Death Penalty: For or Against?

[Traitorfish]

Anarchism is about the rule-book being a power of one.

Egoism, perhaps. Social anarchism tends to be slightly more nuanced than that.

 

[Abegweit]

that contradicts Abegweit's axiom, I can only assume I lived through a dramatic crime wave without noticing it, and that the statistics are designed to hide it, as police enrollment has increased since then and this means crime must be going up too!

Unlike the vast majority of Americans, you seem to be actually connected to reality. They think that crime actually gone up whereas you have noticed that it has, in fact, declined. Your error is a little different. It's the basic logical fallacy that correlation is causation. In fact, the reason why crime has declined is because of of global warming. After all, it's blamed for everything else under the sun. Q.E.D.

 

[Abegweit]

Egoism, perhaps.

Egoism?

Social anarchism tends to be slightly more nuanced than that.

And "Social anarchism"? Why do you insist on these adjectives? Anarcho-this anarcho-that.

Anarchism has to be based on the right of the individual to choose best for himself. If he can not do that, then he is subject to the tyranny of others. One thing that statists repeatedly denounce libertarians for is our defence of the individual's right to choose for himself. They seem to think that this is a renunciation of society and it would seem that you agree with them.

But it's not that at all. True society exists when the individual embraces the whole, not when he is forced to accept it. True society lives when people work together for a common goal, not when they are forced to accept a goal imposed on them.

True society recognizes that the vast majority of people want to live together and work together voluntarily and freely. True society accepts the fact that some small fraction of people just want to be left alone. I am old enough to remember a time when the majority gossiped about the minority instead of denouncing them to state thugs.

No voting. No democracy. Just work together or work alone. The vast majority of people prefer to work together. That's great. A few will want to work alone. Let them be.

No voting. No democracy. That's tyranny. Let each decide for himself. A few will go off on their way and the rest of us will choose compromise. We will ultimately see who was right. That, by the way, is how the market works. In the vast majority of cases the staid traditional path is the right one but occasionally, just occasionally, someone out in left field will find a better way. The market is about folk deciding, each on their own, that the best way is either the old way or new one.

They don't vote. The decide for themselves.

Voting is cheap. Voting costs you nothing.

Real decisions impact your own life.

 

[Traitorfish]

Egoism?

Egoist anarchism is a school of anarchist thought that originated in the philosophy of Max Stirner, a nineteenth century Hegelian philosopher whose "name appears with familiar regularity in historically-orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best-known exponents of individualist anarchism."Stirnerite egoism held that whatever a man has the might to do, he has the right to do.

And "Social anarchism"?

Social anarchism... is an umbrella term used to differentiate two broad categories of anarchism, this one being the collectivist, with the other being individualist anarchism.

Where individualist forms of anarchism emphasize the individual and his/her will over any kinds of external determinants such as groups, society, traditions, and ideological systems,social anarchism sees "individual freedom as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid."

Why do you insist on these adjectives? Anarcho-this anarcho-that.

This is fairly basic terminology. You can hardly profess a meaningful understanding of anarchist theory without being aware of it.

Anarchism has to be based on the right of the individual to choose best for himself.

Indeed it does. However, to assume that anarchism ends here is to appoint oneself the supreme subject, and all others mere objects; in essence, it is to politicise sociopathy. All this "let them be" stuff of yours sounds nice, but without a harmonious social order, it is nothing more than petty bourgeois utopianism.

 

[Abegweit]

Firstly, I don't think you understand the concept of "exploitation", at least in the socialist usage. You seem to be using it not in reference to the appropriation of surplus value, but as a vague label for the reception of income which you, personally, disapprove of. That's no basis on which to conduct any objective analysis.

First Marxist error: the concept of "surplus value" is complete garbage. In the real world, each and every one of us knows darn well what he desires and no one else can tell us different. There is no such thing as objective analysis. Let's say that I want Mongolian stamps and you want Granny Apples so we choose to trade the one for the other. Why should any third party come in and denounce us for the trade we voluntarily chose to make? Even more importantly where did he get the right to decide that one of us of disadvantaged by our trade and how did he decide who the victim was?

Secondly, even assuming that what you say is correct (I know, I know, but please, bear with me ), that doesn't actually represent a system of economic class. Class is defined by relationship to the means of production, and not simple by inclusion in some vilified-yet-ill-defined "exploiter" group, existing at every level of society and representing no coherent economic role, and possessing of no collective interest.

