So what do you believe is the most economically motivated crimes and how do you exactly want to do deal with them?
Another US Gun Nut Opens Fire
- Thread starter chuck schmidt
- Start date
So what do you believe is the most economically motivated crimes and how do you exactly want to do deal with them?
I think you're missing the point, though i presume it's my poor explaining. I suggested examples of "crime", where some or many of the individuals may be motivate by economic circumstances. It should always be done on an individual basis - to do it so generally as welfare systems right now do, it ultimately can only help a limited number of people. I'm simply saying address the concerns and needs of everyone, don't reward them. I'm talking about crime prevention, not the aftermath.
Does that make more sense, now?
Yes, I think it does. You believe people should be stopped before they commit criminal actions?
But if this is your point of view, how can we be assured that sort of a system will work?
In a manner of speaking.
We can't - but i doubt it'd be any worse than the system we have now. Either way, it's worth a try and needs to be proven. Even if it is, we've learned something. And we should never treat it as black and white. I'm sure there are many non-coercive (or as close as we can get) ideas we can test out - ones i haven't considered, for example.
As for some examples of why it might be a good idea, crime fell when the NHS was formed, when social security was introduced and it's fallen since New Labour brought in the welfare bill in '97 (and let's face it, it isn't their criminal justice policy) - though they're now basically undoing some of it in the latest bill.
Naturally, all these are only within the economic spectrum. There are quite a few causes for crime, and we need to decide how to address these causes, than restricting people unnecessarily. That is my opinion, anyway.
So even if you're solution for how a society should work fails completely and proves to be total chaos, you'd still like to risk it?
The New Labour government in this country is nothing to be proud of, absolutely agreed. But instead of heading towards more liberal and care-free laws, which I interpret the Labour party of having done the last 13 years, I'd like to go in the opposite direction and make stricter laws.
I agree, but for some people this doesn't work. And some people need a hard punishment. Also I'd like to add that I believe anarchism is the worst form of system when it comes to preventing crime, although in an anarchist society stealing, killing, robbing, violence won't be criminal actions, it will be legal. Which is even worse.
Last edited:
Names again.
No, did i phrase that badly? If it turned out to be total chaos - or rather, a better phrase might be a failure - then i'd suggest trying other means.
Liberal and carefree laws?! What about the one against groupings of more than 5 people in Westminster Square? How about their harsh treatment of peaceful protests? How about their anti-youth laws? How about ID cards? How about the labelling of activists as "domestic extremists"?
It is a freer society, which means people have to be more directly responsible. Using different means to solve similar problems doesn't necessarily make it worse or better.
No, did i phrase that badly? If it turned out to be total chaos - or rather, a better phrase might be a failure - then i'd suggest trying other means.
Liberal and carefree laws?! What about the one against groupings of more than 5 people in Westminster Square? How about their harsh treatment of peaceful protests? How about their anti-youth laws? How about ID cards? How about the labelling of activists as "domestic extremists"?
It is a freer society, which means people have to be more directly responsible. Using different means to solve similar problems doesn't necessarily make it worse or better.
Names again.
Sorry, again!
But you're still willing to risk utter chaos?
What peaceful protests? After what I've registered they've treated protesters badly when they've started with violence, but not before that.
I agree with people being more directly responsible. But that meaning you can walk around and stabbing people to death without risking anything is too liberal and too extreme for my taste.
Well, in that sense, every tiny change to the status quo is risking "utter chaos". But i'd say chaos itself is probably impossible. If we also run the "risk" of helping a lot of people, then yes, it's worth it. And if it doesn't work, try something else. It'd probably work better than this system, though - it's not really difficult.
The Tamil supporters come to mind immediately. The G20 protest was angry and as with any angry mass of people, there was a bit of pushing, but the police led the first baton charge. Plus, kettling really didn't help the situation!
Well, with killing people, obviously, we'd need to find a way to combat it. It would be encroaching on peoples' freedom. I think i already made a suggestion.
If I am allowed to stab and kill whoever I please, I'd say utter chaos is already created.
There I disagree. A free society to do whatever you please whenever you please will never work better than todays society. At least we're protected if someone's threatening us to die, we have the chance to file charges, we have a chance to get a fair trial if something bad happens to us. In your society this wouldn't be possible, there wouldn't be any court of law, there would simply be now laws.
Of course if this has happened, I'd say it was bad. But as I recall people usually provoke the police and then after choose to blame them, funny but I find that a way of getting unneeded attention and sympathy.
But how can you combat it in a lawless society?
Of course you aren't. That would be a threat to freedom. Liberty goes both ways, stop thinking only of yourself.
Oh, i answer that in a moment. I'm working backwards, sorry.
Just because someone doesn't like chocolate, doesn't mean they don't like sugar. A lawless society would not be devoid of morals or principles. The entire idea is freedom. So society would organise to protect and allow freedom.
Bakunin said that the freedom of others is a necessary premise of our own freedom. I agree with him.
So then you don't support anarchism?
But would the people living in this society still follow these principles? You really need to a good job to prevent millions of people doing something criminal.
And I absolutely agree. But in an anarchist society this will work against you, you won't have the ability to stop one bad guy in preventing others freedom, because then you'll also prevent the freedom of the bad guy.
Of course i do, i'm an anarchist. Just understand we're not bomb-toting chaos-loving fanatics.
Well, the revolution is a popular movement - I reject the Leninist "Vanguard" principle. So yes.
I do believe in a sort of secular karma, inspired by Bakunin. You're talking of millions - but society would be organised from the bottom up. Nationality is impractical - borders are an artificial state-enforced dividing line.
Not saying that, but just stating the obvious that chaos is the consequence of that society. It will be hard for any system to prevent chaos without any laws.
And how would you prevent millions from committing crime when there are no laws against it?
Just because there are no laws against it, doesn't mean it's acceptable.
Technically if there are no laws against it, it can't be a crime.
Morality is subject to society. A law is just words on a piece of paper.
If killing someone unjustifiably is frowned upon (which in ANY society is the case), then people will take measures to prevent it.
No, but it can mean that will occur more frequently because there are no risks of any consequences for your actions.
Technically if there are no laws against it, it can't be a crime.
Of course not. But just looking at it from what we all today define as a criminal action, into a society without any laws against it.
Morality is subject to society. A law is just words on a piece of paper.
A law can also be put into a effect and give you the punishment you deserve.
Not in any society, some do accept murder.
How can you be so sure?
To me the above statement is the same old same old gun sales gun lobby "logic" that has been making no sense forever. It is not logic that has as its purpose the better life, liberty and security of the person for Americans. It is logic designed to increase gun sales. The root causes of crime are in many cases based on poverty and frustration but the proximate causes are guns. Many people who would in other countries go home with broken noses and black eyes get shot in America. The reasons often have nothing to do with robbery, but with the US fascination with guns and gun violence. America has a culture of violence that makes gun play "romantic".
There is no reason this has to be. In the 1960's when governments first started cracking down on drinking driving we also had a culture of drunk driving. Law enforcement combined with public education has changed that. Cars don't drive drunk. Drunk people drive. People don't shoot other people. People armed in public for the purpose of shooting other people do. According to statistics they killed over 22,500 times in the year for which I posted the statistics (330M / 100K X 6.24) . 1875 times a month. 440 times a week. 61 times a day.
In 2006 the three leading causes of death in America other than disease were accidents, suicide and homicide. http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf Guns play a leading part in all three. Note - the only aspect of guns I oppose is concealed gun carrying in public by civilian members of the public, so I am not talking Utopia.
