way to return to liberty. We're already past the point of no return. Our government has turned completely to tyranny, of both thought and deed, hiding behind a fractured veneer of false democracy through false dichotomy. Now it's just a waiting game until the piper's bill comes due and institutions we previously thought indefatigable start crashing down around our ears.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]- Claire Wolfe[/FONT]
[/QUOTE]
I'm confused. Are you saying we have less freedom now than we did before? As far as I can tell we have more freedom than at any other time in American history. And by we I mean all of us: men, women, all races, kids, etc.. Edit: But I think we have had this argument before. I favor social freedoms first and you favor economic freedoms first, so to you the existence of taxes as they are is far more abhorrent than the freedoms given to gays and women and blacks is good.
That aside, I think you are making the same mistake that the Objectivist movement does when it focuses on the hyper-capitalism of Rands work and not the sanctity of the ego. In both cases you are talking about an anachronistic ideal that simply could not exist in the real world, as their sources developed them many many years ago.
Take for instance the defense of property rights, something you and she both would argue as being neccessary. Beyond the simple concepts of real estate it would also delve into IP and technology law. It wouldn't be that hard to argue that environmentalism would fall into the same category as it is impossible to isolate air or water, therefore your pollution damages my property. Then you would have divorce in there too of course. Oh yeah, for that matter you may even have to deal with gay rights legislation due to issues of long term partnerships and deaths without a will, should it go to the family of the deceased or to his partner? And of course the RIAA would want some legislation as well right?
All of that is just property rights (and just a tiny little slice of it.) The reality of government is that it HAS to be complicated. Do I agree with everything it does? Hell no. I think there should be mandatory term limits in congress. I think political families are disgusting. I think more time needs to be spent cleaning up old laws and closing loopholes and retaining the intentions. But the government you have described works nowhere other than on paper, and not even much paper.
C
Chibibar
Yea, but I don't see any politician will pass a law (or essentially an amendment) to limit term for senators and house of reps or any government body that already exist.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.
C
Chibibar
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.[/QUOTE]
heh. I think you are right Gas. and the problem is that the U.S. can't really afford to collapse and start over like that right now (or any modern time) 200 years ago sure and maybe even 100 years ago, but today, it would be a total disaster for U.S. to go "belly" up and restructure the government (at least from my limited views)
GasBandit
Staff member
No, it can't afford it. But us not being able to afford something seems to have little bearing on what we actually do.
(obligatory)
Aww dammit, why did we have to get lumped in with Hollywood and fucking L.A.? Everyone knows if the US went through some sort of Balkanization that NorCal and SoCal would split. Hell, we want to do it now.(obligatory)
GasBandit
Staff member
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured.
I keep dragging it up as a visual aid whenever I start talking about the inevitable balkanization of the US within our lifetimes.
GasBandit
Staff member
Inevitable. Right.
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured. [/QUOTE]
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.
GasBandit
Staff member
It's the world map from the old PC flight sim adventure "Crimson Skies." It takes place in an alternate earth where WW1 and the stock market crash caused the US federal government to also collapse, and the US balkanized along geopolitical borders and in the ensuing chaos, Canada also fractured. [/QUOTE]
Something tells me whomever came up with that map didn't know a whole helluva lot about western Canada, and thought it akin to "Thar be dragons" or something.
Oh well, thanks for the reply.[/QUOTE]
Well, bear in mind this map is also circa 1930. I don't know if that actually has any bearing.
---------- Post added at 02:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:37 PM ----------
Because LA had all the military might (in the context of the game, air power). But the CA "panhandle" is in dispute with the nation of Pacifica, and Hollywood is also trying to exert claims to the Baja peninsula from the Estados Unidos Mexicanos.
Necronic
Staff member
Actually, the government I described worked very well at creating the world's foremost superpower. The government we have is working very well at tearing it back down. But I wanted to single out and note one thing about term limits - I used to also be very gung ho about term limits, until someone on this forum (I forget who) linked me an article that shows when you put in manditory term limits on legislators, what happens is that even though you are rotating through legislators they still end up all keeping the same staff, and it ends up being the staffers who start setting policy because they've been there so long, and then we're right back where we started. So I don't know what the answer is to fix that right now, maybe maximum employment terms for political staffers as well or something, but term limits alone won't be enough to excise the demons of politics. The more you go round in round in the rats nest of interconnected problems there, the more it starts to look like the only sure solution is blood and fire, then rebuilding from scratch.[/QUOTE]
Actually, two world wars and a nice helping of friendly geography helped make us the world's foremost superpower, not the government you describe. Before those wars we weren't really all that much compared to Europe.