I really don't care whether you think that exploiters have a collective interest or a coherent economic role. Do you know why? Because THEY DON'T. They exploit. That's what they do. Full stop. It's not a collective. It's not a group. Each lives off the whole of his own and each finds whatever allies that he can.

Really, what you offer is not class struggle anarchism, but anarchistic producerism, a petty bourgeoisie philosophy. It is, in essence, reactionaryism with just enough second-hand Proudhon mixed as not to sound quite so obviously like it.

I have absolutely no clue what this word salad might mean. And I seriously doubt that you do either. As for Proudhon, there is a lot to like and a lot to reject. I admire the man. He was, after all, the first to understand the true purpose of the state and rightfully made a LOUD NOISE. However this is not the 19th century and there are men who have integrated his moral outbursts into a true understanding of the universe and our place in it.

 

[Abegweit]

Anarchism has to be based on the right of the individual to choose best for himself.

Indeed it does. However, to assume that anarchism ends here is to appoint oneself the supreme subject, and all others mere objects

I have no idea what it might mean to be a "supreme subject". More word salads. I understand the concept of "supreme ruler". I also understand the concept of subject to said ruler.

More importantly, anarchy does indeed end here. Either I can choose for myself or I cannot.

in essence, it is to politicise sociopathy. All this "let them be" stuff of yours sounds nice, but without a harmonious social order, it is nothing more than petty bourgeois utopianism.

Word salads just keep blowing in. It's a down home nor'easter.

 

[lordsurya08]

The length and complexity of the appeals process for the average death sentence in the US far outstrips the cost of the average life sentence. (link)

Blame that on the crappy legal system, not the death penalty itself.

 

[Abegweit]

Blame that on the crappy legal system, not the death penalty itself.

You are right about that. Totally. Question: just where did said crappy legal system come from?

 

[Traitorfish]

First Marxist error: the concept of "surplus value" is complete garbage. In the real world, each and every one of us knows darn well what he desires and no one else can tell us different. There is no such thing as objective analysis. Let's say that I want Mongolian stamps and you want Granny Apples so we choose to trade the one for the other. Why should any third party come in and denounce us for the trade we voluntarily chose to make? Even more importantly where did he get the right to decide that one of us of disadvantaged by our trade and how did he decide who the victim was?

I'm really not sure if you understand the concept of surplus value. It is not a reference to any sort of subjective value, but to the fact that capitalists extract profit from workers by paying them less than the value of the product of their labour. How can a passive investor profit, if not from the labour of others? Money, sitting on its own, does little but gather dust.

Put it this way:

Mr A has an apple tree.. He planted it, tended it and harvested it. He obtains a decent harvest of 120 Granny Apples. When he takes into account the cost of land, seeds and supplies, he has 100 Apples, which he may then trade for 100 Mongolian Stamps. Good for him!
Mr B also has an apple tree. However, he did not plant it; Mr C planted it. He did not tend it or harvest it; again, Mr C took care of that side of the enterprise. But, because Mr B purchased the land, seeds and supplies (20 apples worth), he owns the entirety of the tree. Mr C can only labour as best he can, and, upon harvesting the 120 Granny Apples, receives a monetary reward equal only to 50 apples, thus allowing him to purchase only 50 Mongolian Stamps, while Mr C walks away with 50 apples. (Not to mention the 50 from Mr D, the 80 from Mr E, etc, etc.)
Mr A and Mr C engaged in labour of equal value, and yet received vastly disproportionate rewards. Mr B, however, engaged in no labour at all, yet was rewarded none the less. His original investment was repaid and more, but with no labour on his part; he merely had to organise his finances correctly, and, lo and behold, it blossomed as if of its own accord!

Mr B, then, receives more from Mr A than he ever invested, gaining without earning: that is exploitation.

I really don't care whether you think that exploiters have a collective interest or a coherent economic role. Do you know why? Because THEY DON'T. They exploit. That's what they do. Full stop. It's not a collective. It's not a group. Each lives off the whole of his own and each finds whatever allies that he can.

So you agree that, in your model, there is no exploiter class, and so no recognition of class struggle?

I have absolutely no clue what this word salad might mean. And I seriously doubt that you do either.

Ok, I'll go through it slowly.

