Is liberty in danger

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Gorfias:
More than one poster in this thread has suggested that there is a logical disconnect between desiring liberty and wanting to see the government engaged in a crime and social control measure they think appropriate, in this case, a death penalty. This is patently absurd.

What a facile rebuttal, amounting to little more than a childish, "Nu-uh!"

There is a disconnect between demanding liberty (for yourself) and demanding the government engage in an inefficient, ineffective "crime and social control measure" that permanently murders citizens, sometimes innocent citizens.

This is the sad state of conservativism today. There once was a time when conservativism was tied up in patriotism, where conservatives wanted the ideas that were time-tested to be the best as policy in order to make the country a better place. Now folks like Gorfias and Santorum have turned conservativism into a childish game of "but I want!" and any time they don't get to force their beliefs on others, they whine about how their own freedoms are somehow being curtailed. No wonder the tax pledge ideas Grover Norquist came up with in the 7th grade resonate so strongly with conservatives today.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
More than one poster in this thread has suggested that there is a logical disconnect between desiring liberty and wanting to see the government engaged in a crime and social control measure they think appropriate, in this case, a death penalty. This is patently absurd.

What a facile rebuttal, amounting to little more than a childish, "Nu-uh!"

There is a disconnect between demanding liberty (for yourself) and demanding the government engage in an inefficient, ineffective "crime and social control measure" that permanently murders citizens, sometimes innocent citizens.

This is the sad state of conservativism today. There once was a time when conservativism was tied up in patriotism, where conservatives wanted the ideas that were time-tested to be the best as policy in order to make the country a better place. Now folks like Gorfias and Santorum have turned conservativism into a childish game of "but I want!" and any time they don't get to force their beliefs on others, they whine about how their own freedoms are somehow being curtailed. No wonder the tax pledge ideas Grover Norquist came up with in the 7th grade resonate so strongly with conservatives today.

So, wanting government to be representative is a, "childish game of `but I want'" ?

And calling a just, commensurate response to homicide, such as a humane death penalty "murder"? That is the same thing as calling giving someone a parking ticket theft, or putting someone in prison for grand theft auto a kidnapping. Is fining someone $20 for failing to curb their dog a theft action? I really do not know what else to write other than "Nh-uh!"

Gorfias:
More than one poster in this thread has suggested that there is a logical disconnect between desiring liberty and wanting to see the government engaged in a crime and social control measure they think appropriate, in this case, a death penalty. This is patently absurd.

Pre-face: This is coming from someone with little to no objection to the death penalty on moral grounds. I'm not debating the death penalty here.

Libertarians would argue the bolded no matter how justified is a measure of tyranny, and I'll let them make their own arguments since I'm not one of them. The death penalty isn't on trial here. Nor is the concept of the social contract with government.

The fact remains that robbing a person of life is the very highest denial of freedom possible. Whether it's right, wrong, legal, moral, amoral has no stake in the matter. The humor of idea is that allowing the state to perform the ultimate act of oppression because of something like popular consensus (See: Tyranny of the Majority) is comical when discussing the subject of Liberty. The idea isn't compatible under multiple definitions of the very word itself.

Katatori-kun:
murders citizens

That implies it's unlawful. Killing is the word you're looking for.

Bohemian Waltz:

Gorfias:
More than one poster in this thread has suggested that there is a logical disconnect between desiring liberty and wanting to see the government engaged in a crime and social control measure they think appropriate, in this case, a death penalty. This is patently absurd.

Pre-face: This is coming from someone with little to no objection to the death penalty on moral grounds. I'm not debating the death penalty here.

Libertarians would argue the bolded no matter how justified is a measure of tyranny, and I'll let them make their own arguments since I'm not one of them. The death penalty isn't on trial here. Nor is the concept of the social contract with government.

The fact remains that robbing a person of life is the very highest denial of freedom possible. Whether it's right, wrong, legal, moral, amoral has no stake in the matter. The humor of idea is that allowing the state to perform the ultimate act of oppression because of something like popular consensus (See: Tyranny of the Majority) is comical when discussing the subject of Liberty. The idea isn't compatible under multiple definitions of the very word itself.

You write that a just, commensurate response to homicide, which is the death penalty is "robbing" someone. I just wrote above your last post, "That is the same thing as calling giving someone a parking ticket theft, or putting someone in prison for grand theft auto a kidnapping. Is fining someone $20 for failing to curb their dog a theft action?" It is just wrong.

Crime and social control are at the very core of government responsibility. Your right to speak has to be balanced with my obligation to shut up while you do so, otherwise, we cannot communicate. So we have something called "ordered liberty." Yes, government must impose a certain amount of control on its citizens.

Gorfias:
Yes, government must impose a certain amount of control on its citizens.

I agree, and I'm not arguing against that nor am I even arguing if you can believe it. I'm saying that a measure of control is a restriction of liberty by its definition.

Yes, fining someone $20 is extorting someone. Yes, incarcerating someone is holding captive someone. Yes, the death penalty is killing someone.

Is it justified? Possibly. Is it legal? Possibly. Is it right? Possibly. Is it needed? Possibly. All of these questions I am neither asking nor discussing. Nor do I have an interest in discussing.

Is it oppressing an individual? Yes.

