Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Ah yes, 2000 is so long ago (and so much has happened) everyone forgot that Bush was originally a "moderate" conservative (at least no neo con) and did not want to use our army for "nation building" LOLWUT

It's part of the reason I think he was just the guy who made the speeches and signed what he was given...I'm just glad one way or another all his company have been removed. Especially that Cheney, we all joke but that guy is legit scary.


Seriously, how the hell has it gotten to Newt?? Has been out of the light so long we all forgot how sh*t he is?
Is it because we was the frontman for that "Contract for America" which included clamors for less government?
That went well...


Edited by JJLehto - December 13 2011 at 22:15

The Doctor wrote: stealing 15 dollars from a poor man does a lot more real harm to the victim than stealing 10K from a rich man.

Can you demonstrate this?

Suppose that, with that 10k, the rich man was starting a non-profit business and that he would have hired the poor man and two of his homeless friends.

Oh, and btw, Ron Paul is doing quite well in the polls in Iowa:  http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingrich.html

The Doctor wrote: 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.

"Egalitarianism" and "social justice" are evil things.

Do you disagree with my view of basic retributive justice?  If so, why?

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. 

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.

   

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?

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.

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?

^Not really incredible. "Flip-flopping" is the last name of two of the three leading candidates after all...

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".