Do you debate Rothbardians?

[hobbsyoyo]

Well, if they shouldn't be allowed to kill, surely they shouldn't be allowed to lock people up either?

The obvious answer is that an innocently incarcerated man can be freed, an executed innocent man cannot be un-executed.

I've heard this. I don't know if its a bureaucratic failure or if there's no way to make it cheaper without compromising the rights of the accused considering the possibility of his innocence.

A lot of the costs come from the special seperate facilities and constant monitoring of death row inmates. Another huge cost is the automatic appeals death row inmates get to help ensure they had fair trials. They drag on for years and eat up a ton of money.

I'd agree that if its fiscally untenable that would be a possible reason not to have a death penalty.

Well, on the whole it probably isn't that expensive relative to Social Security or the Army. And as long as people are willing to foot the bill for the system we have at different levels, I guess it isn't untenable by definition. But it is still exhorbitantly expensive nonetheless and results in higher taxes for you and I.

On the other hand, in a Ted Bundy type case, there is always a danger to someone if they aren't killed. In those types of cases, the expense of getting rid of them just might be worth it.

There isn't much danger if they are permanently incarcerated and isolated from the rest of the prison population.

Well, here's the thing. Hitler and Stalin were guilty right? No disputes there?

Now lets go down a level. Ted Bundy? Brevik?

Where do you draw the line for absolute certainty? Are we absolutely certain about Hitler? What about Brevik.

That's a great point, but it reinforces what I said. You really can't be completely sure in most situations, but the death penalty is final and undoable.

For a serious reason, well, first of all, based on my view of the constitution most crimes can't be Federal crimes. There's only three different types of Federal crimes in the Constitution.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to make all kinds of laws, even from a very narrow constitutionalist perspective. That includes the ability to make laws that create Federal crimes.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

Rothtardian=Ayn Rand?

 

[Mouthwash]

Rothtardian=Ayn Rand?

No, Rothbardian=Rothbard. Isn't that obvious?

Ayn Rand called libertarians "right-wing hippies."

 

[Hygro]

And then there's the fact that overarching welfare encourages people to be more lazy, doubly so when the rich are taxed at uber-high rates.

This is not a fact. You are not allowed to make up facts.

 

[Antilogic]

Frankly, I don't even understand how the second part of that makes sense. If you give benefits to the poor, they become lazy and stay poor. You really oughta take the rawhide out and whip those poor people to get 'em moving. But raising the tax rate on the rich causes them to give up the pursuit of profit and instead just sit around like lazy fools--only giving them benefits encourages them to do something that is already in their own self-interest.

 

[Cutlass]

And then there's the fact that overarching welfare encourages people to be more lazy, doubly so when the rich are taxed at uber-high rates.

What has that got to do with anything that has ever happened in the US?

But I think the income tax rates are too high. The government shouldn't own anywhere near half of the nation's GDP.

The US government has only about 20% long run. That's no where near half.

 

[amadeus]

It's closer to 40% total, with federal being closer to 25% than 20%.

 

[Cutlass]

The long term trend of all governments in the US is in the ~35% range. With the feds closer to 20%. It's just up recently because the private economy wrecked itself and isn't correcting on its own.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well, sure, some regulations DO protect people. "Don't murder" being an obvious one.

That's not really what I meant. Government should exist to protect life, liberty, and property. Not to redistribute wealth downward... or upward for that matter.

Protection of property, without ensuring that all have property, is enforcement of political class, and thus, protection of upward wealth redistribution. If everyone had more or less equal property, then the enforcement of property rights would be egalitarian, a protection identical to the protection of citizens' lives. But they don't. The vast majority of them don't. And even within the small caste of property-owners, the disparities of wealth are vast. So the protection of property simply ensures that the creation of inequality by individuals can only be undone by those same individuals. It is sheer madness to assume or hope that someone who behaves so greedily (all the more so, if you subscribe to the idea that man is naturally greedy) will suddenly have a change of heart and become generous to an absurd degree, all under his own power. Some kind of external force must be used to force provisions from them for the rest of society, so long as you insist upon property being protected.