It's an antithetical concept to the very definition of liberty. It's amusing to see both in the same discussion, nothing more.

I'm not trying to argue against the concept of the social contract nor the merits of the death penalty. I'm pointing out the inherent humor having a discussion about liberty with the most severe form of oppression that can be levied upon an individual at the top of the list.

Surely you can see how it's humorous? Or can you not see the forest through the trees?

Bohemian Waltz:

Gorfias:
Yes, government must impose a certain amount of control on its citizens.

I agree, and I'm not arguing against that nor am I even arguing if you can believe it. I'm saying that a measure of control is a restriction of liberty by its definition.

Yes, fining someone $20 is extorting someone. Yes, incarcerating someone is holding captive someone. Yes, the death penalty is killing someone.

Is it justified? Possibly. Is it legal? Possibly. Is it right? Possibly. Is it needed? Possibly. All of these questions I am neither asking nor discussing. Nor do I have an interest in discussing.

Is it oppressing an individual? Yes.

It's an antithetical concept to the very definition of liberty. It's amusing to see both in the same discussion, nothing more.

I'm not trying to argue against the concept of the social contract nor the merits of the death penalty. I'm pointing out the inherent humor having a discussion about liberty with the most severe form of oppression that can be levied upon an individual at the top of the list.

Surely you can see how it's humorous? Or can you not see the forest through the trees?

Thank you for your eye opening comments. I've made a similar argument regarding the meaning of the word extort in an actual pleading (I was to be sanctioned for using the term which made me sound like I was accusing opposing counsel of commiting a crime... I was not). One can lawfully extort, which, in common parlance simply means use of force or cohersion used to get someone to act in a particular manor.

I get less the humor (or irony) to which you point though. All law, all enforcement of social order impedes someone else's liberty. Demanding we not engage in foreign entanglements impinges upon the liberty of other's to get us willy nilly into foreign entanglements.

Gorfias:

See Spot Run:

Gorfias:
... I think you would find the vast majority of voters want immigration, legal and other, curbed, to which political elites respond, "oh, you want amnesty"...Is that lack of responsiveness more difficult to address the larger and more powerful our government...

... the issue of immigration reform is an incredibly complex one, and the above description is absurdly simplistic...

Is it fair to write that your answer to my question of, "is unresponsive government due to the size and power of government", at least on this issue, a "no"? That in this case, it has less to do with the government having the power to ignore their constituants, and more to do with them not really knowing what to do about a complex situation?

Again, maybe a little simplistic, but basically yes. The motivating factors of illegal immigration are largely outside America's direct control. Policies that would be likely to have significant effects on reducing immigration rates are likeley to take decades, or be supremely costly, to the extent that they are not politically or economically viable. Additionally, I think a lot of what you claim the constituency is actually calling for "curb all immigration" is driven by rascism and xenophobia, and would be economically disaterous to implement, were it not a total impossibility anyhow, not to mention totally counter to the founding principle of the nation, but that little detail gets lost in the fray. On the other side of things, the potentially implementable policy of opening the border more and documenting everyone that enters the country has it's own negative outcomes, and is percieved to be political suicide.

So yeah, the government is between a rock and a hard place, and I think the lack of responsiveness is due to the fact that there is no clear answer to the problem that the constituency would find acceptable.

Gorfias:
So, wanting government to be representative is a, "childish game of `but I want'" ?

When you want the government to violate the rights of others, yes, yes it is.

And calling a just, commensurate response to homicide, such as a humane death penalty "murder"?

You are now begging the question. The death penalty can not be said to be just, nor can it be said to be a commensurate response to homicide. The former claim requires us to ignore the fact that there is a non-zero chance that an innocent may be murdered by the state in a failed or flasely-conducted trial, which makes it an inherently un-just punishment. The latter relies on a presumed notion of the purpose of criminal punishment which cannot be presumed to be true of the majority. In other words, you're trying to pass off your extremely biased notions about the acceptability of capital punishment as though they were not just the majority view, but the objectively correct view. And thus you're full of it.

That is the same thing as calling giving someone a parking ticket theft, or putting someone in prison for grand theft auto a kidnapping.

Bullshit. A parking fine can be refunded. A prisoner can be released and re-compensated. A dead victim of the state can not yet be reincarnated.

Is fining someone $20 for failing to curb their dog a theft action?

No, it's a completely irrelevant distraction to try and get us to not look at your absurdly hysterical argument.

Bohemian Waltz:
[

Katatori-kun:
murders citizens

That implies it's unlawful. Killing is the word you're looking for.

Alexis Gilliand:

"Murder becomes exection when performed by a bureaucrat for his bureaucracy."

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
So, wanting government to be representative is a, "childish game of `but I want'" ?

When you want the government to violate the rights of others, yes, yes it is.

And calling a just, commensurate response to homicide, such as a humane death penalty "murder"?

You are now begging the question. The death penalty can not be said to be just, nor can it be said to be a commensurate response to homicide. The former claim requires us to ignore the fact that there is a non-zero chance that an innocent may be murdered by the state in a failed or flasely-conducted trial, which makes it an inherently un-just punishment. The latter relies on a presumed notion of the purpose of criminal punishment which cannot be presumed to be true of the majority. In other words, you're trying to pass off your extremely biased notions about the acceptability of capital punishment as though they were not just the majority view, but the objectively correct view. And thus you're full of it.

