|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject: 1321 |
 |
|
| Scurra wrote: |
No, I mean when, for instance, a certain investment bank deliberate bundles "toxic assets" and sells them to clients knowing that (a) they are toxic* and (b) another client knows this and is using this information. That's exploiting the market, not a self-correcting mechanism.
Or perhaps you might call something a "superior knowledge of the facts" whereas I might call it "insider trading".  |
Either the transaction was fraudulent (if the seller misled or lied about the facts) or the buyer relied on "good faith" (i.e. they didn't bother looking into the detail). In neither case could you call the activity "market manipulation". The former should be illegal and the latter shouldn't be.
| Quote: |
| Well I could say the same thing about, say, Isaac Newton. That doesn't make Newton irrelevant. I wasn't saying that Smith was somehow the pinnacle of our understanding of economic theory, merely that he came to certain conclusions about the side-effects of "free" markets and considered some of them to be adverse. And for someone who is frequently cited (however inaccurately) as being some sort of "arch-capitalist", I still think it's worth mentioning that. |
Adam Smith's beliefs are often used in arguments against free market advocates saying things like "...even Adam Smith thought this kind of intervention was necessary" as if we don't dare argue again him. The fact is, he wasn't really any kind of "arch-capitalist" (by today's standards) and most free market advocates today would take issue with his beliefs that intervention is sometimes a good thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Samadhi
+1
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:30 pm Post subject: 1322 |
|
|
I think I should start a thread where we (US) talk about other countries' political leaders and processes. Sure, I know just enough to sound plausible to people here but absolutely ridiculous to those in the other countries but that's not stopping anyone so far.
Who's with me?
_________________
And he lived happily ever after. Except for the dieing at the end and the heartbreak in between. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:57 pm Post subject: 1323 |
|
|
We'd need a separate thread for Berlusconi, otherwise things would get too confusing.
Maybe a "What would <blank> do?" forum, with an individual thread for Berlusconi, Obama, Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler, Lincoln, Churchill, Bart, Lisa, etc., and we could discuss how they'd handle the various topical events.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 2:45 am Post subject: 1324 |
|
|
| Samadhi wrote: |
I think I should start a thread where we (US) talk about other countries' political leaders and processes. Sure, I know just enough to sound plausible to people here but absolutely ridiculous to those in the other countries but that's not stopping anyone so far.
Who's with me? |
Sorry. :-/ I'd been reading a fair bit about the Repubs and watched that particular debate, and cp isn't interested so I was hoping to chatter about it here. I know I went a bit overboard about it.
Could you tell me what made me sounds ridiculous? I don't know how to convey it and make you believe me, but I'm genuinely interested and genuinely sad that you think I'm shot-taking or stupid or whatever. What am I getting wrong?
(p.s. PLEASE talk to me about Australian politicians, you can't sound any more ridiculous than most people in my town) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 10:22 am Post subject: 1325 |
|
|
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| In neither case could you call the activity "market manipulation". The former should be illegal and the latter shouldn't be. |
Absolutely. That's why I said it was "exploiting" the market as a pejorative term. It's a line-drawing exercise - I think we might both agree that the former steps over the line, but we probably disagree about where the line actually should be drawn. (For instance, I understood that the financial markets were meant to be an aid to growth in private and public sectors by providing sources of investment, not a glorified casino.)
| Quote: |
| The fact is, he wasn't really any kind of "arch-capitalist" (by today's standards) and most free market advocates today would take issue with his beliefs that intervention is sometimes a good thing. |
Also true, and I don't think I said he wasn't (iyswim). But I don't think that changes my comparison with Newton though. And people are still called Keynesian even though modern "interventionists" would disagree with some of Keynes' theories today.
As to the original argument: what I said in my earlier post was "When you can show me a real "market" then I might be convinced". It's all very well to talk theory, but except in certain very tightly controlled circumstances there is no such thing as a "free" market; they simply never survive for long enough.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 2:11 pm Post subject: 1326 |
|
|
Scurra
| Quote: |
| Absolutely. That's why I said it was "exploiting" the market as a pejorative term. It's a line-drawing exercise - I think we might both agree that the former steps over the line, but we probably disagree about where the line actually should be drawn. (For instance, I understood that the financial markets were meant to be an aid to growth in private and public sectors by providing sources of investment, not a glorified casino.) |
If one wants to invest one's money in a mysterious financial package without finding out about what it constitutes are making the choice to gamble, to play in a glorified casino. Maybe they don't care because they look around and see a lot of other people doing it and getting rich quick. But at the end of the day, it is the investor's responsibility to decide how careful they want to be with their investments.
