Do You Support The Death Penalty [Archive]

mel

3rd July 2009, 02:32

I will never support the death penalty, in any circumstance, and I actually address my reasoning behind this in many other threads, and at length in the blog post "The Ethics of Revolution: Self-Defense and the Use of Legitimate Force" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=458), which as of right now is my most recent. I kinda feel like a tool for linking it like this, but I for obvious reasons don't really feel like rewriting my thoughts on this issue a thousand times.

The foundation of my thoughts on the use of violence is that the only legitimate use of violence is in self-defense (and in furtherance of that: that you can only use as much force as necessary to prevent further violence), and here is a quote from my segment on the Death Penalty:

When a murderer is in the act, about to kill a person and they act out in self-defense, killing the attempted murderer, that is justified because it is reasonable to believe that killing the perpetrator was the only viable course of action which would result in the saving of the victim's life.

However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.

There is a more in-depth explanation of the basis for this belief in the post, but I couldn't really provide the background without reiterating most to all of the post, so if you're curious how I come to this conclusion you'll have to read it yourself.

SHEHATEME

3rd July 2009, 02:56

No not under any circumstances. I find it the hight of hypocrisy that in order to show someone their crime was so offensive to our humanity, that we would then do the same to them.

Comrade B

3rd July 2009, 07:47

Leaders who killed people due to someone's ethnicity or sexuality should be condemned to dying in solitary confinement. The idea behind it is the same behind the death penalty, so I voted for the second option.

GPDP

3rd July 2009, 10:21

No, I do not.

But I would not shed a tear if the precedents of the Nuremberg Trials were applied to the Bush Administration. :)

RGacky3

3rd July 2009, 10:36

Not at all. Niether do I support the prison system.

Bud Struggle

3rd July 2009, 15:31

Not at all. Niether do I support the prison system.

Well I teach a bit for Catholic Charities in the Florida Prison System--and there are people out there--maybe 5% of the population but much more concentrated in prisons that are just sociopaths. They fight, they kill for no reason. They are extremely attracted to drugs and liquor and not Anarchism, Communism or anything else are going to stop these people from doing what they want to whom they want.

And I don't know for sure but I would suspect the Fascist movement is full of these people. Anyway I know with the laws of the jungle in Mexico people can be reasond with in small groups--but in a larger society you do need a penal system just to keep these people away from the rest of humanity.

ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo

3rd July 2009, 15:43

I don't support the death penalty for the simple reason of leading by example.

What? Don't look at me like that! I don't want to be killed!

:lol:

Richard Nixon

3rd July 2009, 17:59

Not at all. Niether do I support the prison system.

Where in the world are you going to put rapists, murderers, armed robbers, and that sort of ilk? Insane asylums? Rehabilitation centers? House arrests?

mel

3rd July 2009, 18:10

Where in the world are you going to put rapists, murderers, armed robbers, and that sort of ilk? Insane asylums? Rehabilitation centers? House arrests?

What are they stealing? (Usually when a leftist says that they "do not support" some facet of currently extant society, they mean that it will no longer exist in a post-revolutionary society as it will be redundant or unnecessary) If that is the case with Gacky here, then an armed robber would have nothing to gain materially from, say, "robbing" anything, because most socialists/anarchists believe in the abolition of buying and selling as it now exists, and at least the abolition of circulating currency (though some support non-circulating labor vouchers). Either way, there's nothing for an "armed robber" to "rob". Without monetary influence, many murders would no longer have an impetus either (only crimes of passion and serial murderers would remain).

As to the rest, most would probably be confined in some sort of a secure treatment facility, as most people who do these sorts of crimes have some psychological issues that need to be worked through. There is a reluctance among members to call a secure holding facility for the more dangerous members of society in which they are made to be rehabilitated and if it is determined safe, eventually released under supervision, a "prison", but for all intents and purposes, most of us don't actually have any sort of insane idea that we can just allow murderers and rapists to continue walking around untreated.

Kyrite

3rd July 2009, 18:31

Nope, never. Two wrongs won't make a right.

EddieBhoy

3rd July 2009, 20:01

I think it should only be giving to people who are responsible for deliberatly causing the death of say... 1 millions people? other than that, I think it's unacceptable.

Sarah Palin

3rd July 2009, 21:07

I think the death penalty is hypocritical, and in the case of really severe crimes, not the most severe punishment. It's hypocritical because you don't show someone that they were wrong in killing someone by killing them. I also can't speak for a post revolutionary society, but currently I think that life in prison is a worse punishment than the death penalty. But all in all, people who commit crimes should be rehabilitated, not killed or put away in a 9x9 cell for 50 years.

Demogorgon

3rd July 2009, 22:40

Well I teach a bit for Catholic Charities in the Florida Prison System--and there are people out there--maybe 5% of the population but much more concentrated in prisons that are just sociopaths. They fight, they kill for no reason. They are extremely attracted to drugs and liquor and not Anarchism, Communism or anything else are going to stop these people from doing what they want to whom they want.

And I don't know for sure but I would suspect the Fascist movement is full of these people. Anyway I know with the laws of the jungle in Mexico people can be reasond with in small groups--but in a larger society you do need a penal system just to keep these people away from the rest of humanity.
Well America is notorious for jailing far to many people. One in every ninety nine people in America is in jail after all compared to about one in a thousand here, and we are also well above average in our tendency to shut people away, just to put things in perspective. So America could release vast numbers of people tomorrow without making the place anymore dangerous. Indeed it would probably become safer in the long run given the prisons are the ideal place to learn new ways to commit crime and get away with it.

There is a general trend around the world-certainly not just in America-towards thinking that jailing people solves anything. "If only more people went to prison things would be better" people seem to think, along with the ever present "prison should be harsher" as if it wasn't already a hellhole. Of course in practice things like that just raise the crime rate because it abandons rehabilitation and simply hardens people but through it and brutalises society. The same thing is an even bigger problem with the death penalty incidentally.