That is the same thing as calling giving someone a parking ticket theft, or putting someone in prison for grand theft auto a kidnapping.

Bullshit. A parking fine can be refunded. A prisoner can be released and re-compensated. A dead victim of the state can not yet be reincarnated.

Is fining someone $20 for failing to curb their dog a theft action?

No, it's a completely irrelevant distraction to try and get us to not look at your absurdly hysterical argument.

You do not treat the innocent and the guilty alike. You have a fair trial system to determine which is which and act accordingly.

A wrongly convicted person can die serving a prison sentance too, but you do not abolish prison due to the risk of that happening.

There are many political arguments against the death penalty, but at this time, they do not persuade the vast majority of US citizens, yet the citizenry is being denied their interpretation of justice in this matter.

I think there is a political and legal elite that do not favor the death penalty for political reasons, including the one you state, and they have all but abolished it. I think the size and scope of government allows our political elite to have this happen with relatively little repurcussions to them as people are dependent upon government.

My ultimate point is, big government is not just a threat to fiscal health, but a threat to liberty. A powerful government can ignore the will of the people,as they do on this particular issue.

Your point seems to be, if you're against something, and other people are for it, the other people are childish and hysterical, full of it, and should have the will of their "betters" imposed upon them.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
So, wanting government to be representative is a, "childish game of `but I want'" ?

When you want the government to violate the rights of others, yes, yes it is.

And calling a just, commensurate response to homicide, such as a humane death penalty "murder"?

You are now begging the question. The death penalty can not be said to be just, nor can it be said to be a commensurate response to homicide. The former claim requires us to ignore the fact that there is a non-zero chance that an innocent may be murdered by the state in a failed or flasely-conducted trial, which makes it an inherently un-just punishment. The latter relies on a presumed notion of the purpose of criminal punishment which cannot be presumed to be true of the majority. In other words, you're trying to pass off your extremely biased notions about the acceptability of capital punishment as though they were not just the majority view, but the objectively correct view. And thus you're full of it.

That is the same thing as calling giving someone a parking ticket theft, or putting someone in prison for grand theft auto a kidnapping.

Bullshit. A parking fine can be refunded. A prisoner can be released and re-compensated. A dead victim of the state can not yet be reincarnated.

Is fining someone $20 for failing to curb their dog a theft action?

No, it's a completely irrelevant distraction to try and get us to not look at your absurdly hysterical argument.

You do not treat the innocent and the guilty alike. You have a fair trial system to determine which is which and act accordingly.

A wrongly convicted person can die serving a prison sentance too, but you do not abolish prison due to the risk of that happening.

There are many political arguments against the death penalty, but at this time, they do not persuade the vast majority of US citizens, yet the citizenry is being denied their interpretation of justice in this matter.

I think there is a political and legal elite that do not favor the death penalty for political reasons, including the one you state, and they have all but abolished it. I think the size and scope of government allows our political elite to have this happen with relatively little repurcussions to them as people are dependent upon government.

My ultimate point is, big government is not just a threat to fiscal health, but a threat to liberty. A powerful government can ignore the will of the people,as they do on this particular issue.

Your point seems to be, if you're against something, and other people are for it, the other people are childish and hysterical, full of it, and should have the will of their "betters" imposed upon them.

Who puts this fair trial system in place? It cannot possibly be the US government, they still haven't put once in place after a couple of centuries.

As for people that die in prison, you do not abolish prison but you do create a system that minimizes the risk, at least we do in the rest of the developed world.

Do you know how many people have been sentenced to death only to be exonerated at a later date, 140. It makes you wonder how many were missed. We know as a fact that the US has executed innocent people, it is just a matter of how many that is up for debate.

There are a couple of things to consider regarding the death penalty. First off it achieves nothing, no matter what you do you cannot bring the dead back to life. Second is that it is less of a punishment than life in prison with no release. Death is death, you do not feel after death. Being locked up for the rest of your life, deprived of freedom, that is punishment. Death is much easier. Punishment is supposed to involve suffering, there is no suffering with the death penalty. In fact for many prisoners it is a relief, they spend decades on death row, no chance of being released, to them death is freedom.

The death penalty has nothing to do with punishment or justice, it is simply revenge. If you really want to punish someone you lock them up and throw away the key, make the rest of their life miserable.

Of course the above is written from the point of view of the US justice (and I use that word loosely) system, which is less a justice system and more of a slave labour for profit system. In reality no one should be given no chance of release. Everyone should be given the chance at reformation and turning criminals into productive members of society should be the focus. Throwing people into prison just to punish them, that is depriving liberty.

It does seem to be a real ball ache to get into America legally, why are you so surprised to find people got in ILLEGALLY then?

Would you be surprised if a dog bites you when you back it into a corner?

If so, you are naive AND the root cause of the problem. Reactionary hatred based on ignorance making the only response a desperate gambit.

Gorfias:
You do not treat the innocent and the guilty alike.

Yet another bland, vague, meaningless Gorfiasism devoid of context, evidence, or support.

You have a fair trial system to determine which is which and act accordingly.

And if that trial system cannot guarantee that an innocent person will not be executed by the state, then it is inherently unfair.

