Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

The Doctor wrote: 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?

It should have a bearing. If it does not, then I would be a lunatic saying the candybar thief and the murderer should be punished equivalently. I'm not a maniac.

The victim's means can affect the judgment in my case, but only if some real tangible difference between the amounts can be shown. The argument you've made which essentially urges one to look at theft values as a percentage of wealth, essentially drags utility evaluations into the equation. Now as a socialist, you obviously care not that this blows up your entire argument as it blows up the entire economic system you support, but nobody is qualified to evaluate one's judgment of the worth of a good. If you break into a house, the dirty eagles hat you steal will be valued much higher by me than the tv you also carry out. This matters not though. Courts cannot deal in these utility values, they're impenetrable. Likewise, the poor man's relative appreciation of the $15 dollars cannot be measured or really accounted for.

Now it's quite the different scenario if something like this occurs. You, the thief, steal the indicated amounts, the former from a rich man and the latter from a poor man. The rich man, being a rich man, does not so much notice the money missing. You burden to him amounts to repayment of the stolen goods, repayment for any damages to the property, repayment to the peace of mind your violent action destroyed, repayment of the resources used to capture and jail you, and some bit of punitive money.

The poor man, being poor, desperately needs that $15 dollars. Because he loses it, he misses a day of work being unable to get the train that day. Your burden to him is the same as the rich man, except you owe this poor man additional money for the day of wages that he is now without.

When the disproportionate spread of wealth amounts to real, tangible, differences in outcomes for the crime, then I believe a difference in punishment (or repayment preferably) is justified.

King Crimson776 wrote: The "free" market is really anything but. We've seen the fatcats exploit the loopholes in the system and lack of restrictions on their greed even to the point of them buying out politicians (such that those kept dogs are the only ones who get enough visibility to win). It plainly doesn't work. Of course, since big business has the gov't in their pockets, how can you get that gov't to bring these sociopaths to justice?! I'm afraid we'll have to go the way of Egypt and be out in the streets, a total societal boycott, in order for anything to change. Maybe we can even force companies to convert to renewable sources of energy... and for the gov't to focus on science instead of war... but I hope for too much, doubtless. It would take people on a mass scale waking the f**k up and that looks pretty distant.

Or instead of violent revolution, maybe we can educate people about what the free market is so that they don't make statements like this.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: King Crimson776 wrote: The "free" market is really anything but. We've seen the fatcats exploit the loopholes in the system and lack of restrictions on their greed even to the point of them buying out politicians (such that those kept dogs are the only ones who get enough visibility to win). It plainly doesn't work. Of course, since big business has the gov't in their pockets, how can you get that gov't to bring these sociopaths to justice?! I'm afraid we'll have to go the way of Egypt and be out in the streets, a total societal boycott, in order for anything to change. Maybe we can even force companies to convert to renewable sources of energy... and for the gov't to focus on science instead of war... but I hope for too much, doubtless. It would take people on a mass scale waking the f**k up and that looks pretty distant. Or instead of violent revolution, maybe we can educate people about what the free market is so that they don't make statements like this.

But you'd have to send people to reeducation camps, because there is a lot of truth in that statement about how the "free" markets are actually functioning.  There can't be a violent revolution for practical reasons as the other side has all the power and equipment.


Edited by Slartibartfast - December 14 2011 at 07:13

The T wrote: The Doctor wrote: The T wrote: No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few. What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above. What's curious is that when you work in a non-wealthy environment you see how many people stay down and never advance precisely because they think they can get away by doing nothing. In the end, the government that TheDoc loves so much is what allows his hated wealthy to do as they please with the lower classes. Yes, even through the regulations that apparently are set to protect them. I find the conservative viewpoint equally repulsive and most certainly worrying.  I do not believe that all people who are wealthy are evil greedy slime(some actually do have hearts and concerns outside their own personal greed), but yes, I do think there is a more than healthy dose of that in our world today.  The kind of world we are moving toward is one where greed is becoming a necessary character trait simply to survive.  And conformity and obedience to our wealthy masters.  Who defines "work ethic"?  It's the employers.  Not the workers.  I once had a wealthy scumbag boss (and he was scum, his business was helping rich people make more money at the expense of labor) tell me I didn't have a good work ethic because I wasn't willing to give over my entire life to him for a rather paltry salary.  I was willing to work 40, even 45 hours a week.  But I drew the line at the expected 60-70 hours per week.  Obviously I'm not talking about the "work 70 hours a week or be fired" lack of work ethic but the kind of work ethic that is to be expected from any employee working a reasonable amount of hours in normal conditions. I don't want people to submit to slavery either. It's all about freedom, remember? And in your scenario, the freedom I'd like is the freedom to say "ok I'll try and find another job away from this a****le". I'm going to sleep but let me ask you a question Doc: let's say a poor man somehow strikes gold (I'm not sure, lottery, some inheritance, or actual gold) and gets rich. Now he's rich. Is he by default suddenly evil slime? Does his character automatically turn devious? If so, don't you think we should prevent people from ever getting rich? Yes, let's keep them all down. (That worked so well...). Oh I guess a rich person that suddenly ends in the street suddenly also becomes pure and caste, it would seem...