I agree we do need to have prisons. Some people need to be confined, at least until they can be rehabilitated to an extent, but we ought to be jailing far fewer people than at present. It should be a last resort only as a rule for those committing serious acts of violence and the sentences should be no longer than necessary. We also need to get away from the notion we should treat prisoners cruelly. It satisfies primitive desires for revenge but it is completely counter-productive, even if we ignore the moral problems involved there. Prison ought to be a productive place where the majority of people going through it actually benefit, both learning how to control themselves and learning new skills so that they can live honestly outside of prison and don't fall into bad ways.

I accept a small number are probably beyond hope and simply need to be confined, but even then, they do not need to be treated more harshly than necessary and can also be persuaded to do at least something productive with their lives, even if it has to be carried out within prison walls. Of course you can't just hold those sort of people forever either. I don't think life sentences should be used either except in the most extreme circumstances (and some countries have abolished them entirely after all), so you are still going to have means of managing them once they come out of prison and that is only going to be succesful if you put in a real effort to at least somewhat reform them.

Like I say though, the vast majority of people being sent to jail ought not to be there. Making them do work for the community is a far better option.

Rosa Provokateur

4th July 2009, 00:01

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. No man is perfect, no man has the right to end another man's life.

Conquer or Die

4th July 2009, 08:40

I think that's why they have the concept of POW camps. ;)

I'm not suggesting that all partisans be executed; merely the ones who represent the greatest threat to your side/cause. A charismatic leader or a highly skilled soldier or a significant scientist who refuse to change sides and represent a major threat to your side should be executed for the sake of ending the war.

Foot soldiers should not be executed.

Robert

4th July 2009, 16:14

Either way, there's nothing for an "armed robber" to "rob".

How about the community grain stores?

Children?

Precious metals?

Vehicles?

Musical instruments?

Jewelry?

Stereo equipment?

Televisions?

Leather goods?

Speedboats?

Pets?

Livestock?

Champagne?

Orchids?

Silver tea sets?

Paintings?

We're not going to have money, okay :rolleyes:, but not any of this stuff either?
(I told you communism was gray.)

As to the original point, there are violent sociopaths who so routinely and regularly commit violent offenses that the community simply gets tired of reasoning with them or trying to treat their pathologies. Yes, they can put them in prison, but even that occasionally fails, as they may break out of prison, killing people in the process and then robbing and killing some more. (See link to Texas 7 below. That happened just a few years ago.

It's hard to look the victims of violence or their survivors in the face and tell them they are unenlightened barbarians for not wanting to continue feeding and clothing and caring medically for these "gentlemen" with their slave wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_Hawkins

Kronos

4th July 2009, 16:39

There should be no death penalty. The harshest possible sentence should be confinement to a labor camp, where the prisoner would work for the duration of his sentence. Additionally, each prisoner should have the option of assisted suicide.

The death penalty is another example of the terrible inefficiency of capitalism. Instead of taking advantage of the industrious use that prisoners can offer (there is always work to be done), they execute them to make space, and in the name of "punishment" and "justice" (see Nietzsche's insight on these concepts if you want to know the truth and consequences of their function). But what can be expected of a horribly overpopulated society in which the broke, working classes pay the majority of the taxes used to take care of inmates? The process, the situation, is a laughable joke....especially when you see people argue over whether capital punishment is moral or not. This shouldn't even be an issue, and only is because the circumstances are so confused and muddled that the labor resources of the inmate population will never be appropriated correctly.

The moral arguments don't even get one foot out of the gate. It is immoral to murder....but not if murder is committed by the state? Ah, then somehow the state transcends the moral law....or? The alternative- it is immoral to kill, state or not. Who says? Where is the universe instruction manual that says "it isn't okay to kill"? It is okay to kill....but killing can be very inefficient....especially when concerning prisoners who are perfect candidates for laborers.

Of course, you see a few inmates picking up trash on the road sides...but this is hardly the point. Only if the state owns and regulates the means of production will such labor resources become able to be used appropriately.

Kronos

4th July 2009, 17:07

there are violent sociopaths who so routinely and regularly commit violent offenses that the community simply gets tired of reasoning with them or trying to treat their pathologies.

And yet this typical objection is so sure that the criminal is the sick one.

How strange it is that throughout history, all great revolution (not just communist) begins by and through the criminal type- the unreasonable man who does not conform to society, but conforms society to himself. Any advancement starts at some oppositional power against the established convention, is called "evil" during the process of reformation, finally to be called heroic by everyone who previously called it evil, once that power has overthrown the old values and established new ones.

It is clear that the masses, the bulk of society, have irrelevant opinions- they simply agree with what conditions them, what controls them, what shuffles them about through political revolutions. What wonderful irony! As if the "citizens" objection to the criminal has any substance at all! The citizen is a zero, an invalid, as is public opinion in general.

Furthermore, I assert that the criminal is actually the more healthy type. He is so because of his oversensitivity to the peculiar, awkward factors in society which all "normal" people are oblivious to. Then, when the criminal becomes conditioned as he has (there is no freewill), the normal ones charge him with abnormality! Ah. Then normality means- being dumbed down, simplified, indoctrinated, subjugated, controlled.....turned into a zombie?

A few words from The Moustache:

The criminal and what is related to him.— The criminal type is the type of the strong human being under unfavorable circumstances: a strong human being made sick. He lacks the wilderness, a somehow freer and more dangerous environment and form of existence, where everything that is weapons and armor in the instinct of the strong human being has its rightful place. His virtues are ostracized by society; the most vivid drives with which he is endowed soon grow together with the depressing affects—with suspicion, fear, and dishonor. Yet this is almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. Whoever must do secretly, with long suspense, caution, and cunning, what he can do best and would like most to do, becomes anemic; and because he always harvests only danger, persecution, and calamity from his instincts, his attitude to these instincts is reversed too, and he comes to experience them fatalistically. It is society, our tame, mediocre, emasculated [verschnittene] society, in which a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea, necessarily degenerates into a criminal. Or almost necessarily; for there are cases in which such a man proves stronger than society: the Corsican, Napoleon, is the most famous case. The testimony of Dostoyevsky is relevant to this problem—Dostoyevsky, the only psychologist, incidentally, from whom I had something to learn; he ranks among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life, even more than my discovery of Stendhal. This profound human being, who was ten times right in his low estimate of the superficial Germans, lived for a long time among the convicts in Siberia—hardened criminals for whom there was no way back to society—and found them very different from what he himself had expected: they were carved out of just about the best, hardest, and most valuable wood that grows anywhere on Russian soil. Let us generalize the case of the criminal: let us think of men so constituted that for one reason or another, they lack public approval and know that they are not felt to be beneficent or useful—that chandala feeling that one is not considered equal, but an outcast, unworthy, contaminating. All men so constituted have a subterranean hue to their thoughts and actions; everything about them becomes paler than in those whose existence is touched by daylight. Yet almost all forms of existence which we consider distinguished today once lived in this half tomblike atmosphere: the scientific character, the artist, the genius, the free spirit, the actor, the merchant, the great discoverer ... As long as the priest was considered the supreme type, every valuable kind of human being was devaluated ... The time will come—I promise—when the priest will be considered the lowest type, as our chandala, as the most mendacious, the most indecent kind of human being ... I call attention to the fact that even now—under the mildest regimen of morals which has ever ruled on earth, or at least in Europe—every deviation [Abseitigkeit], every long, all-too-long sojourn below, every unusual or opaque form of existence, brings one closer to that type which is perfected in the criminal. All innovators of the spirit must for a time bear the pallid and fatal mark of the chandala on their foreheads—not because they are considered that way by others, but because they themselves feel the terrible chasm which separates them from everything that is customary or reputable. Almost every genius knows, as one stage of his development, the "Catilinarian existence"—a feeling of hatred, revenge, and rebellion against everything which already is, which no longer becomes ... Catiline—the form of pre-existence of every Caesar.—

Conquer or Die

4th July 2009, 22:08

As to the original point, there are violent sociopaths who so routinely and regularly commit violent offenses that the community simply gets tired of reasoning with them or trying to treat their pathologies. Yes, they can put them in prison, but even that occasionally fails, as they may break out of prison, killing people in the process and then robbing and killing some more. (See link to Texas 7 below. That happened just a few years ago.

There are two logical points that support the death penalty. The first is that it acts as a detterrant to similar violent crime. The second is that the convicted can escape and relapse. I don't think either of these points are strong enough to warrant legalizing the death penalty. I think the benefits of not having the death penalty far outweigh the negatives.

It's hard to look the victims of violence or their survivors in the face and tell them they are unenlightened barbarians for not wanting to continue feeding and clothing and caring medically for these "gentlemen" with their slave wages.

The victim's family doesn't kill the inmate; and they spend more money on executing the inmate then holding him/her in prison forever. This is not including potential labor that the inmate may produce. So those points are invalid.

*Viva La Revolucion*

4th July 2009, 22:26

I have never and will never support the death penalty.

1. Killing someone because they have killed someone? Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no logic or humanity in that kind of reasoning.
2. I always wonder about the person who actually carries out the murders. How could anyone do that job?
3. It stops criminals from being seen as human beings. Many of the worst crimes are committed by mentally ill people who should be in a psychiatric hospital rather than a prison or dead. I don't believe in dividing people up into categories of 'good' and 'evil' anyway. The mind is a complicated thing and reducing someone's entire existence to 'this person is bad so they should die' is unbelievable.
4. Rehabilitation won't be possible if the criminal is dead.
5. There have been a large number of cases where the person being sentenced was actually innocent. There's always the chance of getting the wrong person and killing someone who hasn't done a single thing wrong. This is one of the strongest arguments against the death penalty, IMO.

LeninBalls

4th July 2009, 23:22

Is the OP asking do we support the death penalty in bourgeoisie nations, or?

danyboy27

4th July 2009, 23:27

well, i am not for the death penality but if the people voted in favor of it in a region, its democracy..

dosnt happen a lot tho. i mean, i doubt the whole death penality in the us have been voted by their own citizens.

Unfortunatly if the people of canada would be allowed to vote for it we would have probably death penality again, and if it was up to the peoiple of quebec even more.

justice fucked up end up with people wanting other people dead.
the sexual agressions on the rise and the lack of severe prison sentence for offender do that i guess.

danyboy27

4th July 2009, 23:29

Is the OP asking do we support the death penalty in bourgeoisie nations, or?

what the difference if its applied to murderer and rapist?

commie rapist are more evil?
bourgeois rapist are more evil?

Demogorgon

4th July 2009, 23:29

Is the OP asking do we support the death penalty in bourgeoisie nations, or?
If I asked you whether you favour rape, would you ask me if I meant in bourgeoisie nations or not?

LeninBalls

5th July 2009, 11:45

what the difference if its applied to murderer and rapist?

commie rapist are more evil?
bourgeois rapist are more evil?

If I asked you whether you favour rape, would you ask me if I meant in bourgeoisie nations or not?

lol u guyz r so witty

Anyways, it's clearly different when comparing the death penalty in a proletariat society to a bourgeoisie nation. Bourgeoisie nations tend to be racist, unfair liars (especially when it comes to the death penality, hi USA) and it's clearly something every communist should oppose.

In a revolutionary state however, obviously executions are needed, most definitley during revolutionary turmoil, and post revolution, I believe should only be for counter revolutionaries.

Demogorgon

5th July 2009, 12:37

lol u guyz r so witty

Anyways, it's clearly different when comparing the death penalty in a proletariat society to a bourgeoisie nation. Bourgeoisie nations tend to be racist, unfair liars (especially when it comes to the death penality, hi USA) and it's clearly something every communist should oppose.

In a revolutionary state however, obviously executions are needed, most definitley during revolutionary turmoil, and post revolution, I believe should only be for counter revolutionaries.
You think everything will become perfectly fair with a revolution? Or that all the ill effects of execution, brutalisation, bereavement and so on will go? Or that cold blooded killing will somehow become acceptable?

And I fail to see why some people think it will be "necessary" to execute "counter-revolutionaries". Are there no such thing as prisons?