A wrongly convicted person can die serving a prison sentance too

And if the state does not cause that death, it's beyond anyone's control.

There are many political arguments against the death penalty, but at this time, they do not persuade the vast majority of US citizens, yet the citizenry is being denied their interpretation of justice in this matter.

First of all, you keep claiming that while offering zero evidence to back up your claim. You want us to accept your word that the vast majority of Americans just happen to share your opinion on all political issues, which given the failures of interpretation you've already demonstrated in this thread I find highly suspect.

But this is beside the point- it doesn't matter if 99.99999% support the death penalty. America is not a direct diplomacy where majority wins. America is a Representative democracy with numerous safeguards in place to protect the minority from being dictated to by the majority. That's why Christians can't force non-Christians to study creationism in school, even if they outnumber non-Christians. That's why whites can't declare blacks to be slaves, despite outnumbering blacks. You can want to oppress others all you want, but having numbers on your side does not give you a right to do so, nor is the government ignoring your desire to oppress a loss of liberty. It's the opposite- it is a demonstration that we Americans have liberty. We are for the most part free from the petty tyrant mob (Unless you're gay and want to get married, but we're working on that.)

My ultimate point is, big government is not just a threat to fiscal health, but a threat to liberty.

A point which you have utterly failed to support.

Your point seems to be, if you're against something, and other people are for it, the other people are childish and hysterical, full of it, and should have the will of their "betters" imposed upon them.

For you to make this claim is clear evidence that you haven't bothered to read a damn thing I've said.

pyrate:
...The death penalty has nothing to do with punishment or justice, it is simply revenge. If you really want to punish someone you lock them up and throw away the key, make the rest of their life miserable.

Your argument seems to be much the same as Katatori-kun's... you are so good and so much better than everyone else, when others disagree with you, they're absolutely wrong, you are absolutely right, and the government should not be representative of the people.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
You do not treat the innocent and the guilty alike.

Yet another bland, vague, meaningless Gorfiasism devoid of context, evidence, or support.

Another non-sensical attack. Are you writing that there should be no difference in the manner in which the acquitted and the convicted are treated by the criminal justice system? That would be a very interesting argument (and weird).

You have a fair trial system to determine which is which and act accordingly.

And if that trial system cannot guarantee that an innocent person will not be executed by the state, then it is inherently unfair.

By this argument, you would abolish any form of punishment as no system is perfect.

A wrongly convicted person can die serving a prison sentance too

And if the state does not cause that death, it's beyond anyone's control.

The person in this hypothetical was treated the same as if he'd been correctly convicted. Accept it. It is going to happen sometimes. Your statement suggests you are OK with the state willy nilly arresting people and letting them rot and die in prison, as, "it's beyond anyone's control".

There are many political arguments against the death penalty, but at this time, they do not persuade the vast majority of US citizens, yet the citizenry is being denied their interpretation of justice in this matter.

First of all, you keep claiming that while offering zero evidence to back up your claim. You want us to accept your word that the vast majority of Americans just happen to share your opinion on all political issues, which given the failures of interpretation you've already demonstrated in this thread I find highly suspect.

Are you writing that you think there is not a majority of US voters in favor of the death penalty for homicide? That's probably besides the point with you, but please see the first page of this thread, post #10 by Seekster. Looks about right to me.

But this is beside the point- it doesn't matter if 99.99999% support the death penalty.

And there we are.

America is not a direct diplomacy where majority wins. America is a Representative democracy with numerous safeguards in place to protect the minority from being dictated to by the majority. That's why Christians can't force non-Christians to study creationism in school, even if they outnumber non-Christians. That's why whites can't declare blacks to be slaves, despite outnumbering blacks. You can want to oppress others all you want, but having numbers on your side does not give you a right to do so, nor is the government ignoring your desire to oppress a loss of liberty. [/quote It's the opposite- it is a demonstration that we Americans have liberty. We are for the most part free from the petty tyrant mob

So now representative democracy is simply a petty tyrant mob that an enlightened powerful minority of right thinkers should impose their will upon. Gotcha. BTW: Race and religion are expressly protected by the US Constitution, while the appropriateness of the Death Penalty is expressly expounded upon. Amendment 5 references that life (as well as liberty and property) cannot be taken without due process of law. This means, with due process of law, property, liberty and even one's life CAN be taken. The idea that in 1776, the framers intended to outlaw the Death Penalty with the US Constitution is absurd.

Your point seems to be, if you're against something, and other people are for it, the other people are childish and hysterical, full of it, and should have the will of their "betters" imposed upon them.

For you to make this claim is clear evidence that you haven't bothered to read a damn thing I've said.

For you to object to my statement is clear evidence you have not understood a damn thing you've written.

Gorfias:

More than one poster in this thread has suggested that there is a logical disconnect between desiring liberty and wanting to see the government engaged in a crime and social control measure they think appropriate, in this case, a death penalty. This is patently absurd.

Crime and social control measures may to a greater or lesser extent adhere to concepts of freedom.

In previous societies in history, for instance, a legal penalty for inability to pay your debts was enslavement. Do you think there is a logical disconnect between liberty and a crime and social control measure of enslavement? Is there no way you might think there could be ways to deal with that transgression with more liberty?

