How is a court of law with many levels to go through before they actually execute someone the same as incompetent government thugs?
The same system has allowed many unjust things through it. Court decisions have caused war protestors to be arrested. Blatantly unconstitutional laws have been upheld. Government thugs simply should not be in the business of murdering people who have already been captured.
I'm highly cautious of giving the government any power it doesn't absolutely need, and for good reason.
(amazing how many people accuse others of doing exactly what they do)
I know, right?
I went into it originally trying to show that capital punishment didn't work and should be abolished.
So... you changed your opinion because you believe that capital punishments makes us safer? What a freedom-minded individual you are. Again, I bring up the TSA: Would you agree with its existence if it actually kept us safe?
Yes, like all the excuses they have out there - guns, socio-economics, geography, race and so on.
Some of those aren't merely "excuses." Trying to pinpoint a single cause is almost futile.
But while we're talking about excuses, add 'lack of the death penalty' to the list.
Life as I know it is over.
You really don't see a difference between being dead and being alive? Strange.
So why don't you understand that time can be a killer as well as a bullet?
You really don't see the difference between shooting someone and... not doing anything to them?
Admit it, there are cases where we are 100% certain
I'm not going to admit I agree with something I don't actually agree with.
And it also depends on perception. There have been many cases of people who have thought that someone committed some crime with 100% certainty but were later found out to be wrong. Plenty of checks are already in place, and yet innocent people have been (and will likely continue to be) murdered. There are not many things you can truly be 100% certain about.
And then try to rationalize it by saying that the terrorists would destroy us otherwise, as if safety should be considered more important than freedom in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free...
2: On human rights: "The draft lists every instance of the basic rights as something that is entitled by the State — as opposed to something that human beings inherently possess".
As someone who doesn't believe in magical rights fairies or magical forces that provide people with rights even when it appears they don't have them, that actually makes more sense to me.
Just because you have a small government doesn't mean it can't effectively do the job of policing society.
Right. But policing is quite different from the outright murder of prisoners., which is huge.
Don't tell me that you want worthless, incompetent government thugs to have such a power?
This clearly shows me that you haven't done your homework or perhaps you don't know how to do your homework.
That shows the sort of 'homework' that you do; research that conforms with your own opinion.
however lots of data points from across the world does.
Actually, it still wouldn't. Unless you can accurately pinpoint the exact cause and have taken into account every other explanation, then I'd refrain from trying to claim such things.
And the prime issue is about freedom and not letting the government have too much power, not safety.
Really? Did you really understand what you wrote?
Of course; you're just being pedantic. Why are you being pedantic? Because it is more convenient for you. It is convenient for you to be able to interpret what I said as saying that everything that makes us safer is bad because then you don't have to acknowledge what I actually said.
So effectively your killing them by the use of time instead of something more expedient.
That's not the same as murdering them. When you kill them, they're simply dead and don't have the ability to live any sort of life at all (even one in prison). It is ridiculous to say that there is no difference.
As for TSA, I refer to that as security theater.
So you'd accept it if it actually did make us safer, then?
Oh come on. You really think murder can't be proven with 100% accuracy?
It can't. Study a bit of philosophy and come back to me.
Should I point out cases like John Wayne Gacy? Jeff Dahmer? Many, Many others.
That'd do you no good. Your response was predictable.
You're in the naive fantasy if you believe that
Really? I'm in a naive fantasy for pointing out that proving something with 100% accuracy isn't feasibly possible in cases such as this?
So far they have found that the power for the President to authorize this falls under Article II powers for national security purposes.
Then, once again, they're not doing their jobs. Infringing upon people's rights is not acceptable even if you believe there to be a threat to "national security."
Some people may, a very small number that probably oppose the death penalty in the first place.
Right, but I'm saying that anyone who claims to want a small government but supports the death penalty doesn't actually want a small government. Killing imprisoned people is no small matter.
Did you take a US Civics class?
Yes, and it was a complete waste of time, like public school in general. You're better off doing your own research than listening to such naive propaganda about how things should work; they don't work that way in reality.
That said, I'm not sure why you asked such a question and then followed up with a statement I was already aware of.
The Constitution is for limited government.
Yes. And? Even the term "limited government" has numerous meanings; it's completely ambiguous. I for one think that the US constitution gave the government too much power.
As for governments - executed people back then too with limited Government.
When I say "small government," I am not referring to whether or not the government violated the constitution. You can have a very large government that follows the constitution to a T. Many people use the terms "small government" and "big government" this way, not in the 'following the constitution' way.