Robert

5th July 2009, 13:56

And I fail to see why some people think it will be "necessary" to execute "counter-revolutionaries". Are there no such thing as prisons?

Whereas capitalists do not think it is "necessary" to execute commies. Or even put them in prison.

There's a lesson there for you, Demo.

Demogorgon

5th July 2009, 15:28

Whereas capitalists do not think it is "necessary" to execute commies. Or even put them in prison.

There's a lesson there for you, Demo.
Well they do when they are perceived as breaking the law. Don't misinterpret me so as to insinuate I favour jailing people on the basis of political opinion.

Il Medico

5th July 2009, 15:41

Death Penalty no way.

Well I don't support the death penalty for people either born or unborn. :cool:
Before I challenge this statement with my great argument that left my Regan-Republican father speechless, I have a question. Do you think people should or should be able to use birth control?

LeninBalls

5th July 2009, 15:55

Whereas capitalists do not think it is "necessary" to execute commies. Or even put them in prison.

???

You realize "communism" is banned in Poland and Lithuania. Communist parties are banned in Germany too iirc, so I can only imagine you'd be persecuted for taking part in communist activities in these countries.

Anyways, what about the wars against communist insurgents in the Phillipines, Nepal (when it was still fighting), India, Palestine (there's a small communist faction), Lebanon (another small one), Colombia, etc? Aren't those communists jailed too? And in no doubt some cases, shot. Of course you're gonna say "but they're the enemy and fighting a war it's natural". That's what I'm talking about too. Counter revolutionaries who do acts of terrorism against the state, or revolt, or try to damage and undermine the revolution will no doubt be executed (depending on their rank/input to sabotage, I assume) because they are the enemy and a threat, and what do you do with enemies who are trying to kill you? It's kinda obvious.

Jailing for all other crimes. But well I'm no socialist leader and I never will be, so I can't for 100% sure say what will happen.

Richard Nixon

5th July 2009, 20:58

lol u guyz r so witty

Anyways, it's clearly different when comparing the death penalty in a proletariat society to a bourgeoisie nation. Bourgeoisie nations tend to be racist, unfair liars (especially when it comes to the death penality, hi USA) and it's clearly something every communist should oppose.

In a revolutionary state however, obviously executions are needed, most definitley during revolutionary turmoil, and post revolution, I believe should only be for counter revolutionaries.

This proves you are an utter hypocrite. Either support the death penalty for murderers and other sick fucks or don't at all.

LeninBalls

5th July 2009, 21:53

Actually, fuck you. Did you bother to read my last post?

Richard Nixon

5th July 2009, 23:27

Actually, fuck you. Did you bother to read my last post?

Well some repressive capitalist governments do kill counter-revolutionists as you said but most don't. Not the USA, not Britain, not Europe, not Australia.

LeninBalls

5th July 2009, 23:30

Not the USA, not Britain, not Europe, not Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_civil_war (Britain and the US participated in this)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune#Assault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_red_scare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_vietnam

Richard Nixon

5th July 2009, 23:36

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_civil_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune#Assault
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_red_scare

You will realize those were generations ago, I meant the present day.

Anarkiwi

6th July 2009, 13:36

I have never believed, and never will believe that killing people to show that killing is wrong is right.

im with him^

gorillafuck

6th July 2009, 20:03

For crimes against humanity.

Havet

6th July 2009, 20:05

im with him^

seconded

Bud Struggle

6th July 2009, 21:29

I'm against it!

(Unless after the Revolution we need to kill off the Old Bolsheviks (Old RevLefters.) :( ;))

Kwisatz Haderach

6th July 2009, 21:34

You will realize those were generations ago, I meant the present day.
The only reason countries like the US, Britain, France, Germany or Australia don't kill communists in the present day is because communists in the present day are not a serious threat to those capitalist governments.

If communists ever become a serious threat again, they will start being killed again.

Edit: And I support the death penalty in cases of exceptionally evil crimes, such as crimes against humanity.

Bud Struggle

6th July 2009, 21:49

The only reason countries like the US, Britain, France, Germany or Australia don't kill communists in the present day is because communists in the present day are not a serious threat to those capitalist governments.

If communists ever become a serious threat again, they will start being killed again.

Nonsense.

Communists these day aren't revelent. Not in the least. Communism isn't ignored by the media on purpose--Communism just has nothing to say to anyone. At this point everything is in the table.

Say something interesting.

The "usual" sloganeering" won't do.

Here's your shot Communism---------what are you going to offer?

Kwisatz Haderach

6th July 2009, 22:46

Communists these day aren't revelent. Not in the least.
Yes, I know. That was my point!

Communists are generally left alone by most Western capitalist states because they are not a threat. If we were a threat - if we were relevant - those oh-so-enlightened capitalist states would begin repressing us again.

Here's your shot Communism---------what are you going to offer?
Free health care and education, guaranteed jobs and housing for everyone, the right to vote directly on economic policy, and the right to vote on the way your workplace is run and - if your coworkers agree - fire your boss.

How's that for a start?

Bud Struggle

6th July 2009, 23:14

Yes, I know. That was my point! Well, OK.

Communists are generally left alone by most Western capitalist states because they are not a threat. Not a threat!? You have to be kidding. The circus is more of a threat to the social and political fabric.

If we were a threat - if we were relevant - those oh-so-enlightened capitalist states would begin repressing us again. Nope--it's time for listening but all you guys have to say is "Stalin and Trotsky." Put together a revelent package.

Free health care and education, guaranteed jobs and housing for everyone, co-opted by the Democrats in America.

the right to vote directly on economic policy Yea?

and the right to vote on the way your workplace is run and - if your coworkers agree - fire your boss. Why? As in Why bother?

How's that for a start? Nope--you have to make sense. The answer is--"you workers don't like it here? Start your own company!" And as long as the boss can that--you have nothing to argue about.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th July 2009, 00:17

co-opted by the Democrats in America.
Oh yes, but they won't deliver any of it. Just wait and see.

Why? As in Why bother?
You own a business, right? Ask your workers if they would like to be able to elect and dismiss their bosses.