If you advocate a crime and social control measure that patently infringes major concepts of liberty (when reasonable alternatives exist that do so less), you cannot reasonably claim you are upholding liberty.

Agema:

Crime and social control measures may to a greater or lesser extent adhere to concepts of freedom.

In previous societies in history, for instance, a legal penalty for inability to pay your debts was enslavement.
1) Do you think there is a logical disconnect between liberty and a crime and social control measure of enslavement?
2) Is there no way you might think there could be ways to deal with that transgression with more liberty?

If you advocate a crime and social control measure that patently infringes major concepts of liberty (when reasonable alternatives exist that do so less), you cannot reasonably claim you are upholding liberty.

1) Actually, if I have to pay a parking fine that comes from money I earned, I have, to a just extent, been enslaved. The terms of enslavement would be an issue. Do I lose my liberty for life if I've not paid my electric bill one month? Just crime and social control measures must be proportionate to the crime.
2) You appear to be suggesting that the use of the death penalty is inherently an affront to liberty because lesser measures do the same thing without being so.. invasive? Free room, board, medical,educational, recreational facilities at a cost of temporary restrictions placed on one's liberty of movement, to most people, seems to be a non-sequiter when responding to the cruel intentional unlawful killing of another human being.

Gorfias:

1) Actually, if I have to pay a parking fine that comes from money I earned, I have, to a just extent, been enslaved. The terms of enslavement would be an issue. Do I lose my liberty for life if I've not paid my electric bill one month? Just crime and social control measures must be proportionate to the crime.
2) You appear to be suggesting that the use of the death penalty is inherently an affront to liberty because lesser measures do the same thing without being so.. invasive? Free room, board, medical,educational, recreational facilities at a cost of temporary restrictions placed on one's liberty of movement, to most people, seems to be a non-sequiter when responding to the cruel intentional unlawful killing of another human being.

Yes. Therefore, what you're arguing is that the criteria for determining punishment should be proportionality to the crime - not liberty. Where concepts of liberty clash with proportionate punishment, proportionate punishment is preferable.

Therefore, it is not a position based from liberty.

Agema:

Gorfias:

1) Actually, if I have to pay a parking fine that comes from money I earned, I have, to a just extent, been enslaved. The terms of enslavement would be an issue. Do I lose my liberty for life if I've not paid my electric bill one month? Just crime and social control measures must be proportionate to the crime.
2) You appear to be suggesting that the use of the death penalty is inherently an affront to liberty because lesser measures do the same thing without being so.. invasive? Free room, board, medical,educational, recreational facilities at a cost of temporary restrictions placed on one's liberty of movement, to most people, seems to be a non-sequiter when responding to the cruel intentional unlawful killing of another human being.

Yes. Therefore, what you're arguing is that the criteria for determining punishment should be proportionality to the crime - not liberty. Where concepts of liberty clash with proportionate punishment, proportionate punishment is preferable.

Therefore, it is not a position based from liberty.

But liberty is the ability of self determination, including the right to have laws (which include sanctions for violation) that you want. There are restrictions and curbs on this right in the USA. A punishment must not be cruel and unusual or excessive. Those are justified restrictions.

Currently, in the US, the people want a just, proportionate response to homicide, to whit, the death penalty. They want it to not be "unusual" or "excessive" and therefore, constitutional. The government has all but abolished this thing people lawfully desire. This denial is making them less able to have the laws and sanctions they want, an infringement upon their liberty.

Gorfias:

But liberty is the ability of self determination, including the right to have laws (which include sanctions for violation) that you want. There are restrictions and curbs on this right in the USA. A punishment must not be cruel and unusual or excessive. Those are justified restrictions.

Currently, in the US, the people want a just, proportionate response to homicide, to whit, the death penalty. They want it to not be "unusual" or "excessive" and therefore, constitutional. The government has all but abolished this thing people lawfully desire. This denial is making them less able to have the laws and sanctions they want, an infringement upon their liberty.

Sure.

But by that definition, if the public self-determine against free speech, gun ownership, or for a desire to burn people for witchcraft, that's therefore all liberty too. But to many of us, that might not sound very free at all.

Then you have an inconsistency: self-determination is liberty, but the Constitution restricts self-determination - no cruel, unusual or excessive punishment with the tacit demand of even if popularly supported. As another example, the Constitution permitted slavery for decades, but slavery is surely not liberty.

Thus whilst the Constitution guarantees certain terms of liberty, it also clearly limits or permits the limitation of liberty in others. Thus you cannot argue that what is in the US Constitution is therefore liberty. (For the record, I don't mean this to smear the US Constitution, which by intent and practice I think an admirable upholder of many liberal values).

* * *

Possibly the best you can argue is that the liberty of the people to be alive must be weighed against the liberty of society to determine what to do with their fellow citizens. Normally the former should win, but if the former involves a criminal, their position is downgraded due to their crime. But this is a contest of liberty versus liberty; per se it leaves neither side usefully able to claim liberty is on their side.

I think it's an odd one, because if you consider the stereotypical attitudes of US conservatives and liberals to where the authority of the government/people lies against the rights of individuals, the death penalty is a reversal.

Gorfias:
So now representative democracy is simply a petty tyrant mob that an enlightened powerful minority of right thinkers should impose their will upon. Gotcha.

