Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: December 13 2011 at 18:04
The T wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
It will be most interesting to see how people dismiss Paul's candidacy if he wins in Iowa. They will find some illogical way to do so. I try to refrain from being a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone believe that Ron will be allowed to live if he were to win the presidency? It just seems like too much to be lost by people.
Maybe they wouldn't kill him (though that's far from being typical conspiracy lunacy?, but both parties would finally find that holy grail that "bipartisanship" is supposed to be in blocking absolutely everything Paul would try to do. EDIT: Or, more properly said, UN-do.
He can effectively render all federal laws worthless. He can affect foreign affairs dramatically. Certain things he can deregulate, but in general the power is overstated.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: December 13 2011 at 18:05
Epignosis wrote:
I should point out that even if the federal government said that marijuana was legal (for instance), individual states can still say "No weed for you."
It would be a nice start. The prohibition of the drug is bad, but the federal drug war is far worse.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
I should point out that even if the federal government said that marijuana was legal (for instance), individual states can still say "No weed for you."
It would be a nice start. The prohibition of the drug is bad, but the federal drug war is far worse.
And I agree. My students just think the President is a King.
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: December 13 2011 at 18:19
The Full Party Flip-flop:
So, in summary: The foreign policy that won the Republican nomination in 2000 is the same foreign policy seen as "crazy", "dangerous", and "out of the mainstream" just 3 presidential elections later.
Edited by manofmystery - December 13 2011 at 18:19
Pat EQ, I have two questions for you (or anyone who wishes to answer the questions below).
You and I have sparred about prevention of wrongdoing rather than just punishment of wrongdoing. My understanding of your position is this: People should only pay for actual harm done. To an extent, I agree with you. That said:
1) Should unsuccessful attempts at harm to others be punished, and if so, how so?
2) How would you handle potential suicide terrorists in America who do not care about life, liberty, or their own welfare (believing they will be rewarded for their deaths)?
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Posted: December 13 2011 at 20:02
Epignosis wrote:
Pat EQ, I have two questions for you (or anyone who wishes to answer the questions below).
You and I have sparred about prevention of wrongdoing rather than just punishment of wrongdoing. My understanding of your position is this: People should only pay for actual harm done. To an extent, I agree with you. That said:
1) Should unsuccessful attempts at harm to others be punished, and if so, how so?
2) How would you handle potential suicide terrorists in America who do not care about life, liberty, or their own welfare (believing they will be rewarded for their deaths)?
1) The absence of a victim mainly concerns me when I denounce punishing people for possible crimes which have not actually occurred. With something such as attempted murder or attempted burglary, we can pretty clearly define a victim and also see intent. They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded. In terms of specific punishments, I'm not so good at. I'm sure other people can work that out. Also, I think there should be a strong burden which must be met.
2) It depends. If you're getting them on attempted murder for their actions, I would assume a terrorist attack would amount to many counts of that, possible in the range of the 100s or 1000s. In which case, their damages would sum to them likely never "getting out", whatever that means according to your justice system. If the terrorism amounted to attempted murder of one person, I would not really account for them being "terrorists".
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Pat EQ, I have two questions for you (or anyone who wishes to answer the questions below).
You and I have sparred about prevention of wrongdoing rather than just punishment of wrongdoing. My understanding of your position is this: People should only pay for actual harm done. To an extent, I agree with you. That said:
1) Should unsuccessful attempts at harm to others be punished, and if so, how so?
2) How would you handle potential suicide terrorists in America who do not care about life, liberty, or their own welfare (believing they will be rewarded for their deaths)?
1) The absence of a victim mainly concerns me when I denounce punishing people for possible crimes which have not actually occurred. With something such as attempted murder or attempted burglary, we can pretty clearly define a victim and also see intent. They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded. In terms of specific punishments, I'm not so good at. I'm sure other people can work that out. Also, I think there should be a strong burden which must be met.
2) It depends. If you're getting them on attempted murder for their actions, I would assume a terrorist attack would amount to many counts of that, possible in the range of the 100s or 1000s. In which case, their damages would sum to them likely never "getting out", whatever that means according to your justice system. If the terrorism amounted to attempted murder of one person, I would not really account for them being "terrorists".
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:11
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I find your answers reasonable.
This is good. I thought you may not.
I wonder why you would suspect that.
The only detail I would disagree with is perhaps this:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
They should be punished differently than
actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much
less than if they had succeeded.
A bad thief is still a thief, no?
A question for the two of you. Should the amount of damages done (in the case of thieves) have any bearing on the sentence? Let's assume absolutely no violence or threat of violence in the attempt. Should someone who steals $10,000 be given a stiffer sentence than someone who steals $15? And if so, should the victim's means have any aggravating or mitigating influence on the sentence?