Nope--you have to make sense. The answer is--"you workers don't like it here? Start your own company!" And as long as the boss can that--you have nothing to argue about.
As long as the workers believe that starting their own company is a realistic option, that is. In reality, most people don't have the capital to start a business - and never will.

Robert

7th July 2009, 01:13

As long as the workers believe that starting their own company is a realistic option, that is. In reality, most people don't have the capital to start a business - and never will.

A negative and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Study the Chinese-American.

Kwisatz Haderach

7th July 2009, 01:49

Question: Is it possible to have a society with more business owners than employees?

If the answer is no, then it is necessarily impossible for the majority of the population to run a successful business.

*Viva La Revolucion*

7th July 2009, 03:25

Why? As in Why bother?

Nope--you have to make sense. The answer is--"you workers don't like it here? Start your own company!" And as long as the boss can that--you have nothing to argue about.

???

Why bother? Because in a democratic society workers should have rights and those rights should include being able to have your opinion listened to and to speak out if you are being treated unfairly. I'll give an example: in my mum's workplace they are refusing to give her more hours because they can get away with paying the teenagers less money. So she's in a situation where she can't have full-time work, but she can't work more than a few hours either because she won't be entitled to certain benefits. She can't get another job. The boss of this workplace has made every single worker miserable, underpaid and overworked. There have been numerous occasions when there has only been one person on duty which means one person doing all of the work on their own, and my mum has often helped out because she doesn't want to let her co-workers down. Meanwhile, the boss stands around complaining and drinking wine. The boss also tells the workers to 'hurry up' when they're clearing away before closing, but she sits there and doesn't actually participate in the clearing away. Everyone here is surviving on the minimum wage and nobody has the time or money to start their own company.

So...you think that's a reasonable situation to be in?

Robert

7th July 2009, 04:10

KH, thank you for the math. I get it. But there are a couple of things you are not reckoning and it's poisoning your worldview. No offense.

It starts with what I think is an assumption that the exploited wage slaves really would love to live at the top of the non-existent capitalist utopia where "everyone can be boss!" that you see people like me of imagining, but they just can't get there because the math doesn't work. Something like that, right?

Well ... consider first that there are sole proprietors who have no employees. Zero. They are independent contractors who do work like home or computer repair, dress design, tailoring, and engineering consulting. They aren't exploiting anybody insofar as I can see. I guess you see them as petit bourgeois or somesuch. I just call them small biz owners. It was to them I referred when I said study the Chinese-American. I respect them and think they are relatively free already.

Second, there are millions of employees who do not want to own anything or to have the power to fire their boss as you believe. And they are not miserable in my experience. Some are part time employees who want Pizza Hut to let them deliver pizzas part time while they study graphic design, or better yet, just go home to a modest apartment and live quietly without ambition. No shame there. Others are apprentices of the elite in many fields who know that they will never themselves be great designers or artists or athletes, but they're honored or stimulated or enthralled to work in that environment. Think about the equipment manager for the Dallas Cowboys. How about the roadies for ZZ Top? How about the mechanics for those NASCAR or Indy car teams? You want to "liberate" those guys? From what??? They'd rather fix cars and guitars than breathe and they don't give a damn who owns the means of production. In fact, I suspect some of them can earn shares in the team, but that's a guess. They're sure as hell free to go work for another team.

You may see them as wage slaves, and I imagine you must. (Where else would they fit in the Marxist hierarchy?) I just don't.

There are the disabled and kids in the ghetto of marginal IQ or talent or energy that can't realistically aspire to such jobs, and I'm sorry about that, but they probably won't be managing the Cowboys' equipment room or tuning up NASCAR engines after the revolution either.

Now how the hell did we get here from the death penalty? (Answer: it's your fault.) Maybe this needs to be separated out somehow into a separate thread; how about: "Can everyone be a capitalist?"

Radical

25th July 2009, 06:49

No death penalty ever in stable government

Executions in times of war/revolution

mikelepore

25th July 2009, 07:12

I believe that half the time the government convicts the wrong person because he happened to be wearing the same color shirt and driving the same color car as the real perpetrator, or other superficial similarities.

And if there were a way to know with complete certainty that they caught the real serial killer, the serial killer's fate should be to be strapped to a laboratory table with measurement instruments attached to his brain, so that neurologists may some day be able to figure out why he became a serial killer.

Either way, the death penalty is the wrong approach.

Stand Your Ground

25th July 2009, 14:39

I support the death penalty, only for extreme henious crimes though.

Robert

25th July 2009, 16:22

only for extreme henious crimes though.

<heinous>

Do you mean all heinous crimes? I am thinking of the mothers who kill all their children after spending an exemplary, crime free life. Hard not to think those people aren't profoundly mentally ill, i.e., crazy.

mel

25th July 2009, 16:25

<heinous>

Do you mean all heinous crimes? I am thinking of the mothers who kill all their children after spending an exemplary, crime free life. Hard not to think those people aren't profoundly mentally ill, i.e., crazy.

You have so many negatives that cancel each other I have no idea what you're saying.

SouthernBelle82

25th July 2009, 19:08

No it's nothing more than revenge. The person isn't serving their crime but going on whether you agree with an after life or not.

Robert

25th July 2009, 19:45

I have no idea what you're saying. __________________

Well, cannot you not undecipher the meaning or not? Make up your mind!

Kidding. I mean some people commit such heinous crimes that you have to think they are crazy to commit them.

mel

25th July 2009, 20:19

Well, cannot you not undecipher the meaning or not? Make up your mind!

Kidding. I mean some people commit such heinous crimes that you have to think they are crazy to commit them.

Right, and if they're crazy they need treatment, not death. If we understand the conditions that created them we can better prevent those conditions from arising in the future by attacking them at the source.

ThorsMitersaw

25th July 2009, 20:56

I do not feel like I can really answer this question. It does not give a context. I am always opposed to the state dealing out death. But on a personal level, I have no problem with dealing out death as retribution for murder (and murder alone), though I think it is less preferable and easily out competed by restitution. (as shown by the "Weregild" system in early Germanic law)

So I would need to know whether this question is universal to all contexts, within state monopolies on the provision of justice/courts/law, or an ethical question concerning what is permissible in justice/law... before I could vote

New Tet

25th July 2009, 21:01

So Yes or No?

