Ayn Rand

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said locking people up as punishment is ethically reprehensible.

Then, like I asked, HOW do you punish people? If you do not lock them up, how do you tell them that what they've done is wrong, and deter others from doing the same act and prevent criminals from continuing illegal activity.

[Ramo]

You don't punish people. That's not the job of a state.

You can lock people up to protect society from them, but that's a matter entirely different from punishment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So murders can just 'get away with it'?



Ok, you go on my list of crazy people along with David Floyd and EvC.

Congrats

[Ramo]

Yep, silly me thinking revenge is immoral. I find it amusing that if a state kills someone out of revenge, it is to be applauded, while if an individual kills someone out of revenge, he is to be killed by the state.

And no, a murder doesn't "get away with it." If the murderer poses a threat to society, he should be locked up and counseled until he longer does so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I thought you'd realize by now that the state isn't the same thing as an individual.

[Ramo]

I thought you'd realize by now that revenge isn't the same thing as justice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually it is. Revenge is the purest form of 'justice'.

And, of course, jail time has NO deterrance effects . Really, Ramo, come on!

[Ramo]

Actually it is.

Any eye for an eye, eh? Again, not my idea of justice.

And, of course, jail time has NO deterrance effects . Really, Ramo, come on!

I didn't say that. But it's vastly overstated, and not all that significant. People won't committ crimes because they might get 20 years, while committing crimes if the punishment is 10 years.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Any eye for an eye, eh? Again, not my idea of justice.

So? You said that revenge isn't the same thing as justice. Who cares if it isn't to you? You admit it is to a lot of people.

People won't committ crimes because they might get 20 years, while committing crimes if the punishment is 10 years.

Of course you misrepresent the entire issue. Life in prison is MUCH more a deterrant effect than 10 years of jail time. As the initial sentance goes up in years, the greater the deterrant effect.

However, the greater deterrant effect is the fear of getting caught. The greater the odds of being caught the greater the deterrance. If it was 100% of you getting caught and the punishment was life imprisonment, you'd see no crimes at all.

[Ramo]

So? You said that revenge isn't the same thing as justice. Who cares if it isn't to you? You admit it is to a lot of people

I care because I hate coercion. There's injustice all aroudn the world. Because people support this injustice, doesn't mean I should.

Of course you misrepresent the entire issue. Life in prison is MUCH more a deterrant effect than 10 years of jail time. As the initial sentance goes up in years, the greater the deterrant effect.

However, the greater deterrant effect is the fear of getting caught. The greater the odds of being caught the greater the deterrance. If it was 100% of you getting caught and the punishment was life imprisonment, you'd see no crimes at all.

Are you telling me that people committ crimes, rationally believing that it's likely that they will be getting 10 years of prison. If so, you're deluding yourself.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Are you telling me that people committ crimes, rationally believing that it's likely that they will be getting 10 years of prison.

Yes... witness the entire history of the Mafia. They realize that at most they will probably get a few years (if they run things correctly) and are willing to take the chance.

People will 'take the chance' if the prison time is relatively slight and the gains are relatively large. One can also look at the shenanigans of executives at Enron and Worldcom for this.

But you are missing the point! The certainty of jail time is the major deterrant. People commit crimes, rationally believing that it's likely they WILL NOT BE CAUGHT!

[Ramo]

But you are missing the point! The certainty of jail time is the major deterrant. People commit crimes, rationally believing that it's likely they WILL NOT BE CAUGHT!

Yes, that's what I was getting at. Criminals committ crimes not believing they will be imprisoned. Thus, draconian prison sentences aren't effective deterrents.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They go hand in hand. If you are certain of getting caught, but only getting a five year term instead of a life sentance, you are much more likely to commit the act by a weighing of the costs and benefits of such an action. If there are no prisions, and you don't get punished at all (except for maybe a small fine), then there is hardly anything to prevent you from doing the crime again.

Draconian punishments serve as a great deterrance when linked with a relative certain of getting caught. Hell, look at the MidEast, where you can get your arm chopped off for stealing. Crime rates are very low, because no one wants to take the chance. It is always a balancing.

[Ramo]

They go hand in hand. If you are certain of getting caught, but only getting a five year term instead of a life sentance, you are much more likely to commit the act by a weighing of the costs and benefits of such an action.

5 years in a prison is no picnic. The difference between 5 years and life wouldn't matter that much as far as dettering crime except to extreme exceptions.

If there are no prisions, and you don't get punished at all (except for maybe a small fine), then there is hardly anything to prevent you from doing the crime again.

I never said there should be no prisons. I said prisons should exist only to protect society from crime, not to carry out a policy of state-sponsored revenge.

Draconian punishments serve as a great deterrance when linked with a relative certain of getting caught. Hell, look at the MidEast, where you can get your arm chopped off for stealing. Crime rates are very low, because no one wants to take the chance. It is always a balancing.

Do you have a source on ME crime rates? And given other factors, I don't know if it shows anything if you compare the crime rates of two widely different cultures and economies.

BTW, some of the states with the harshest sentencing policies and incarceration rates (i.e. US and Russia) have the highest murder rates. In states with far lesser sentencing penalties (i.e. Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands), you see far, far lower murder rates.

[Richard Bruns]

Originally posted by Ramo
RB:

Minimal public authority implies that there are no no poor to use the government to seek redress, and no rich to use the government to insure or widen the gap between rich and poor. Thus, the only libertarian society is a socialist one.

I don´t undrestand this at all. Are you really saying that the differences between poor and rich only arise as a result of government intervention? Consider the case of a stone age Libertarian society consisting of Og and his family, and Grog and his family. Og is a good hunter, so his family has lots of meat and fur, and he is rich. Grog is a bad hunter, so his family is poor, and in danger of starvation.

Og decides to hire Grog as a servant to make his life more comfortable, and Grog agrees, since that´s the only way he can get food. So now Og brings in the hides and meat, and Grog tans and cooks them. Capitalism is then born, since Og owns the means of production and Grog works for him. How has government intervention caused this?

1. Anarchy isn't "lack of rule of law." Being an anarchist, this is an irritating issue for me. Anarchism is the minimization of authority, public or private. Libertarian socialism if you like.

If there is no authority, it gets rather difficult to enforce contracts and mediate disputes peacefully. Both of these functions are essential for the rule of law.

2. Socialist revolutionaries tend to have differing ideas with the state over the validity of property claims. What makes one property claim better than another?

It is generally agreed that the person who paid for something owns it. Or do you subscribe to the Marxist idea that workers automatically own the things they work with? With that logic, your mechanic can lay claim to your car, and has the legal right to take it from you.

3. There are cases where the workers in the capitalist system are legally able to take control of the means of production.

Of course workers are able to buy the means of production, if they can raise the money and muster the collective will. But that doesn´t happen too often.

Now, I´d like to jump in on the prison/punishment discussion. Suppose a man discovers his wife with another man, and kills them both. This man has no other history of violence, and vows that he will never marry again. So he will never have a reason to kill any person again. Are you saying that it is entirely immoral for society to put him in prison or punish him in any way, since he now poses no threat to anyone else?