Would you walk into a supermarket and buy a tin without any ingredients listed on the side? Who knows, but the fact is the supermarket isn't doing anything wrong by offering it for sale, if it can find willing buyers. Lying about it is quite a different matter.
So, no, I don't agree this is about arbitary line drawing. We are talking about categorical differences here.
| Quote: |
| Also true, and I don't think I said he wasn't (iyswim). But I don't think that changes my comparison with Newton though. And people are still called Keynesian even though modern "interventionists" would disagree with some of Keynes' theories today. |
New-Keynesian's are considered subscribers of the basic principles laid down by Keynes. They may have evolved his theories a bit, tinkered here and there but essentially they're operating in the same paradigm.
Adam Smith came before the marginalist revolution which has shaped the schools of economic thought that followed it. Free market thinkers today tend to be rooted in quite a differen paradigm than the kind of thinking that informed Adam Smith's theories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: 1327 |
|
|
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| Would you walk into a supermarket and buy a tin without any ingredients listed on the side? Who knows, but the fact is the supermarket isn't doing anything wrong by offering it for sale, if it can find willing buyers. Lying about it is quite a different matter. |
I think we are talking at cross purposes (as always happens in forum discussions!)
Selling an unlabelled product I agree would probably not be illegal but it would surely be unethical. (My contention is that we appear to disagree on where that unethical line should be drawn.)
Selling a mislabelled product would however definitely be illegal. But in that case the company would be likely be prosecuted, and would probably go out of business very quickly. The question is why the [unprintable words] doesn't that seem to have happened to anyone in the financial sector. Yes, someone like Nick Leeson is punished, but it's curious that these examples are so few and far between - and they are almost always dismissed as being "rogue traders".
A better comparison in my mind would be with something like computer security. Each time the hackers break the system, patches are applied to stop it happening again. And lo, it doesn't happen again in that specific way. The hackers merely find another way of doing it.
And for me, that's how it looks as though the financial markets work. Each time a way of leveraging credit is closed down because it breaks the system, they invent a new one and wait until that breaks the system. That's the issue I have with the current system. As I said, I have no particular beef with the "theory" of free markets, but I also have no particular beef with the "theory" of socialism. The problem as I see it is that the existence of human greed renders both of them broken beyond repair when you actually try to apply them in the real world.
| Quote: |
| Adam Smith came before the marginalist revolution which has shaped the schools of economic thought that followed it. Free market thinkers today tend to be rooted in quite a differen paradigm than the kind of thinking that informed Adam Smith's theories. |
This seems to be going around in circles a bit. I said before that I wasn't citing Smith as some sort of ultimate authority, I said that he has a position in the popular consciousness that means he is associated with that particular ideology (for want of a better word) but that he didn't really subscribe to it.
I think that what I was trying to articulate was that to me modern free market thinkers appear to make some assumptions about "society" and about "individuals" that seem fundamentally flawed - and that when I look at what Smith writes, even allowing for two centuries of development, he still seems to have some valid points to make.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 4:11 am Post subject: 1328 |
|
|
As someone who knows basically nothing about economics (I've recently tried to read a little bit, but trying to conceptualise something as large and nebulous as an entire economic system is not coming easily at ALL) this is fascinating.
I am only posting to drop a link to a particularly politically-savvy Ron Paul attack ad on Rick Perry that I saw today. It made me laugh aloud and I think it's really well-made, particularly if you think Reagan is awesome. I love the use of the word "cheerleader" without actually coming out and making the personal attack. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fried Egg
Breakfast Cannibal
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:14 am Post subject: 1329 |
|
|
Scurra
| Quote: |
| Selling an unlabelled product I agree would probably not be illegal but it would surely be unethical. (My contention is that we appear to disagree on where that unethical line should be drawn.) |
Why is it even unethical? My child happily paid 50p the other day to play on a "lucky dip" stall. She had no idea what she was going to get for her money. Was the owner of the stall being unethical?