NO

New Tet

25th July 2009, 21:13

Crime is a symptom of an infection caused by a virus, spawned and disseminated by the contradictions and injustices inherent in class-divided society.

The capitalist, the beneficiary of the criminal dispossession and impoverishment of his slaves, is at once its first victim and the agent of contagion. Capitalism is the disease.

Only socialism can cure it.

ThorsMitersaw

25th July 2009, 21:46

mel

25th July 2009, 21:58

wow. talk about a lot of empty rhetoric

Yet still true.

Decolonize The Left

25th July 2009, 22:00

I don't support the state, so naturally I don't support state-sanctioned murder.

- August

Durruti's Ghost

25th July 2009, 22:04

The only condition under which killing another human being is justified is when that human being is directly threatening the life of another. Death should never be used as a punishment for any crime, no matter how severe.

(Actually, punishment should never be used either. All crimes should be dealt with through a combination of restitution and rehabilitation. That's not what the question's asking, though.)

Stand Your Ground

25th July 2009, 22:35

You have so many negatives that cancel each other I have no idea what you're saying.
That's what I was thinking lol.

New Tet

25th July 2009, 22:41

wow. talk about a lot of empty rhetoric

At the very least, show where my statement is devoid of content. Otherwise fill in the blanks and contribute something concerning the topic at hand that illuminates, educates and edifies. The only other option left to you is to ________[fill in the blank].

Bud Struggle

25th July 2009, 22:54

I don't support the killing of human life of any sort--born or unborn. We are all human and we should NEVER harm or kill one another.

We are brothers and sisters. All we have is each other.

Robert

26th July 2009, 00:12

Capitalism is the disease.

You realize that murder predates capitalism by at least 100,000 years, correct?

New Tet

26th July 2009, 00:24

You realize that murder predates capitalism by at least 100,000 years, correct?

And we're still applying the same treatment for it of 2,000 years ago.

But your point is well taken, that's why I wrote 'capitalism AND class-divided society'; my "et al" of preference.

ThorsMitersaw

26th July 2009, 00:27

I reject the idea that crime only exists because the state or 'capitalism' exists (again depending on definitions). This idea I occasionally hear from anarcho-communists that crime will cease to exist int their utopia is nonsense.

People have been violating each others rights in all sorts of ways since the dawn of time. Eliminating the state or criminal state capitalism in no way will spell a universal end to theft, murder, fraud, and robbery. True many who commit crimes do so because they have few options before them, and in a free society that would obviously be diminished. But there will always be the error and the temptation to attempt to gain from others without their consent.

New Tet

26th July 2009, 00:31

ThorsMitersaw

26th July 2009, 00:44

Abolish private property, profit, and exploitation and you will have eliminated at least fifty percent of the cause of crime in the world today. The other half will soon take care of itself.

I have no interest in abolishing private property or profit. Profit is a necessary and natural production of a market economy highlighting where supply is not equalizing with demand. Property being the thing most perverted and punished and stolen by the state. But I also realize, through dozens upon dozens of conversations with others that our definitions of the two (as well as your third, exploitation) differ wildly so we often end up talking past one another. It is very similar to how conversations involving the words "capitalism" and "socialism" usually go.

Robert

26th July 2009, 01:07

True many who commit crimes do so because they have few options before them, and in a free society that would obviously be diminished.
Abolish private property, profit, and exploitation and you will have eliminated at least fifty percent of the cause of crime in the world today.Hold it. The only crime that results in the death penalty anymore is capital murder, i.e., murder of a very small child, murder of more than one person in a single episode, murder of a policeman or fireman, and murder committed in the course of committing another felony, typically rape or robbery.

The more typical murder or manslaughter that results from an argument between drug dealers or persons in a romantic relationship. That's where the numbers are, they have little to do with capitalism, and it doesn't get you the death penalty anyway.

Aside from the robbery scenario, I can't see how eliminating private property will do anything to reduce capital murder rates or thirst for the death penalty.

Radical

26th July 2009, 15:24

I like how most Pro-Lifers advocate the death sentance and support wars waged against entire races of people(countries) - They're called Artifical Pro-Lifers. FAKE PRO LIFERS.

SouthernBelle82

26th July 2009, 18:28

Haha yes. And of course they don't see the hypocrisy. I was talking with one recently and mentioned it and they said they deserved it. I asked what they thought about one innocent person getting wrongfully killed and they were fine with it. :confused:

Richard Nixon

26th July 2009, 22:17

I like how most Pro-Lifers advocate the death sentance and support wars waged against entire races of people(countries) - They're called Artifical Pro-Lifers. FAKE PRO LIFERS.

You confuse yourself between races and nationality. Also war is an unavoidable part of life on Earth unless a world state is imposed.

zerozerozerominusone

26th July 2009, 22:28

So Yes or No?

Not a yes or no question.

IF someone murdered my daughter, I'd want them dead. I'd try to find and kill them myself, but if they were tried and convicted I would want to see them executed. I'd volunteer to hang them myself.

That said, death is a bell that cannot be unrung. What if you put the wrong person to death? It has happened. More than one. Much more.

I am, therefore, ambivalent oward the idea. If justice were perfect, I may have comparatively small problems with it for certain crimes. That justice can be meted out by ignorant or corrupt people gives me serious pause.

It is a thorny issue.

danyboy27

26th July 2009, 22:31

i dont believe death penality is the way to go, even for the most creazy son of a ***** of history.

i believe incarceration is the proper punishement.

death was probably the best gift musolini received from his opponents.
he should have died in prison at a verry old age, deprived from luxuries.

RGacky3

27th July 2009, 12:31

You confuse yourself between races and nationality. Also war is an unavoidable part of life on Earth unless a world state is imposed.

War is unavoidable as long as there are states.

