For or Against Capital Punishment?

[deanhills]

1) Most anarchists are anticapitalists

I would have thought most socialists are anticapitalists?

2) Most socialists are at least libertarian

This can make sense agreed.

3) Neoliberalism is split 50-50 between libertarians and authoritarians

OK, but think I'm a little out of my depth here, this has to be getting to the fourth dimension of politics?

4) Most capitalists are authoritian

I can see Maragaret Thatcher as a capitalist and authoritarian at the same time, but not Blair, Brown, Hitler or Reagan. Didn't Hitler say he was a national socialist?

 

[Dirk]

I would have thought most socialists are anticapitalists?

Uh, yes, sorry. Definitely most.

OK, but think I'm a little out of my depth here, this has to be getting to the fourth dimension of politics?

Well, let's say there are two planes. (As in levels, not aircraft). I'm pointing out where some of them cross over. It's not always like this, but only sometimes. The two levels are usually not dependent on one another.

An economic scale:

communism...socialism...centrism...conservatism...neoliberalism

And a social scale:

anarchism...libertarianism...balanced...authoritarianism...fascism

Sorry if it's confusing. I'm doing my best. But libertarians can be anywhere on the economic level. I'm fiercely libertarian, if not anarchist, and i'm somewhere in between communism and socialism. The libertarians you usually refer to are neoliberals. I find their ideology flawed because they only want more freedom for the capitalists. I fight for the freedom of the worker.

I can see Maragaret Thatcher as a capitalist and authoritarian at the same time, but not Blair, Brown, Hitler or Reagan.

MT was very capitalist. She's an extreme case.

Reagan was pretty authoritarian (he repressed communists in the US and threw them into prison, he was a huge obstacle to the gay rights movement and was an obstacle to Gorbachev's attempts at making peace, referring to the USSR as the "evil empire") Being a Republican, he was also very capitalist. The thing is, Democrats are capitalists, too. There aren't that many differences between the main parties.

Blair's "third way" pushed New Labour to a position of right-of-centre on the economic spectrum. New Labour is basically Old Tory, there's paper-thin difference between the three main parties in UK. Introduction of anti-terror laws were overbearingly authoritarian and completely inhumane. Ridiculous measures were taken.

Brown's crime is that he continued these policies.

Hitler was just right of centre. on the economic scale. At the same point as Blair, just more authoritarian. His abolition of trade unions, for one thing, let the capitalists loose on the poor workers. Another thing Hitler said, apart from claiming national socialism, was to say that capitalism is the only possible form of system. His blatant oppression of socialists and communists - also, blaming the fire in the Reichstag on them, proved his real position on economics, i'd say. And his authoritarianism.

Didn't Hitler say he was a national socialist?

I basically just answered this but to expand, Hitler said a lot of things. Note the "national" in that. He was a nationalist, which excludes him from socialism. Socialists believe in equality (whatever country you are from) and are internationalists.

 

[DodgeFB]

Uh, yes, sorry. Definitely most.



Well, let's say there are two planes. (As in levels, not aircraft). I'm pointing out where some of them cross over. It's not always like this, but only sometimes. The two levels are usually not dependent on one another.

An economic scale:

communism...socialism...centrism...conservatism...neoliberalism

And a social scale:

anarchism...libertarianism...balanced...authoritarianism...fascism

Sorry if it's confusing. I'm doing my best. But libertarians can be anywhere on the economic level. I'm fiercely libertarian, if not anarchist, and i'm somewhere in between communism and socialism. The libertarians you usually refer to are neoliberals. I find their ideology flawed because they only want more freedom for the capitalists. I fight for the freedom of the worker.



MT was very capitalist. She's an extreme case.

Reagan was pretty authoritarian (he repressed communists in the US and threw them into prison, he was a huge obstacle to the gay rights movement and was an obstacle to Gorbachev's attempts at making peace, referring to the USSR as the "evil empire") Being a Republican, he was also very capitalist. The thing is, Democrats are capitalists, too. There aren't that many differences between the main parties.

Blair's "third way" pushed New Labour to a position of right-of-centre on the economic spectrum. New Labour is basically Old Tory, there's paper-thin difference between the three main parties in UK. Introduction of anti-terror laws were overbearingly authoritarian and completely inhumane. Ridiculous measures were taken.

Brown's crime is that he continued these policies.

Hitler was just right of centre. on the economic scale. At the same point as Blair, just more authoritarian. His abolition of trade unions, for one thing, let the capitalists loose on the poor workers. Another thing Hitler said, apart from claiming national socialism, was to say that capitalism is the only possible form of system. His blatant oppression of socialists and communists - also, blaming the fire in the Reichstag on them, proved his real position on economics, i'd say. And his authoritarianism.



I basically just answered this but to expand, Hitler said a lot of things. Note the "national" in that. He was a nationalist, which excludes him from socialism. Socialists believe in equality (whatever country you are from) and are internationalists.

Dang, seems this lot can't even agree between themselves. They will never win me over with such "dis-jointed" thinking.

 

[Dirk]

Dang, seems this lot can't even agree between themselves. They will never win me over with such "dis-jointed" thinking.

Who do you mean by "this lot".

And was the hyphen in the word disjointed for poetic justice?

 

[DodgeFB]

It boils down to this with me. People just don't seem to agree on much these days. And even fewer agree once you bring in other groups. Right now I see no "group" that I totally agree with. And I have less faith in the US government right now than you have in God. So I am lost.

 

[deanhills]

It boils down to this with me. People just don't seem to agree on much these days. And even fewer agree once you bring in other groups. Right now I see no "group" that I totally agree with. And I have less faith in the US government right now than you have in God. So I am lost.