 

[Hygro]

There's a debt crisis and it's about 50 years away, though it might hit us confidence wise in 30. The stimulus has a negligible effect, as it's temporary and it massively offsets lost revenue (we should finish the job). Meanwhile aside from positive economic benefits, stimulus provides good social benefits.

Take one of many: spousal abuse. We know that when men lose their jobs they are a lot more likely to abuse their wives. FEMA actually includes this in their disaster preparedness. With negligible long term economic costs, why would you say it's moral to create the conditions in which people do bad things to people who don't deserve it?

This fact sure as hell isn't in a Rothbardian model.

 

[holy king]

protecting liberty sounds good, but how can you protect something that nobody can agree on what it means?

you could as well demand government to protect love.

 

[Antilogic]

protecting liberty sounds good, but how can you protect something that nobody can agree on what it means?

you could as well demand government to protect love.

When people say things like "the liberty agenda" it sounds sooo Orwellian to me.

 

[holy king]

the what

 

[Antilogic]

In some of the Ron Paul digressions, libertarians do not only post about "protecting liberty" but "the liberty agenda" of Ron Paul. It shifts from being a conversation about something everyone likes but can't solidly define to something that is kinda creepy. To be fair, it is sometimes prefaced with the contrast that evil statists prefer an anti-liberty agenda and the libertarians prefer a pro-liberty agenda.

 

[holy king]

an anti-strawman!

 

[GhostWriter16]

In some of the Ron Paul digressions, libertarians do not only post about "protecting liberty" but "the liberty agenda" of Ron Paul. It shifts from being a conversation about something everyone likes but can't solidly define to something that is kinda creepy. To be fair, it is sometimes prefaced with the contrast that evil statists prefer an anti-liberty agenda and the libertarians prefer a pro-liberty agenda.

How is the Ron Paul agenda creepy?

Even if you are economically to the left you should appreciate his views on war, surveilance, civil liberties, and ending prohibition of drugs, shouldn't you?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ghostwriter, are you going to answer another of my posts ever again?

 

[Antilogic]

How is the Ron Paul agenda creepy?

Even if you are economically to the left you should appreciate his views on war, surveilance, civil liberties, and ending prohibition of drugs, shouldn't you?

Believe it or not, this evil statist does agree with a more limited military intervention policy, rolling back the NDAA and PATRIOT Act espionage on our own citizens, and some other miscellaneous positions that Paul happens to support.

It doesn't mean the language used to discuss these ideas (i.e. the specific phrase "liberty agenda") isn't creepy.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

How is the Ron Paul agenda creepy?

Even if you are economically to the left you should appreciate his views on war, surveilance, civil liberties, and ending prohibition of drugs, shouldn't you?

These views are a consequence of his economic policies in the sense you'd be left too broke to wage war, surveille, imprison and prohibit.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Protection of property, without ensuring that all have property, is enforcement of political class, and thus, protection of upward wealth redistribution. If everyone had more or less equal property, then the enforcement of property rights would be egalitarian, a protection identical to the protection of citizens' lives. But they don't. The vast majority of them don't. And even within the small caste of property-owners, the disparities of wealth are vast. So the protection of property simply ensures that the creation of inequality by individuals can only be undone by those same individuals. It is sheer madness to assume or hope that someone who behaves so greedily (all the more so, if you subscribe to the idea that man is naturally greedy) will suddenly have a change of heart and become generous to an absurd degree, all under his own power. Some kind of external force must be used to force provisions from them for the rest of society, so long as you insist upon property being protected.

That's a fair point I suppose.

In part I would imagine that people who are less burdened by the taxperson would be more generous, although that's an assumption.

I wish I had a better answer for you. I can say that NOT protecting property would be a free-for-all nightmare...

Ghostwriter, are you going to answer another of my posts ever again?

Yes

Believe it or not, this evil statist does agree with a more limited military intervention policy, rolling back the NDAA and PATRIOT Act espionage on our own citizens, and some other miscellaneous positions that Paul happens to support.

It doesn't mean the language used to discuss these ideas (i.e. the specific phrase "liberty agenda") isn't creepy.

Fair enough.

Ultimately, if you agree with those things you should support people like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson even if you disagree with their economic policy. Neither of the two major parties are ever going to change them. And ultimately, its mostly congress that handles the budget. The President has the direct ability not to wage war and not to enforce existing laws.