| Quote: |
| That's the issue I have with the current system. As I said, I have no particular beef with the "theory" of free markets, but I also have no particular beef with the "theory" of socialism. The problem as I see it is that the existence of human greed renders both of them broken beyond repair when you actually try to apply them in the real world. |
Actually, I would argue that the theory of socialism itself is broken, it's not just human nature that causes it to break down in practice. But that's another argument.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:36 am Post subject: 1330 |
|
|
| Fried Egg wrote: |
| Why is it even unethical? My child happily paid 50p the other day to play on a "lucky dip" stall. She had no idea what she was going to get for her money. Was the owner of the stall being unethical? |
That's an interesting question. Perhaps the difference isn't in whether the product is unlabelled, but in what the product could possibly be. If the owner of the stall knew in advance that no-one could "profit" from the Lucky Dip then that would surely be unethical? (Unless it was clearly advertised as such in advance, I suppose.)
| Quote: |
| Actually, I would argue that the theory of socialism itself is broken, it's not just human nature that causes it to break down in practice. But that's another argument.. |
Isn't that why we are here? My argument (as it has been all along) is that most economic theories are generally pretty sound - as long as they only exist in artificial self-contained worlds. But because the "real" world doesn't operate like that, any that are tried out tend to break down, for all sorts of different reasons. Some survive for longer than others (I am happy to concede that socialism is one of the more fragile ones) but none of them are particularly stable.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:43 am Post subject: 1331 |
|
|
http://teapartyzombiesmustdie.com/
Not annoyed by the game per se, but by the fact that the lib version isn't out yet. I have needs too, darnit.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:14 am Post subject: 1332 |
|
|
Has anyone else watched Obama's American Jobs Act speech?
I feel as though I am being wooed against my will. Like, my cheating ex has just showed up on the doorstep with a bunch of flowers claiming he always loved me all along, and I know that if I trust him again, he's just going to break my heart again, but he's smiling that smile and I'm remembering all the good times we had in the beginning, y'know?
"I'm different now, baby. I've changed. I'm really gonna close corporate tax loopholes this time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:40 am Post subject: 1333 |
|
|
I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with the President of China, but a few months ago he basically said that modern "media democracy" could never work because it inevitably led to countries being led by charismatic PR people who know how to look good on television and have some rhetorical skill, but who are not necessarily suited to actually being competent at top-level management. I think he is pretty much on the button. (Then again, I think that management skills are something that are in rather short supply at the moment. Just because someone is promoted to "management" doesn't mean they are any good at it. Especially not if they were hired for different skills entirely.)
I had a lot of hope myself for Obama but once he appointed his advisors and they appeared to all be apologists for the financial sector and war-hawks I revised my expectations downwards. I still think he achieved a minor miracle with the healthcare reforms*, but most other things have been flat at best. And yet he can speechify with the best.
(*no, I don't want to start that argument again. I'm not making any comment about them, I'm just observing that it's amazing anything got through at all.)
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: 1334 |
|
|
Interesting point. I have to say that I agree with Winston Churchill on this point. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government ... except all the others that have been tried.”
IMHO, They're just trying to justify stamping out the free speech rights of their opposition. Even if they are not, that is what such a policy will inevitably lead to. In the long run (probably in the short run, too) this will be worse than tolerating the charismatic but useless leaders coming forth.
Of course, it still doesn't explain George W. Bush. He lead the country to ruin without being especially charismatic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 5:31 pm Post subject: 1335 |
|
|
I'm not sure I agree re GWB - he didn't have to be especially charismatic, he just had to be more charismatic than the opposition. And the Democrats were doubly screwed by virtue of the fact that whoever they chose was going to look grey compared to Clinton (after all, that's pretty much how Clinton won first time around, by outcharming Bush Sr.) And then in 2004 Bush was in a strong position (in much the same way that Blair was in the UK.)
And I certainly don't contest your argument against my observation. The question as I see it is whether the US has already lost a claim to having the right of free speech when "popular opinion" appears to be significantly affected by who can spend the most on getting their message across. There is a serious danger that the polarisation of the debate that has been happening over the past generation is now too serious to resolve under the current political system. As I understand it, a number of recent Presidential elections have resulted in a remarkably similar 50/50 split in the vote, with the swing going fractionally one way and then the other. That's actually not a very good outcome if you happen to be on the losing side in the way that a convincing loss can be.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:43 am Post subject: 1337 |
|
|
| The Idiot in JDTAY's video wrote: |
| The other represents the very worst form of American opportunism. Vacuous, crass, and according to almost every biographer, vindictive too. |
Here I thought he was talking about himself.