I wonder whether you are really lost as you have just described a majority feeling. Your words are spot on for me and I believe most people feel the same way. There is obviously a change that has to happen, people probably need to take charge and possibly we all need to join Dirk's party?

 

[DodgeFB]

I wonder whether you are really lost as you have just described a majority feeling. Your words are spot on for me and I believe most people feel the same way. There is obviously a change that has to happen, people probably need to take charge and possibly we all need to join Dirk's party?

Good to know that I am not alone. Dirk is my friend, but I may be just a little right of Dick Cheney.

 

[Dirk]

Good to know that I am not alone. Dirk is my friend, but I may be just a little right of Dick Cheney.

And to consider i'm further left than both Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

That's okay, i've had many divides between my friends.

*Nationality divides.
*Theology divides.
*Gender divides.
*Sexuality divides.
*Racial divides.
*Romantic divides.

Among others. I'm sure the ideological divide should be no problem.

 

[DodgeFB]

And to consider i'm further left than both Ghandi and Nelson Mandela.

That's okay, i've had many divides between my friends.

*Nationality divides.
*Theology divides.
*Gender divides.
*Sexuality divides.
*Racial divides.
*Romantic divides.

Among others. I'm sure the ideological divide should be no problem.

No problem here. Both of us may be a little extreme at times. But both are needed for balance.

 

[deanhills]

No problem here. Both of us may be a little extreme at times. But both are needed for balance.

I like that point of view. Wisdom of the ages ...

 

[David]

One can always turn their head or close their eyes. However, public execution often becomes less a deterrent than a form of entertainment. Widely publicized executions might actually engender crime as individuals vied for their few seconds of fame.

Gladiatorial games?

 

[Dirk]

Gladiatorial games?

Televised pre-mortality debate?

 

[David]

Televised pre-mortality debate?

Why not? America is based on Anglo-Saxon/Roman culture. Barbarian practices and Roman entreatment would be a nice fit.

 

[Dirk]

Why not? America is based on Anglo-Saxon/Roman culture. Barbarian practices and Roman entreatment would be a nice fit.

Haha. Though personally, i would suggest that there are more civilised ways of dealing with crime than killing the apparent perpetrator.

Incidentally, did you know that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

I would suggest dealing with the causes of crime.

 

[David]

Haha. Though personally, i would suggest that there are more civilised ways of dealing with crime than killing the apparent perpetrator.

Incidentally, did you know that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

I would suggest dealing with the causes of crime.

Oh, don't worry. 95% of all gladiators lived, why do you think some of the Emperors volunteered to fight? We could carry that over 2. Keep it from getting too deadly unless you're 100% of the criminals guilt.

I would love to see a gladiatorial game, much more entreating then football.

 

[deanhills]

Incidentally, did you know that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

I would suggest dealing with the causes of crime.

I'd be interested in the incarceration rate statistics, do you know where I could find it?

 

[Dirk]

I'd be interested in the incarceration rate statistics, do you know where I could find it?

From me.

The US has 5% of the worlds population and 22% of the world's prisoners.

In the middle of 2003, Federal, State, and Local facilities in the United States were holding 2'078'570 people.

However, if you add those on parole/probation, you get about 6'900'000 - almost seven million.

The prison population in 2003 was up 2.9% from 2002 and has increased anually for thirty years.

Finally, around one in seventy five 1/75 men are in prison.

Some sources for further study on the matter:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs - Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.

www.november.org - November Coalition website (my personal favourite on the matter)

www.prisonplanet.com - self explanatory.

 

[deanhills]

From me.

The US has 5% of the worlds population and 22% of the world's prisoners.

In the middle of 2003, Federal, State, and Local facilities in the United States were holding 2'078'570 people.

However, if you add those on parole/probation, you get about 6'900'000 - almost seven million.

The prison population in 2003 was up 2.9% from 2002 and has increased anually for thirty years.

Finally, around one in seventy five 1/75 men are in prison.

Some sources for further study on the matter:

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs - Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice.

www.november.org - November Coalition website (my personal favourite on the matter)

www.prisonplanet.com - self explanatory.

Wow! These are staggering stats. One wonders why there could still be such a lot of crime outside of the prisons, would mean that if you included the prisoners, that quite an enormous percentage of US population has leanings towards crime. Wonder what can be done to alleviate this, although I can imagine this has to be a million dollar question

 

[DodgeFB]

Haha. Though personally, i would suggest that there are more civilised ways of dealing with crime than killing the apparent perpetrator.

Incidentally, did you know that the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world?

I would suggest dealing with the causes of crime.

There are just some people that will only stop when they are stopped. I think the people on parole boards should have to do time every time a killer or rapist kills or rapes after getting out. And pay restitution to the victims if possible. When you kill the bad guy that is one bad guy that has been truly stopped.

 

[Dirk]

Wow! These are staggering stats. One wonders why there could still be such a lot of crime outside of the prisons, would mean that if you included the prisoners, that quite an enormous percentage of US population has leanings towards crime. Wonder what can be done to alleviate this, although I can imagine this has to be a million dollar question

Why do people think that there Governments are oh so wonderful? Are they really guilty? Was the trial fair? Was the arrest impartial? Is the legislation justified? Was the legislation implemented correctly? I can bet you the answer to a lot of these is "no" for many individuals.

There are just some people that will only stop when they are stopped. I think the people on parole boards should have to do time every time a killer or rapist kills or rapes after getting out. And pay restitution to the victims if possible. When you kill the bad guy that is one bad guy that has been truly stopped.

Why? Isn't life in prison enough? Do you also have to have them murdered?