Dr Mindbender

27th July 2009, 13:29

The case of Mumia Abu Jamal is why i'm against the death penalty.

An innocent man cant fight for his name if he's dead.

Jazzratt

27th July 2009, 15:55

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society. I do not support simple vengence.

mel

27th July 2009, 16:29

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society. I do not support simple vengence.

You're going to need to explain that in better detail, because quite honestly that position could map to any number of widely varying stances from kicking somebody out of a community to a no-questions-asked bullet in the back of the head of a suspected murderer (neither of which I see as defensible options for a post-revolutionary society).

No matter how you cut it, you don't always know if you have the right person and even if you do I don't see how killing them is particularly beneficial to anybody. Kicking somebody dangerous out of a community just makes them somebody else's problem, which is messed up. Killing them is the irreversible punishment, and the only reason that it could possibly be seen as "better" to just shoot somebody in the back of the head rather than imprison them or some other such thing is because keeping them around is too "expensive", which is to say that there is a monetary value equivalent a person's life...is that really what you want to say?

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th July 2009, 16:39

No matter how you cut it, you don't always know if you have the right person and even if you do I don't see how killing them is particularly beneficial to anybody.

Self defence isn't beneficial?

New Tet

27th July 2009, 16:52

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society. I do not support simple vengence.

I support the "swift, inexpensive excision" of everyone that supports swift, inexpensive excisions.

mel

27th July 2009, 16:58

Self defence isn't beneficial?

I think self-defense is absolutely valid, in fact, I think it's the only valid use of violent force. (I talk about this at length in my blog "The Ethics of Revolution" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=458), so I'm just going to quote from that to make my point here:

When a murderer is in the act, about to kill a person and they act out in self-defense, killing the attempted murderer, that is justified because it is reasonable to believe that killing the perpetrator was the only viable course of action which would result in the saving of the victim's life.

However, after the act of murder has been committed and the murderer caught, killing is no longer the only viable course of action which would prevent the further perpetration of violence by that murderer (nor is it even the cheapest, or most practical) so the use of lethal force is no longer legitimate in light of the fact that the use of restraining force is sufficient to keep people safe from that murderer.

So I do not sanction any state murder because that assumes that the person is in captivity or otherwise restrained from causing further harm already, but I do sanction using whatever means necessary to stop the perpetration of violence in self-defense at the time of the act.

New Tet

27th July 2009, 17:15

Here's something somewhat related to the topic of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0OuQ37MDA

danyboy27

27th July 2009, 17:30

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society. I do not support simple vengence.

but what exactly is a threat to society for you?

Dr Mindbender

27th July 2009, 18:28

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society.

That definition could also pertain to the mentally ill; i don't think any progressive should advocate involuntary euthanasia.

As for fascists they're only a threat if they're allowed to gain influence and numbers.

Bud Struggle

27th July 2009, 21:32

I support the swift, inexpensive excision of those capable of posing a real and present threat to society.

Well we all know that once we are "gifted" with Communism no sane person would want anything else, and it would be cruel to punish the insane--so it pretty obvious you are against all capital punishment. :)

Richard Nixon

28th July 2009, 02:01

The case of Mumia Abu Jamal is why i'm against the death penalty.

An innocent man cant fight for his name if he's dead.

He is guilty, if you're going to argue against the death penalty please state a name of a real person who's been innocent. Besides he currently doesn't have the death penalty-something like 28 years in prison only he's being retried. I hope he is executed.

mel

28th July 2009, 02:25

He is guilty... I hope he is executed.

Are you privy to some special information that allows you to pronounce guilt when it's otherwise not entirely known?

I didn't think so.

danyboy27

28th July 2009, 02:26

He is guilty, if you're going to argue against the death penalty please state a name of a real person who's been innocent. Besides he currently doesn't have the death penalty-something like 28 years in prison only he's being retried. I hope he is executed.

if rocket scientist can make error, the justice system can do the same.

Richard Nixon

28th July 2009, 02:31

if rocket scientist can make error, the justice system can do the same.

In these days of DNA testings and two dozen appeals for a death sentence to be given it is almost impossible for that to happen.

Samuel

28th July 2009, 04:16

In these days of DNA testings and two dozen appeals for a death sentence to be given it is almost impossible for that to happen.

the Innocence Project's work demonstrates pretty clearly that it happens very often.

RedAnarchist

28th July 2009, 11:07

I hope he is executed.

You hope he is executed? Why? If he is guilty then why not keep him in jail for the rest of his life? If he is innocent, then he should neither be executed or imprisoned.

Jazzratt

28th July 2009, 13:04

To everyone asking about my comment (I simply cannot be arsed with your individual posts): What I meant by the comment was that anyone who had become a clear threat, by the standards of whatever societal organ we have in place post-revolution should be excised as swiftly and in"expensive"ly (as in energy expenditure) as possible - depending on the conclusion of the society this may include simply hoofing them out to another community that will risk taking them (a risk I personally find immensly unethical), placing them in an isolated community (which smacks of penal colonies) or excecuting them. However the fact I support execution is secondary to the reasons stated before, I would be happy enough with whatever method of removal a society selected as long as it neither involved placing them in a criminal factory (gaol or prison) nor expending large amounts of energy (again, gaols or prisons are a good example).

On the issue of the criminally insane the possibility of effective treatment has to be weighed against the risk they would pose if they suffered relapses or the treatment didn't work. For the most part though this would simply involve bi-weekly visists from a volunteer mental health monitor (or at least, that is how I would run it) to make sure they haven't gone nuts and skinned someone alive for a new overcoat or anything. It would only be in extreme cases that execution should be considered.

danyboy27

28th July 2009, 13:58

In these days of DNA testings and two dozen appeals for a death sentence to be given it is almost impossible for that to happen.

challenger and columbia...

i mean, rocket science is something a lot more studied and verified than the whole justice will ever be, and still, they lost 2 multi million space shuttle.

you come home a night after the job, your girlfriend is dead, you put your dna everywhere and bingo you are fucked.
if she been killed minutes after you come home then you are really fucked they gonna determine that you where there during the murder while its not true at all.

where i live they put a mentally disasbled in jail for 11 year before to finally find out that the real killer was something else. botched investigation happen all the time.