No executions and crime goes up.
In case you weren't aware, plenty of countries have already gotten rid of the death penalty and no such thing has been observed. And actually, even if it has been observed in some cases, correlation != causation.
Plus, freedom is more important than safety. If you believe we should give worthless, incompetent government thugs
For example Baltimore City and Baltimore County. The County has the death penalty and the City doesn't. It's amazing the difference in crime on the sides of that political line.
Confusing correlation with causation, are we? A common error, and also completely unconvincing.
So "it is not a deterrent" is BS.
You know what's really BS? Arguing for something because you think it'll make us safer. That's not the attitude anyone living in a free country should have. I suppose you'd be okay with the TSA if it actually did make us safer? I hope not.
Make sure it isn't used for murder.
This is a naive fantasy; you can't prove that someone is guilty with 100% accuracy. And frankly, even if they could, I still wouldn't want worthless government thugs in the business of murdering prisoners.
It seems your comment is the way it is because you completely misunderstood what I meant. I hope you don't claim to want a small government, because you don't seem to actually want one; people like that make the rest of us who truly do want a small government look bad.
there is decades of legal precedence in the US that you help the government collect evidence for a criminal investigation no matter what your business model is
And the government has also violated the constitution many, many times; that doesn't make it right.
So, given the NSA versus greedy companies, I'll take the NSA any day.
There is no such dichotomy, and you should be extremely concerned about the NSA spying on everyone's communications. The US is a country founded on the idea of distrusting authority, and yet you basically suggest that we should not care when the government is essentially crumpling up the constitution and tossing it into the garbage. What a sorry state of affairs this is that people so naive even exist.
Analysts aren't looking for random law breakers, they are looking for people believed to be planning terrorist acts.
You are assuming, of course, that the government is made up of perfect angels that never make mistakes and never abuse their powers. Such a government has never existed throughout history.
To trust all current and future people in the government to such an extent is borderline insane. I honestly have zero idea why people believe the government is only looking out for our best interests here.
What the hell? You think spying on everyone so we can maybe catch a few terrorists is acceptable in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? You think it's okay for our government to blatantly violate the constitution and then claim that they didn't actually do so because some secretive court rubberstamped general warrants?
You might be just a little paranoid though.
There has never once been a government that has failed to abuse its powers throughout history. Why do you believe me to be paranoid when I suggest that allowing the government to collect nearly everyone's communications is an awful idea? Do you believe the people in the government to be perfect angels? I do not understand why you would say such a thing otherwise.
I hope you were joking; otherwise, you are profoundly ignorant and naive.
What makes you think you are special enough to deserve their attention?
What makes you so damn selfish that you only care if the government abuses you? Is it not a problem if they abuse anyone? There are people who are 'special enough' for the government to harass.
You're trivializing the issue, and I strongly suspect it's because you don't truly understand the situation.
That isn't really a case of one being "inside" the other, and it isn't as if one of them suddenly sprouted on the other out of the blue, so it's not like the body belongs to one or the other.
Bullshit. I'm an atheist and I'm all for appropriate application of the death penalty.
There is no appropriate application of it.
It should go beyond reasonable doubt to "only magic could explain how this guy isn't guilty."
You can never be 100% certain. Allowing the government to imprison people is already bad enough. Killing them ensures they'll never be able to live any sort of life even if they're innocent, and frankly, shouldn't be done even if they are 100% guilty.
it's a social construct that's good for "advanced" countries.
There is no proof that it's good, and pointing to past or current societies that did/do not have it does not constitute as proof because they were/are vastly different than our own in a multitude of other ways. Copyright is not only unjust, but it has not even been proven to be effective, yet it is allowed to exist. What a pathetic state of affairs.
You don't see the problem with spying on countries that are not actively hostile towards you? Well, I do. Just because it's legal doesn't make it okay.
and expecting it not to happen strikes me as hopelessly naive.
And perhaps we're also naive for expecting the government to not violate the constitution, but they still shouldn't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
How is a court of law with many levels to go through before they actually execute someone the same as incompetent government thugs?
The same system has allowed many unjust things through it. Court decisions have caused war protestors to be arrested. Blatantly unconstitutional laws have been upheld. Government thugs simply should not be in the business of murdering people who have already been captured.
I'm highly cautious of giving the government any power it doesn't absolutely need, and for good reason.
(amazing how many people accuse others of doing exactly what they do)
I know, right?
I went into it originally trying to show that capital punishment didn't work and should be abolished.