Fucking amazing.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mackay
Saviour of Spiders
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 07, 2011 3:30 am Post subject: 1338 |
|
|
| Ugh, how tasteless can you be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: 1340 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
Of course, it still doesn't explain George W. Bush. He lead the country to ruin without being especially charismatic. |
He actually was rather charismatic for a short time after 9/11. He made some brilliant and compelling speeches and actually did a masterful job of bringing the country together......for a short time.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:08 pm Post subject: 1341 |
|
|
More amusement than annoying:
What liberal media?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:08 pm Post subject: 1342 |
|
|
So the US sets up a "super committee" that needs to agree on how to rebalance the budget which has got out of control. It puts six Democrats and six Republicans on it.
Except that the six Republicans turn out all to have signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever raise taxes under any circumstances.
How the hell did anyone expect anything other than the complete failure of these "negotiations"?
I'm not saying that there might not have been intransigence on the side of the Democrats too (although being biased I would observe that the problem with being willing to compromise is that it only works if both sides are prepared to do so, and recent experience has shown that the Republicans seem to have lost this idea. It would be a novelty for Democrats to show similar resolve, but not impossible.)
But to enter into a serious debate about the future of one of the biggest economies on the planet knowing full well that you are not prepared to consider even looking at one of the major planks of it strikes me as being downright irresponsible to say the least.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 3:55 pm Post subject: 1343 |
|
|
At least it's nice to see Obama threatening to veto any attempt to rescind the automatic cuts. I mean, I know he'll cave, but it's nice that he still cares about us enough to pretend.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:45 pm Post subject: 1344 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
Except that the six Republicans turn out all to have signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never ever raise taxes under any circumstances.
How the hell did anyone expect anything other than the complete failure of these "negotiations"?
|
If these "negotiations" prevented tax increases, I consider them a major success.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:20 pm Post subject: 1345 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| If these "negotiations" prevented tax increases, I consider them a major success. |
You obviously have a different idea of "major success" to me (and, indeed, to e.g. Ronald Reagan...) But hey, it's your country.
Having said that, I am happy to accept that raising taxes and cutting spending should ideally be done during a boom - as Clinton did, but Bush notably did not. Doing it during the biggest recession for almost a century is probably a bad idea. However, if one is determined to do it, it's just the idea that you do just the cutting spending bit that strikes me as being perverse. Then again I care about other people. </sanctimonious git>
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2011 11:45 pm Post subject: 1346 |
|
|
Scurra, you need to understand one thing.... NO ONE here is talking about cutting spending!!! When they give you that impression, they are only talking about reducing the proposed increases. So, instead of a 10% increase, a 6% increase would represent a 40% cut in spending (from 10 to 6). Welcome to government economics.
On the other hand, when they talk about increasing taxes, they mean it. The actually are referring to taking MORE money from those who earn and giving it to government, who wastes via inefficiency, graft, corruption, and downright stupidity.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: 1347 |
|
|
The other day I read the local paper and there was an AP hitpiece about the growing problem of violent Jewish extremists.
http://www.newsday.com/news/israeli-girl-s-plight-highlights-jewish-extremism-1.3412634?qr=1
Just remembered why I don't subscribe to any newspapers.
BTW, try going to Google News and entering "Jewish extremists" and see how many results you get.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:05 pm Post subject: 1349 |
|
|
Hey look, something Scurra and the rest of us can agree on: Obama's part of the 1%. 
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: 1350 |
|
|
It seems awfully quiet here, lately. Maybe this will perk you up.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject: 1351 |
|
|
Unless you plan to resurrect Samadhi so he can post in this thread, there's no call for necromancy.
(Too soon?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:15 pm Post subject: 1352 |
|
|
Just because.
http://nymag.com/news/frank-rich/conservative-donors-2012-4/
And to think that in the UK, we're worried about people who donate £250k!