RedRise

29th July 2009, 11:05

No human has the right of life and death over another! I'm not saying people who have killed should not go without severe punishment, but when you kill someone coz they've killed someone else - you're no better then them. Everyone has the right to a life - if they take someone else's you don't take theirs - you can just make it miserable instead.:rolleyes: Like life in prison - and they should have to pay tons in compensation to the victim's family too. I think that's fair.

So, no to peacetime and yes to opponents in war.

War is when you fight to kill. That's the only time it's not murder. A prisoner of war does not deserve to die.:thumbdown:

Jazzratt

29th July 2009, 11:37

War is when you fight to kill. That's the only time it's not murder. A prisoner of war does not deserve to die.:thumbdown:

Captured enemy generals, intelligence officers, strategists and the like should probably be excecuted on pragmatic grounds. Captured grunts and NCOs though, not so much.

LeninKobaMao

29th July 2009, 11:53

I voted Yes, but only for crimes against humanity even though my grandfather who was Attorney-general of the Australian state of Tasmania was responsible for the abolition of capital punishment in the state of Tasmania. It was kind of ironic that 20 years after he abolished it a nutjob called Martin Bryant massacred 35 people leading the government to reconsidering bringing the capital punishment back. Martin Bryant got 35 life sentences :thumbup1:.

In some ways you can say I am fighting against what my grandfather fought for but there are some people who really do/did deserve to die. Like at the Nuremburg Trials I believe every single one of those men should have been executed.

mel

29th July 2009, 16:35

there are some people who really do/did deserve to die

Why? What does killing somebody solve, besides some pointless lust for revenge?

danyboy27

29th July 2009, 17:18

Captured enemy generals, intelligence officers, strategists and the like should probably be excecuted on pragmatic grounds. Captured grunts and NCOs though, not so much.

and wasting all this knowledge? you would ba amazed how much a captured general can bargain for a little more confort in jail.

Richard Nixon

29th July 2009, 17:19

and wasting all this knowledge? you would ba amazed how much a captured general can bargain for a little more confort in jail.

Comfort? I assume you mean torture or at least harsh interrogation.

danyboy27

29th July 2009, 17:25

Comfort? I assume you mean torture or at least harsh interrogation.

well no. if the dude know he will be incarcareted for a long long time, it might be at his advantage to talk, in order to get better ration, a more confortale bed etc etc.

Jazzratt

30th July 2009, 02:09

and wasting all this knowledge? you would ba amazed how much a captured general can bargain for a little more confort in jail.

You raise a good point but I think it should be taken on a case by case basis. Those that will not bargain should be excecuted. It's a fucking war and officer's lives should be just as at risk as those of their charges. More so if you ask me.

Comfort? I assume you mean torture or at least harsh interrogation.

Torture is a fucking stupid way of getting answers out of anyone. If you waterboarded me for a minute or so I would be perfectly happy to tell you that I was the queen of shiva and that all of my closest friends are al'quaida operatives (they aren't, for the record). If you even hinted at strapping an electrical charge to my bollocks I would tell you that I personally arranged the 11/9 attacks as well. Those trained to resist torture will simply be in agony/fear/discomfort and give away just as much.

Interrogating anyone captured would be, I presume, standard procedure though.

danyboy27

30th July 2009, 02:20

You raise a good point but I think it should be taken on a case by case basis. Those that will not bargain should be excecuted. It's a fucking war and officer's lives should be just as at risk as those of their charges. More so if you ask me.
.
even if they dont talk their capture represent something, if you capture an enemy general and you keep him alive, you can use it to crush the ennemy morale, killing him will make him a martyr, but taking pictures of him while he captured and sending it to the ennemy leadership will cause a blow, and it will give hope to their high ranking friend that they could get him back in a way or another. in the worst case scenaria, they wills end troops to get him back, and they will wast manpower and supply to do it, manpower that could be meaningful in another battle.

diversion, propaganda, information, killing POW is such a waste, no matter what their ranks are.

Robert

30th July 2009, 04:24

and that all of my closest friends are al'quaida operatives (they aren't, for the record)

I don't think they ask what your friends are. They ask where your friends are.
And if you give them an address, it had better check out. :scared:

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

30th July 2009, 11:59

even if they dont talk their capture represent something, if you capture an enemy general and you keep him alive, you can use it to crush the ennemy morale, killing him will make him a martyr,

Not if you "accidently" subject his command post to a sustained artillery barrage.

but taking pictures of him while he captured and sending it to the ennemy leadership will cause a blow, and it will give hope to their high ranking friend that they could get him back in a way or another.Or it could just make them angry, if they really care about him that much, more so than any other high-ranking officer. The only reason I would make any recordings of the OPFOR's captured personnel is to assure them that they are are alive and being treated well.

in the worst case scenaria, they wills end troops to get him back, and they will wast manpower and supply to do it, manpower that could be meaningful in another battle.I'm not so sure myself. If the objective is important enough, even generals could be considered expendable.

danyboy27

30th July 2009, 14:39

Not if you "accidently" subject his command post to a sustained artillery barrage.
QUOTE]

a general who die in battle is still a martyr, plus you waste artillery.

[QUOTE=NoXion;1504586]

Or it could just make them angry, if they really care about him that much, more so than any other high-ranking officer. The only reason I would make any recordings of the OPFOR's captured personnel is to assure them that they are are alive and being treated well.

one dosnt exclude the other, making ennemy officiers angry will make them more prone to error, and giving them a hope they could see one of their best buddies again cloud their judgement has well. i say treat them well, use them has bargain chip, or even better, convert them to your cause.

I'm not so sure myself. If the objective is important enough, even generals could be considered expendable.
always depend of the ennemy you confront, but a military force who have leave no man behing policy wil do everything they can to bring the guy back. i remember when one of the us soldier where abducted in iraq they mobilised an important force to find him.

it also depend of the regime who command those troops, verry often politicians tent to screw the chain of command and order political action on the battlefield