So... you changed your opinion because you believe that capital punishments makes us safer? What a freedom-minded individual you are. Again, I bring up the TSA: Would you agree with its existence if it actually kept us safe?
Yes, like all the excuses they have out there - guns, socio-economics, geography, race and so on.
Some of those aren't merely "excuses." Trying to pinpoint a single cause is almost futile.
But while we're talking about excuses, add 'lack of the death penalty' to the list.
Life as I know it is over.
You really don't see a difference between being dead and being alive? Strange.
So why don't you understand that time can be a killer as well as a bullet?
You really don't see the difference between shooting someone and... not doing anything to them?
Admit it, there are cases where we are 100% certain
I'm not going to admit I agree with something I don't actually agree with.
And it also depends on perception. There have been many cases of people who have thought that someone committed some crime with 100% certainty but were later found out to be wrong. Plenty of checks are already in place, and yet innocent people have been (and will likely continue to be) murdered. There are not many things you can truly be 100% certain about.
and trying to hide behind philosophy won't help.
Hide behind it? No need.
Wow. It's pretty pathetic when the only 'good' thing you have to say about something is that it's not quite as bad as something else.
Both main parties are almost entirely corrupt; people shouldn't vote for either.
And then try to rationalize it by saying that the terrorists would destroy us otherwise, as if safety should be considered more important than freedom in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free...
2: On human rights: "The draft lists every instance of the basic rights as something that is entitled by the State — as opposed to something that human beings inherently possess".
As someone who doesn't believe in magical rights fairies or magical forces that provide people with rights even when it appears they don't have them, that actually makes more sense to me.
- Japan has schools that primarily educate.
I'm sure the US has a few of those as well. The problem is that they're nearly nonexistent... everywhere.
is not irreconcilable with preferring a stone cold killer to be stone cold dead instead of outliving his victims by decades.
Preferring it is not the problem.
Just because you have a small government doesn't mean it can't effectively do the job of policing society.
Right. But policing is quite different from the outright murder of prisoners., which is huge.
Don't tell me that you want worthless, incompetent government thugs to have such a power?
This clearly shows me that you haven't done your homework or perhaps you don't know how to do your homework.
That shows the sort of 'homework' that you do; research that conforms with your own opinion.
however lots of data points from across the world does.
Actually, it still wouldn't. Unless you can accurately pinpoint the exact cause and have taken into account every other explanation, then I'd refrain from trying to claim such things.
And the prime issue is about freedom and not letting the government have too much power, not safety.
Really? Did you really understand what you wrote?
Of course; you're just being pedantic. Why are you being pedantic? Because it is more convenient for you. It is convenient for you to be able to interpret what I said as saying that everything that makes us safer is bad because then you don't have to acknowledge what I actually said.
So effectively your killing them by the use of time instead of something more expedient.
That's not the same as murdering them. When you kill them, they're simply dead and don't have the ability to live any sort of life at all (even one in prison). It is ridiculous to say that there is no difference.
As for TSA, I refer to that as security theater.
So you'd accept it if it actually did make us safer, then?
Oh come on. You really think murder can't be proven with 100% accuracy?
It can't. Study a bit of philosophy and come back to me.
Should I point out cases like John Wayne Gacy? Jeff Dahmer? Many, Many others.
That'd do you no good. Your response was predictable.
You're in the naive fantasy if you believe that
Really? I'm in a naive fantasy for pointing out that proving something with 100% accuracy isn't feasibly possible in cases such as this?
Most people are saying that our country is heading towards a police state, not that it already is the same as or worse than East Germany and such.
So far they have found that the power for the President to authorize this falls under Article II powers for national security purposes.
Then, once again, they're not doing their jobs. Infringing upon people's rights is not acceptable even if you believe there to be a threat to "national security."
I can recognize your posts even without reading your name. Are you happy to be one of the most infamous bootlickers on this website at the moment?
I wish they had done... something. Instead, virtually every single person in congress voted for it.
Some people may, a very small number that probably oppose the death penalty in the first place.
Right, but I'm saying that anyone who claims to want a small government but supports the death penalty doesn't actually want a small government. Killing imprisoned people is no small matter.
Did you take a US Civics class?
Yes, and it was a complete waste of time, like public school in general. You're better off doing your own research than listening to such naive propaganda about how things should work; they don't work that way in reality.
That said, I'm not sure why you asked such a question and then followed up with a statement I was already aware of.
The Constitution is for limited government.
Yes. And? Even the term "limited government" has numerous meanings; it's completely ambiguous. I for one think that the US constitution gave the government too much power.