I thought I had already said that I do not believe all rich people are evil.  It is greedy rich people who will step on others in their quest for more and more wealth that I loathe.  It is not the wealth that makes one good or bad, but how they obtained their wealth and how they use their wealth that makes them good or bad.  By the same token, not all poor people are necessarily good.  But you don't have to believe all rich are bad and all poor are good to believe there should be a more equitable distribution of resources.   

The freedom I would have liked at the time would have been to tell him to shove it.  Alas, I did not have the economic means to enjoy that kind of freedom.  A choice between starve or submit yourself to what amounts to slavery is not freedom. 

Equality 7-2521 wrote: The T wrote: No, it basically aims to eliminate that power that allows government to get in bed with wealthy elitists and ubercorporations for the exclusive benefit of a few. To speak for me personally, libertarianism also hopes to smash down ubercorporations as JJ puts it. Yes the methods it takes differ from those of others since the market failure which allows an exploitative corporation to succeed implies the aid of government regulations or funds somewhere in the equations. I have a particular disdain for pharmaceutical companies. I think they get rich by essentially exploiting the rest of us. Attacking them is pointless though. That's like trying to destroy a tree by eating the apples. You're just letting the tree grow taller and fertilizing the tree's seeds. The T wrote: What is really worrying and at times even repulsive is the implicit moral judgement that TheDoctor seems to make based on a person's wealth. One can read between the lines: the wealthy are always bad, sacks of corruption, decayed immoral criminals, abusers, BAD people; the poor are NEVER ever poor for their bad decisions or work ethic or anything, they are pure, perfect, all screwed up by the guy above. In his defense, it may appear that we claim that all the government does is ipso facto evil and all private sector good. If he believes this, I just wish he would justify it in some way. I certainly believe that everything done by government has some degree of evil in it, but I do not shy away from attacking private entities either.

And as you know, so do I. Evil wealthy people can be even more evil because of government's help. I don't want a corporatist world any more than TheDoc's want it. But I want no proletarian dictatorship either. And the constant idea I get from The Doc's posts is class warfare.

The Doc just wants to trade his imagined corporate master for a real government master.  His beliefs are a jumbled mess that hinge on finding a benevolent dictator to distribute all reasources in a way that makes everyone happy but also believes that there should be a firm cap on that happiness.  He also defines freedom not as free will but as the ability to force the employeer, you voluntarily entered into a contract with using your free will, to meet everyone of your needs despite how that might effect everyone else.  Slavery, to The Doctor, is having to a work a job that you could leave at any time.  Taking less money elsewhere being out of the question because everyone is entitled to the lifestyle of The Doc's choosing.

Good ol Huntsman, the guy who the media was insisting is the sleeper candidate.
Well I have no doubt he's more realistic and electable than Gingrich

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/12/gingrich-promises-personal-fidelity-in-pledge/

The former House speaker said he was fully committed to defending traditional marriage, including enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act and supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman.

Gingrich also used his pledge to lambaste what he called an intrusion of federal courts in the private lives of Americans, saying the phenomenon "amounts to a constitutional crisis."

Only a slight contradiction here...

JJLehto wrote: Back to Newt, oh yeah. I don't know how people can be so stupid. That no one realizes anyone not Paul who claims this "rights" and "less government" are phony. That they are jumping on the bandwagon.

My biggest problem with social conservatives is that they claim they want government out of people's lives. I disagree with liberals, but they don't lie to your face constantly about what their actual beliefs are.

Newt taking the lead among social conservatives who (are supposed to) argue for the government to uphold and impose a moral standard on people is the poster child for irony.  

Edited by Dudemanguy - December 14 2011 at 10:51

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Paul wouldn't run with Huntsmen.

Yeah probably not, but Huntsmen comes across to me as a nice guy with an open mind whom Paul can teach.