Actually, I'm willing to bet that - even though some parties will squeal about it - the UK will end up with extremely restrictive political donation limits before very long, because we've entered a very strange period at the moment where the growth of the apathetic means that activists are powerful again, and they are getting more focussed than ever. And caps on donations are something that unites quite a lot of the different campaign groups at the moment.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trojan Horse
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: 1353 |
|
|
This November, Californians will vote on whether to abolish the death penalty.
Until now, I've been content to be "hopelessly undecided" on this particular issue. Now I actually have to weigh in.
Urg.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:23 pm Post subject: 1354 |
|
|
I fail to see any argument for death penalty.
1. It's not a deterrent.
2. It's MORE expensive than just keeping the person locked up for the rest of his life. (This one surprised me, and the possible cost savings was, to me, the best argument for the death penalty. If it isn't there...)
3. It doesn't really provide any sort of closure or emotional release to the families of the victims, from what I understand. I imagine that this is not 100% accurate -- there are probably some victims' families which it does help. I'll concede that this is a partial argument for the death penalty.
Any others?
Arguments against:
I would not argue against it on humanitarian grounds. I believe that killing humans is wrong; and I also believe that there are things a person can do which sacrifices his right to be called human. Someone who has raped and murdered children is not a human -- go ahead and kill him with good conscience. However...
1. The biggest clear argument against death penalty is, IMHO, how often the convictions are simply wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates. While our justice system is not as blatantly racist as it used to be*, it still makes mistakes.
2. Another argument is how inconsistently the death penalty is applied. It turns out that wealthy people never end up on death row, because they have better lawyers. Even if you reverse my first objection by requiring absolutely conclusive DNA evidence before considering the death penalty, you'll never overcome this one. A better lawyer might have gotten that evidence blocked early on, or mitigated, or whatever. I realize that there will always be an imbalance in the justice system, that wealthier people have an advantage, but this distinction seems too much, to me.
* Some years back I read a biography of Thurgood Marshall (first black Supreme Court Justice). His first case as a lawyer presenting to the Supreme Court was a successful attempt to commute a death penalty conviction to be merely life in prison. The horrifying aspect of the case is that it was of a black man whom everyone involved, from the police to the prosecutor to the judge, knew was actually innocent of the crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gomez
candid chimera
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:32 pm Post subject: 1355 |
|
|
| The best argument against the death penalty, IMO, is that every stage of the process -from Grand Jury to gas chamber - is overseen by fallible human beings with their own preconceptions and biases, as well as a propensity for error. Therefore, any state which introduces the death penalty does so knowing that eventually an innocent person will be executed. It's not a risk, it's a mathematical certainty. Fallibility+time=Error. Simple as that. And if you're okay with that, if you're okay with the knowledge that innocent people will die in pursuit of the Utilitarian idea of the greater good the death penalty is supposed to represent, then...well, what's really the difference between you and the murderers you're supposed to be punishing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jack_Ian
Big Endian
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:59 pm Post subject: 1356 |
|
|
The only realistic way to reduce the crime stats, IMO, is to introduce summary execution for the reporting of crime.
Don't know if this has ever been tried, but it's sure to produce a measurable improvement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:15 am Post subject: 1357 |
|
|
So have any of the posts this month been from a libertarian point of view?
I don't mind the political talk. But this thread had a particular viewpoint, and the three people who posted the most in this thread mostly don't post on GL any more (I'm thinking of Chaz, Pablo, and sadly Samadhi.)
Of course, I'm enough of a libertarian to let people discuss non-libertarian viewpoints in a libertarian thread if that's what they want to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:45 am Post subject: 1358 |
|
|
| Zag wrote: |
| 2. It's MORE expensive than just keeping the person locked up for the rest of his life. (This one surprised me, and the possible cost savings was, to me, the best argument for the death penalty. If it isn't there...) |
And the reason it's more expensive is the endless appeals, without which far more innocent people would be executed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: 1359 |
|
|
I have no way to prove or even support this, but in my humble opinion, the mere existence of the death penalty in a "civilization" condones killing, or at least makes it less taboo. Counter-intuitively, consequently and ironically, the death penalty could actually increase the incidence of homicide. In any case, to me it seems barbaric and unnecessary, and has no proven, measurable benefits.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:47 pm Post subject: 1360 |
|
|
Life is not sacred. Nor should it be.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