Well, bear in mind this map is also circa 1930. I don't know if that actually has any bearing.[/QUOTE]
No, they're just morons basically. Only one significant difference in the internal boundaries of Canada has occurred since 1912 (the division of NWT into that and Nunavut). Check out the article Territorial Evolution of Canada on wiki for a great quick visual guide.
So I maintain, the creators of this fictional map knew nothing about western Canada, and apparently not a whole lot about US geography either in regards to natural geological/physical features. As I said before, they apparently knew about Ontario & Quebec, then "maritime provinces," but the west was "Thar be dragons" and was apparently divided up very VERY randomly.
Don't fret over it too much though. Most of us out west are pretty sure that's how eastern Canada sees us most of the time anyways, so you're not much different than them!
GasBandit
Staff member
So you're saying that economic liberty had nothing to do with creating the national economy that drives the economy of the world (for the time being anyway)?
C
crono1224
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.[/QUOTE]
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney!
C
crono1224
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.
Or corrupt business people ruin good things, much like what happened recently :/.[/QUOTE]
Actually, what happened recently was caused by banks trying to fudge solvency into a completely impossible situation brought about by statists trying to social-engineer the insolvent into home loans with the implicit "wink nudge" of saying government will be there to bail you out when this goes completely ploin-shaped. And the politicians in question shot down any attempt to address the looming situation multiple times. Thanks, Barney![/QUOTE]
Don't blame politicians the point of capitalism is companies regulate themselves. Deregulation isn't a scapegoat it is a bullshit excuse. The people who did this shit were dickheads and the ones that bet short against the stuff they knew were turds are the biggest dicks. I support capitalism but it's people like these that make it impossible to ever exist by good faith.
Wait, do you seriously, HONESTLY think the US is going to break up in any way in the next, let's be generous here, 70 years? You think that is going to happen?
I can already answer that for you. Yes he does. He's said it time and again, he truly believes that the US will break up in our lifetime.
On one hand, politics have gotten out of control in this country, dividing the population in a fundamental way that we haven't seen in decades... and we certainly have a population that has more than shown itself willing to riot for the stupidest of reasons. I could definitely see a revolution happening in our life time if we are unable to reunify enough politically to at least function as a society again.
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.
If you think the American Public is gonna turn off American Idol long enough to overthrow the government and start a new state, you are deranged.
Necronic
Staff member
Actually, WW2 was mostly caused by the absolute assramming of Germany in the Treaty of Versailles, which gave the Germans something to feel persecuted about and turn to democratically elect a charismatic national socialist who knew all they needed was a scapegoat. That, and Japan wanting a bigger piece of the Pacific Pie.[/QUOTE]
Well, like I said, it was one of a number of causes. Germany was already feeling the pinch from the Treaty of Versailles, then when the Depression hit it pushed them to a point of economic ruin. And if we are arguing about the economic strengths and the sources of them in the US post WW2/Great Depression, remember that the two largest socialist changes the United States ever experienced began there: Social Security and the PWA.
And I'm not arguing that socialism is better. I think that contrasting the situation in Europe vs USA or California vs Texas makes a pretty clear empirical example of the dangers of heavy socialism. All I am saying is that different things work at different times. As a chemist I can have the most simple reaction go completely wrong for the most minor reason. We are talking about a 3 variable system here, and it can be hard to control well enough to get repeateable results. When you are talking about global economic policies the amount of variables are so massive that it's impossible to make an empirical argument that one system works better than the other in every situation.
So what people often do is boil down their philosophies to a myopic ideaoly that they think will be the silver bullet to fix everything. My belief is that any statement as to what a major change in government will cause (outside of becoming a monarchy or dictatorship etc.) is guesswork at best. Then people make appeals to authority of famous thinkers long dead or irrelevant (really all appeals to authority are irrelevant.) And you get the Tea Party and the Anarchists and the Libertarians and yada yada yada.
The only safe way to progress government is slowly and incrementally. It's like walking across an old rickety bridge. Each plank could crack. If it cracks as you walk past it, slow down, look at it. Figure out why the change didn't work and fix it. Don't rush forward. As they say, only fools rush in.
C
Chibibar
On one hand, politics have gotten out of control in this country, dividing the population in a fundamental way that we haven't seen in decades... and we certainly have a population that has more than shown itself willing to riot for the stupidest of reasons. I could definitely see a revolution happening in our life time if we are unable to reunify enough politically to at least function as a society again.
On the other hand, violent crime and such have been on the decline for the last 20 years and Americans have shown an incredible lack of motivation for anything short of entertainment lately. I'm not entirely convinced the population is motivated enough to act out in that sort of fashion, at least not without some sort of event to jump start it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the government is going to change without the help of major global event.
World War III
Zombie Attack (global scale)
alien invasion
cataclysmic event like major earthquake that literally destroy cities across the globe.
A revolution? in the U.S.? not in this day and age. People are too apathetic.
- Status