Edited by The Doctor - December 13 2011 at 21:12
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
A question for the two of you. Should the amount of damages done (in the case of thieves) have any bearing on the sentence? Let's assume absolutely no violence or threat of violence in the attempt. Should someone who steals $10,000 be given a stiffer sentence than someone who steals $15? And if so, should the victim's means have any aggravating or mitigating influence on the sentence?
As a recent victim of a theft, I can say that our current system is mostly this. So my answers are 1) Yes, 2) Yes, and 3) Absolutely not.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:21
As usual, I'm in direct opposition to your beliefs. If you are going to take into account the amount of damage done, then absolute damages is not the way to go. If I steal 10K from a multi-millionaire's house, it's going to hurt him a lot less than if I steal $100 from a poor man's house.
Either the system should state that theft is theft no matter how much you take, or it should be based on the amount of relative harm to the victim.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Joined: January 26 2008
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4335
Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:23
Epignosis wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Pat EQ, I have two questions for you (or anyone who wishes to answer the questions below).
You and I have sparred about prevention of wrongdoing rather than just punishment of wrongdoing. My understanding of your position is this: People should only pay for actual harm done. To an extent, I agree with you. That said:
1) Should unsuccessful attempts at harm to others be punished, and if so, how so?
2) How would you handle potential suicide terrorists in America who do not care about life, liberty, or their own welfare (believing they will be rewarded for their deaths)?
1) The absence of a victim mainly concerns me when I denounce punishing people for possible crimes which have not actually occurred. With something such as attempted murder or attempted burglary, we can pretty clearly define a victim and also see intent. They should be punished differently than actually committing crimes simply because the damage inflicted is much less than if they had succeeded. In terms of specific punishments, I'm not so good at. I'm sure other people can work that out. Also, I think there should be a strong burden which must be met.
2) It depends. If you're getting them on attempted murder for their actions, I would assume a terrorist attack would amount to many counts of that, possible in the range of the 100s or 1000s. In which case, their damages would sum to them likely never "getting out", whatever that means according to your justice system. If the terrorism amounted to attempted murder of one person, I would not really account for them being "terrorists".
I find your answers reasonable.
"Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17423
Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:27
For me the violence is much, much worse than theft. We were burgled summer before last by a guy in the neighborhood. He took a computer and cash. I wouldn't want to see his life ruined over that.
Had he laid one finger on my wife I'd want him hung from a tree. And would do it myself if given the chance. The second you put your hands on another person you lose all compassion from me.
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
As usual, I'm in direct opposition to your beliefs. If you are going to take into account the amount of damage done, then absolute damages is not the way to go. If I steal 10K from a multi-millionaire's house, it's going to hurt him a lot less than if I steal $100 from a poor man's house.
Either the system should state that theft is theft no matter how much you take, or it should be based on the amount of relative harm to the victim.
I anticipated your trap, Doc, but it was poorly laid.
"The system" should make criminals pay back what they robbed their victims of. Victims must personally benefit from those who committed a crime against them. A system of retribution is something I have advocated quite some time. If you steal a thousand dollars, then you should be forced to work until you pay back that thousand dollars plus interest and penalties.
Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Posted: December 13 2011 at 21:41
Epignosis wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
As usual, I'm in direct opposition to your beliefs. If you are going to take into account the amount of damage done, then absolute damages is not the way to go. If I steal 10K from a multi-millionaire's house, it's going to hurt him a lot less than if I steal $100 from a poor man's house.
Either the system should state that theft is theft no matter how much you take, or it should be based on the amount of relative harm to the victim.
I anticipated your trap, Doc, but it was poorly laid.
"The system" should make criminals pay back what they robbed their victims of. Victims must personally benefit from those who committed a crime against them. A system of retribution is something I have advocated quite some time. If you steal a thousand dollars, then you should be forced to work until you pay back that thousand dollars plus interest and penalties.
There was no trap. Perhaps a bit of hope that there was some egalitarianism and sense of social justice from you. Ah well.
Jim, I agree with you. Violence to me is much more serious than theft.
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
As usual, I'm in direct opposition to your beliefs. If you are going to take into account the amount of damage done, then absolute damages is not the way to go. If I steal 10K from a multi-millionaire's house, it's going to hurt him a lot less than if I steal $100 from a poor man's house.
Either the system should state that theft is theft no matter how much you take, or it should be based on the amount of relative harm to the victim.
I anticipated your trap, Doc, but it was poorly laid.
"The system" should make criminals pay back what they robbed their victims of. Victims must personally benefit from those who committed a crime against them. A system of retribution is something I have advocated quite some time. If you steal a thousand dollars, then you should be forced to work until you pay back that thousand dollars plus interest and penalties.
There was no trap. Perhaps a bit of hope that there was some egalitarianism and sense of social justice from you. Ah well.
Jim, I agree with you. Violence to me is much more serious than theft.
"Egalitarianism" and "social justice" are evil things.
Do you disagree with my view of basic retributive justice? If so, why?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.334 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!
Topic Options
The T wrote:
Ah well.