Yes. That is exactly what it is. The term "Republic" as understood in an American historical context refers to a government, appointed, but not directly controlled, by the people they represent, and which bears the responsibility of governing to the benefit of the people, not to their every desire. In fact, they are expressly empowered to act against the will of the people, when the will of the people goes against it's own interest.

This is the foundation of the government of the United States, and the model of governance upon which it was built.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:
You do not treat the innocent and the guilty alike.

Yet another bland, vague, meaningless Gorfiasism devoid of context, evidence, or support.

Another non-sensical attack.

It makes perfect sense. You're wasting my time with vague, pithy claims you've pulled out of your ass that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

You have a fair trial system to determine which is which and act accordingly.

And if that trial system cannot guarantee that an innocent person will not be executed by the state, then it is inherently unfair.

By this argument, you would abolish any form of punishment as no system is perfect.

No, I wouldn't. Kindly confine your arguments to the real world and things I've really said, rather than just making up nonsense from the land of Bonzo and pretending it's my argument.

Your statement suggests you are OK with the state willy nilly arresting people and letting them rot and die in prison, as, "it's beyond anyone's control".

No, it doesn't. I never said any such thing. I never said anything remotely resembling any such thing. Stop wasting everyone's time with meaningless bullshit.

So now representative democracy is simply a petty tyrant mob that an enlightened powerful minority of right thinkers should impose their will upon.

No, again, I have said nothing of the sort. I know you are capable of reading above the 4th grade level, so kindly engage that skill for the rest of the thread so as not to waste the rest of our time.

The idea that in 1776, the framers intended to outlaw the Death Penalty with the US Constitution is absurd.

I never said anything about what the framers intended. I don't give a shit what they intended. I'm interested in justice and rights now, not fellating some dead white men who wrote a halfway decent paper. Once again, stop making up stuff that is irrelevant to my post.

And by the way, the Constitution was not written in 1776. You're confusing it with the Declaration of Independence, which is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. So at least you're continuing in the form you started.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

Yet another bland, vague, meaningless Gorfiasism devoid of context, evidence, or support.

Another non-sensical attack.

It makes perfect sense. You're wasting my time with vague, pithy claims you've pulled out of your ass that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

So far, your primary argument against the death penalty is you might put an innocent man to death, so put him in jail instead, just in case he is innocent.

You do not put innocent people in jail, you send them home. The question is, what to do if the person IS guilty. What is appropriate. You do not convict him and then treat him like he might still be innoncent. You respond accordingly.

A vast and sustained US majority think the appropriate response to capital crime is captial punishment.

There are legal curbs placed upon majority rule by the framers you care so little about. Barring that curb, we simply have a government that is not being responsive to the values of the American people on this issue. A government that governs less, I think, would be more exposed to the ire of those that felt betrayed or ignored on this issue, which is one of the reasons I think big government not only dangerous to wallet, but to liberty (as it pertains to self government).

Gorfias:
You do not put innocent people in jail, you send them home. The question is, what to do if the person IS guilty. What is appropriate. You do not convict him and then treat him like he might still be innoncent. You respond accordingly.

The justice system is an invention of man. Man is fallable. The justice system is also fallable. understanding this, itself, aids in the pursuit of justice.

Conviction requires only evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But occasionally, a person will be put in a position where evidence is sufficient that an observerver would be totaly reasonable in concluding that they had comitted the crime, and yet, still they did not actually commit it.

And this is assuming that the justice system worked perfectly every single time. That there was never any perjured testimony, or mishandled or planted evidence. That no confession was ever coerced, or given falsely. That no exonerating details were overlooked in investigation of the case, and thus never examined in court. That jurors are always completely detached from their own preconceptions and baises. The justice system doesn't work that way.

The fact is, you can not truly know if a person convicted of a crime is actually guilty of the crime or not. You can only judge them as guilty to the extent that it would be unreasonable to conclude that they are not.

When subjecting an individual to a system that is understood to be impefect in it's assignment of guilt, it is inherently, and unarguably, unjust to apply a sentence that can never be undone.

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

It makes perfect sense. You're wasting my time with vague, pithy claims you've pulled out of your ass that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

So far, your primary argument against the death penalty is you might put an innocent man to death, so put him in jail instead, just in case he is innocent.

Hey, speaking of wasting my time...

Of course I never said anything of the sort. And since you aren't a blithering idiot, you don't need to be told that. You know I never said anything of the sort. Anyone on this forum with a basic English reading comprehension knows I didn't post anything of the sort.

So my real question is why do you persist in wasting everyone's time with these lies. From the very first post on this thread, you have done nothing but attempt fraud on your audience. But regardless of the many and varied ways I might disagree with most of the people on this board, no one here is dumb enough to fall for it. You might get away with your game on the FOX News forums, but this is a forum full of people who are literate.

So why keep trying to play the game? Why keep trying to troll? Give it up. Quit lying, quit misrepresenting my posts. You're not fooling anyone, other than perhaps yourself.

Katatori-kun:

Gorfias:

Katatori-kun:

It makes perfect sense. You're wasting my time with vague, pithy claims you've pulled out of your ass that have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue at hand.

So far, your primary argument against the death penalty is you might put an innocent man to death, so put him in jail instead, just in case he is innocent.

Hey, speaking of wasting my time...