Your fixation on a vaguely defined parasitic foe, found at every level of society, is characteristic of the philosophy of producerism, which holds the "middle class"- the salaried proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the non-corporate bourgeoisie- to be the primary productive force in society, the "working class" or waged proletariat being regarded as a dependent class, the "upper class" or corporate bourgeoisie being regarded as a manipulative and exploitative class, and the "underclass", the lumpenproletariat, being regarded as a class of parasitical limpets.
As such, it advocates in favour of a form of devolved capitalism, in opposition to both the collectivist efforts of socialism and the more centralised, authoritarian nature of modern capitalism. This is ultimately reactionary, as it advocates what is in effect a retreat from contemporary, mature capitalism towards the less developed form found in the late 18th and early 19th century. (No surprise, then, that it is most popular in the United States, where that era holds an exceptional sway over the popular imagination.)

What you present, it seems to me, is essentially this system rendered in an imprecisely libertarian form, replacing the usual provincialism-nationalism with an ill-defined anarchism, borrowing liberally from Proudhonist and individualist libertarian critiques of the state, but without engaging in the class analysis of social libertarianism.

As for Proudhon, there is a lot to like and a lot to reject. I admire the man. He was, after all, the first to understand the true purpose of the state and rightfully made a LOUD NOISE. However this is not the 19th century and there are men who have integrated his moral outbursts into a true understanding of the universe and our place in it.

Yes, and their names begin with an "M" and an "E".

 

[Syterion]

It has been shown that people are willing to risk a small chance of a big penalty more than a larger chance of a small penalty. True deterrence is caused by increasing conviction rates of guilty people, not by executing a small number of guilty ones. Money is constantly being wasted on capital punishment trials instead of going to areas that could help with conviction, thereby making violent crime MORE likely.

I used to be so tolerant of crappy arguments when I first joined here, and I was so patient in explaining my point over and over. Nowadays MobBoss and NickyJ just piss me off.

 

[Abegweit]

That said, this is my problem with anarchism as you'd have it (Well, other than the obvious disagreement since I'm a capitalist) is the majority can effectively ban ANYTHING.

Where did you get this strange notion that majorities rule under anarchy? Probably from this forum, I suppose. Here there seems to be a weird notion that, if you believe it, it's true


BTW, I don't understand the difference that a capitalist could have with anarchism. Illuminate me. IMO, the terms are synonyms.

 

[Abegweit]

It has been shown that people are willing to risk a small chance of a big penalty more than a larger chance of a small penalty. True deterrence is caused by increasing conviction rates of guilty people, not by executing a small number of guilty ones. Money is constantly being wasted on capital punishment trials instead of going to areas that could help with conviction, thereby making violent crime MORE likely.

I used to be so tolerant of crappy arguments when I first joined here, and I was so patient in explaining my point over and over. Nowadays MobBoss and NickyJ just piss me off.

Really? And where do crimes of passion fit into this "shown chance thingey" of yours? And what does this have to do with wasted money?"

 

[Syterion]

Really? And where do crimes of passion fit into this "shown chance thingey" of yours? And what does this have to do with wasted money?"

Umm, I don't know. These kinds of things are usually done in the aggregate.

The money is brought up because Capital Punishment cases cost a LOT more than normal cases.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, my theory is that societies that allow or want a death penalty are more likely to view 'killing' as a solution to certain issues. They're more likely to harbor a tolerance.

In a society that has a death penalty, the individuals are being raised to be a little bit more bloodthirsty. That's where crimes of passion come in. If we've got a society that views killing as 'acceptable in certain circumstances' (even subconsciously), then the individual people will be more likely to find killing in specific instances. Couple that with a 'crime of passion', and you might actually inspire murder by being a member of a blood thirsty society.

Remember, the presence of a death penalty doesn't actually deter murder, statistically. If you think that the DP actually deters individual murderers (and it might), then the number of potential murderers must rise in order to smooth out the murder rate.

Moderator Action: Additionally, if the thread goes back on topic, please hold off on the political discussion regarding anarcho-capitalism, or whatever. This is thread-jacking

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Blame that on the crappy legal system, not the death penalty itself.

No TF is perfectly right to blame it on the judicial murder, as there can be no system which appears to be good which does not go through at least the motions of being fair and thorough. And unlike China, the US wants it's judicial system to be seen to be fair and thorough (even if it is not).

You've two choices here quick, cheap and absolutely unfair or long dear and borderline fair, you choose.

 

[Ahovking]

An Eye for an Eye Will Only Make The World Blind