As for governments - executed people back then too with limited Government.
When I say "small government," I am not referring to whether or not the government violated the constitution. You can have a very large government that follows the constitution to a T. Many people use the terms "small government" and "big government" this way, not in the 'following the constitution' way.
No executions and crime goes up.
In case you weren't aware, plenty of countries have already gotten rid of the death penalty and no such thing has been observed. And actually, even if it has been observed in some cases, correlation != causation.
Plus, freedom is more important than safety. If you believe we should give worthless, incompetent government thugs
For example Baltimore City and Baltimore County. The County has the death penalty and the City doesn't. It's amazing the difference in crime on the sides of that political line.
Confusing correlation with causation, are we? A common error, and also completely unconvincing.
So "it is not a deterrent" is BS.
You know what's really BS? Arguing for something because you think it'll make us safer. That's not the attitude anyone living in a free country should have. I suppose you'd be okay with the TSA if it actually did make us safer? I hope not.
Make sure it isn't used for murder.
This is a naive fantasy; you can't prove that someone is guilty with 100% accuracy. And frankly, even if they could, I still wouldn't want worthless government thugs in the business of murdering prisoners.
It seems your comment is the way it is because you completely misunderstood what I meant. I hope you don't claim to want a small government, because you don't seem to actually want one; people like that make the rest of us who truly do want a small government look bad.
there is decades of legal precedence in the US that you help the government collect evidence for a criminal investigation no matter what your business model is
And the government has also violated the constitution many, many times; that doesn't make it right.
So, given the NSA versus greedy companies, I'll take the NSA any day.
There is no such dichotomy, and you should be extremely concerned about the NSA spying on everyone's communications. The US is a country founded on the idea of distrusting authority, and yet you basically suggest that we should not care when the government is essentially crumpling up the constitution and tossing it into the garbage. What a sorry state of affairs this is that people so naive even exist.
Analysts aren't looking for random law breakers, they are looking for people believed to be planning terrorist acts.
You are assuming, of course, that the government is made up of perfect angels that never make mistakes and never abuse their powers. Such a government has never existed throughout history.
To trust all current and future people in the government to such an extent is borderline insane. I honestly have zero idea why people believe the government is only looking out for our best interests here.
Why can't you do both?
Why is the EFF suggesting that people run Tor nodes?
Presumably, that's if you want to help other people out.
What the hell? You think spying on everyone so we can maybe catch a few terrorists is acceptable in a country that's supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave? You think it's okay for our government to blatantly violate the constitution and then claim that they didn't actually do so because some secretive court rubberstamped general warrants?
You might be just a little paranoid though.
There has never once been a government that has failed to abuse its powers throughout history. Why do you believe me to be paranoid when I suggest that allowing the government to collect nearly everyone's communications is an awful idea? Do you believe the people in the government to be perfect angels? I do not understand why you would say such a thing otherwise.
I hope you were joking; otherwise, you are profoundly ignorant and naive.
What makes you think you are special enough to deserve their attention?
What makes you so damn selfish that you only care if the government abuses you? Is it not a problem if they abuse anyone? There are people who are 'special enough' for the government to harass.
You're trivializing the issue, and I strongly suspect it's because you don't truly understand the situation.
That isn't really a case of one being "inside" the other, and it isn't as if one of them suddenly sprouted on the other out of the blue, so it's not like the body belongs to one or the other.
Bullshit. I'm an atheist and I'm all for appropriate application of the death penalty.
There is no appropriate application of it.
It should go beyond reasonable doubt to "only magic could explain how this guy isn't guilty."
You can never be 100% certain. Allowing the government to imprison people is already bad enough. Killing them ensures they'll never be able to live any sort of life even if they're innocent, and frankly, shouldn't be done even if they are 100% guilty.
it's a social construct that's good for "advanced" countries.
There is no proof that it's good, and pointing to past or current societies that did/do not have it does not constitute as proof because they were/are vastly different than our own in a multitude of other ways. Copyright is not only unjust, but it has not even been proven to be effective, yet it is allowed to exist. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Both should respect each others property
Even imaginary property?
we won't be legalizing online gambling and they wont become a copyright free zone.
Well, that's a shame, because banning online gambling and having copyright are not things I'd expect from any free country.
You don't see the problem with spying on countries that are not actively hostile towards you? Well, I do. Just because it's legal doesn't make it okay.
and expecting it not to happen strikes me as hopelessly naive.
And perhaps we're also naive for expecting the government to not violate the constitution, but they still shouldn't do it.