Of course I never said anything of the sort. And since you aren't a blithering idiot, you don't need to be told that. You know I never said anything of the sort. Anyone on this forum with a basic English reading comprehension knows I didn't post anything of the sort.

So my real question is why do you persist in wasting everyone's time with these lies. From the very first post on this thread, you have done nothing but attempt fraud on your audience. But regardless of the many and varied ways I might disagree with most of the people on this board, no one here is dumb enough to fall for it. You might get away with your game on the FOX News forums, but this is a forum full of people who are literate.

So why keep trying to play the game? Why keep trying to troll? Give it up. Quit lying, quit misrepresenting my posts. You're not fooling anyone, other than perhaps yourself.

Oookay.... I admit I may have made an honest mistake inferring things from your writing.
1) You appear (sorry if that makes it sound like I'm putting words in your mouth) to be against the death penalty. Am I right? I don't think you actually wrote that.
2) It appears (not sure if you actually wrote this or not... just inferences I took from what you wrote) that a major reason you are against the death penalty is because a wrongly convicted person could/would be executed.
3) This is where I really messed up. I inferred that you would prefer to put such a convicted person in prison but upon recollection and belief, I think you may not have actually written that.

So I ask you..., kinda off topic but I'm curious, what DO you think should be done with a person convicted of a capital crime?

See Spot Run:

When subjecting an individual to a system that is understood to be impefect in it's assignment of guilt, it is inherently, and unarguably, unjust to apply a sentence that can never be undone.

One cannot "undo" a person's dying in prison during their sentence either. Do we get rid of prison? Punishment? A guy does a year in prison for a crime he didn't commit. The state can pay him compensation, but that doesn't really "undo" the year the guy lost.

Human institutions are fallible. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to disregard/discard them.

Gorfias:
Human institutions are fallible. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to disregard/discard them.

Which isn't even close to what anyone is suggesting.

Your chance of death, if executed, is 100%.

Your chance of death, if imprisoned, is considerably lower.

Reparations can be made if a person is mistakenly imprisoned.

Reparations CANNOT be made if a person is mistakenly executed.

This is, like, a REAL SIMPLE concept.

If you cannot know absolutely that a person is guilty of a crime, than any absolute punishment is unjust. Period.

See Spot Run:

Gorfias:
Human institutions are fallible. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to disregard/discard them.

1) Which isn't even close to what anyone is suggesting.

Your chance of death, if executed, is 100%.

Your chance of death, if imprisoned, is considerably lower.

2) Reparations can be made if a person is mistakenly imprisoned.

3) Reparations CANNOT be made if a person is mistakenly executed.

This is, like, a REAL SIMPLE concept.

If you cannot know absolutely that a person is guilty of a crime, than any absolute punishment is unjust. Period.

1) I thought you were suggesting ending the institution of capital punishment. My bad.
2) Yes and no. You can give someone money for instance, but, that doesn't really restore to someone the period of a life lost.
3) Actually, the state can make reparations to family of the deceased. Again... really doesn't quite do it.

The point is, you have an argument with the death penalty. Fair enough. But today's ruling elite does not persuade: it somehow has the power to ignore the will of the vast majority of people. I worry that big government is what is empowering them to do that. Do you agree?

Gorfias:

See Spot Run:

Gorfias:
Human institutions are fallible. That doesn't mean it is a good idea to disregard/discard them.

1) Which isn't even close to what anyone is suggesting.

Your chance of death, if executed, is 100%.

Your chance of death, if imprisoned, is considerably lower.

2) Reparations can be made if a person is mistakenly imprisoned.

3) Reparations CANNOT be made if a person is mistakenly executed.

This is, like, a REAL SIMPLE concept.

If you cannot know absolutely that a person is guilty of a crime, than any absolute punishment is unjust. Period.

1) I thought you were suggesting ending the institution of capital punishment. My bad.
2) Yes and no. You can give someone money for instance, but, that doesn't really restore to someone the period of a life lost.
3) Actually, the state can make reparations to family of the deceased. Again... really doesn't quite do it.

The point is, you have an argument with the death penalty. Fair enough. But today's ruling elite does not persuade: it somehow has the power to ignore the will of the vast majority of people. I worry that big government is what is empowering them to do that. Do you agree?

1. I was. I read that as you interpreting what I was saying as an argument for disregarding the justice system. My mistake.

2. The point, is that society's relative ability to correct an error is much, much higher in the absence of capital punishment. We cannot restore life to a dead individual. We can compensate a living individual. In the pursuit of just punishment, the option that considers our own fallability is simply, always, more just.

3. "Big" government has nothing to do with it. The foundational principle of the American governmental system is that the will of the majority is oftentimes In direct opposition to individual liberty, and as such the government is purposely empowered to act independent of popular will, and are only indirectly responsible to the demands of their constituency. The job of elected representatives is to legislate in accordance with the constitution and to the benefit of society and the people they represent. This mandate will sometimes necessitate ignoring or over-riding the will of the constituency.

Fundamentally, your problem in this argument is that you are applying a definition of liberty that even the founding fathers of your nation wouldn't have agreed with.

Vegosiux:

3) We want fiscal sanity. We're trillions in debt, with projections from the CBO showin we're gonna go broke :-(

That debt is not the current administration's fault.

This. This right here. This is why we are screwed.

You don't care about the country's long-term fiscal solvency. You only care about your own little tiny ideals, and your Democrat party.

Information, reality, facts, the truth... none of these things matter to you. In your mind, nothing your party ever does is wrong, nothing the other party does is right.

No president, in the history of this country, has ever spent the entirety of his term blaming everything on the last guy, and at no point in our history have his followers been so blindly loyal.

Leave this country, which is still the greatest on Earth, as long as we keep your side from getting what it wants. Leave. EDIT: Oh. You're not even from here. Do some research, learn some history, THEN try to speak on these matters intelligently. I probably still won't care, but it wouldn't hurt for more people to actually take an academic, and/or intellectual approach to something for once, rather than just spouting off whatever moronic thought creeps into your brain.

See Spot Run:

3. "Big" government has nothing to do with it. The foundational principle of the American governmental system is that the will of the majority is oftentimes In direct opposition to individual liberty, and as such the government is purposely empowered to act independent of popular will, and are only indirectly responsible to the demands of their constituency. The job of elected representatives is to legislate in accordance with the constitution and to the benefit of society and the people they represent. This mandate will sometimes necessitate ignoring or over-riding the will of the constituency.

This is wrong on so many levels. The founding father's made this nation so the will of the majority of people could NEVER take away personal liberty.

We were founded as a Republic, NOT a democracy. We didn't directly elect either President's (which only happen when the State's changed their own constitutions and voting laws so the popular vote is how the electoral college would vote) or Senators (which was changed by the 17th amendment).

The constitution has never been a "guideline" to be easily changed like the wind or ignored on a when inconvienent. It was written and supposed to stand as the supreme law of the land, no Congress or President is above it and only get there power from it. It was written to protect liberty at ALL costs. Every one of our recruits is sworn in to protect the constitution, not the government, or even the American people, but the CONSTITUTION.

We can argue all day what the constitution should be, maybe, but your definent statements that the founding principle is that the majority or the government can take liberty or ignore the constitution is wrong.

harmonic:

Vegosiux:

3) We want fiscal sanity. We're trillions in debt, with projections from the CBO showin we're gonna go broke :-(

That debt is not the current administration's fault.

This. This right here. This is why we are screwed.

You don't care about the country's long-term fiscal solvency. You only care about your own little tiny ideals, and your Democrat party.

Well, actually, no I do not give a rat's ass about that Democrat party that isn't "mine" at all. :)

Leave this country, which is still the greatest on Earth, as long as we keep your side from getting what it wants. Leave. EDIT: Oh. You're not even from here. Do some research, learn some history, THEN try to speak on these matters intelligently. I probably still won't care, but it wouldn't hurt for more people to actually take an academic, and/or intellectual approach to something for once, rather than just spouting off whatever moronic thought creeps into your brain.

I bet you any money that I know more about your history than you do. I'd almost be inclined to bet that, in general, European people know more about American history than Americans do. You know why? Because we can deal with our own difficulties; so we don't blame our problems on everyone else like some other people I could, but will not, name.

Why, yes. Yes, it's on.

Besides. Why the fuck should I care about your history? Do you care about mine? Do you know anything about my nation's history (no, opening google and typing in "slovenia" now doesn't count anymore)? No? You don't?

Well, then. The fact that I actually know a lot about yours is something you should respect and revere. In fact, the fact that I know anything at all about your history is more than you'll ever bother in your life, so why don't you just drop that self-righteous act.

harmonic:

Leave this country, which is still the greatest on Earth

Im not sure if I should burst laughing or ask by what standarts first. Half the world is laughing at the US, for a handful of different, unrelated reasons... and there are still people who acctually believe this? Why yes, thats one reason I guess..

Not G. Ivingname:
This is wrong on so many levels. The founding father's made this nation so the will of the majority of people could NEVER take away personal liberty.

That's... That's what I said. The government is NOT directly responsible to the will of the people, because often the will of the majority works AGAINST individual liberty.

The job of the government is to PROTECT that liberty, even if it means overriding popular will.

Maybe, you know, READ what I said before telling me it's wrong.

See Spot Run:

Not G. Ivingname:
This is wrong on so many levels. The founding father's made this nation so the will of the majority of people could NEVER take away personal liberty.

That's... That's what I said. The government is NOT directly responsible to the will of the people, because often the will of the majority works AGAINST individual liberty.

The job of the government is to PROTECT that liberty, even if it means overriding popular will.

Maybe, you know, READ what I said before telling me it's wrong.

Oh, sorry, I miss read the word constituency, thought you said constitution there. :P

My mistake.

Not G. Ivingname:

See Spot Run:

Not G. Ivingname:
This is wrong on so many levels. The founding father's made this nation so the will of the majority of people could NEVER take away personal liberty.

That's... That's what I said. The government is NOT directly responsible to the will of the people, because often the will of the majority works AGAINST individual liberty.

The job of the government is to PROTECT that liberty, even if it means overriding popular will.

Maybe, you know, READ what I said before telling me it's wrong.

Oh, sorry, I miss read the word constituency, thought you said constitution there. :P

My mistake.

I figured you'd misread something, because I couldn't understand how you could possibly have taken my meaning to be anything other than what you described.

No harm done.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked