Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong  (Read 47403 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« on: December 12, 2011, 03:32:38 PM »

I’d like to offer my 2 cents into the discussion about the death penalty. While we may agree on some of your points often brought up during shows, there is one claim that you two make on a regular basis that is simply wrong.
Mark’s, Stephanie’s, and even Ian’s claim…”The death penalty (or jail) does nothing to help the victim’s family.”

Wrong.

The only way to make sure that the victim’s family is made “whole” to allow them to CHOOSE whether they’ prefer to kill the murder or have the murderer buy out his or her life.
Why is that so?

Preferences are subjective…period. I cannot claim that all people are better off having a truck vs having a car. Just like I cannot claim that all victims are better off having money vs having an aggressor killed. Some victims will have a better life using the money the assailant gives them. And some victims will have a better life knowing that the person who killed their loved one is dead. Let me write this again. Preferences are subjective. This is one of the most basic economic understandings.

Murray Rothbard in, (I think) The Ethics of Liberty, argues for a system where victims can choose whether they want their aggressors locked up/killed or whether they want money. Giving victims/families a choice in the matter is the only way to make sure that they are made as whole as they can be. Because? Preferences are subjective.

Plus, one added bonus is that the buyout will have no set price. That means, in Rothbard’s utopia, rich people won’t be able to kill anyone they like and simply pay $100k or 1 million. They must pay whatever price the victim’s family demands (or be killed). So, if Bill Gates kills someone and has a net worth of $40 billion, he may have to pay $39 billion, or even $40-$50 billion to buy his life back. And a guy who has a net worth of $100k may have to pay less.
That last paragraph isn’t my main point. I am simply disagreeing that punitive justice can’t make people “whole.”

Please let me know what you guys think about this because your claim that families are NOT made better off by having the murder killed has drastic logical consequences. You could also claim that unhealthy food doesn’t make people better off and it should be illegal. Or video games don’t make gamers better off and should be heavily taxed. See where this is going? The whole point of a having a FREE market is that people will be better off when they are able to make choices that they think will benefit their lives. Anyways……
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!

dalebert

  • Blasphemor
  • FTL Creative Team
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6622
    • View Profile
    • Flaming Freedom
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2011, 09:10:56 PM »

I get your point about the subjectiveness and not arguing it right now, but you got really absurd when you compared playing a video game that's unhealthy which is a choice that doesn't hurt anyone else and KILLING SOMEONE. The latter is not part of a free market. It's part of a violent market. There is no slippery slope between those two things.

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2011, 10:30:15 PM »

Stick all the murderers on a fucking island.


If someone I loved was murdered, I would want to see that happen. No better revenge than knowing the murderer is spending the rest of his life scavenging for nuts and berries and living in a grass hut, far away from the rest of us....... where he can do no harm to anyone ever again cept maybe the other murderers....... but fuck them.

I dont believe in the death penalty because I just think its wrong for anyone to take another life, except in self defense if needed. Once the murderer has murdered, you've already moved past the point of self defense. All you can do after the fact is prevent that same person from doing it again.

Another benefit of my prison island, is that if new evidence proves the guy to be innocent, you can always go back and get him and pay restitution for his time on the island. You cant do that with execution. Once thats done, no going back........you fucked up bigtime.

Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2011, 02:19:08 AM »

I get your point about the subjectiveness and not arguing it right now, but you got really absurd when you compared playing a video game that's unhealthy which is a choice that doesn't hurt anyone else and KILLING SOMEONE. The latter is not part of a free market. It's part of a violent market. There is no slippery slope between those two things.

The slippery slope is assuming that an outsider can tell someone else what will make them better off. I am not arguing in favor of the death penalty. I wasn't trying to make this discussion thread about morals. Simply economics.


P.S. What do you mean, "Its part of the violent market." Isn't putting someone is prison "violent?" Or forcibly taking back stolen property?

Do you advocate pacifism? And I don't mean that as a slur. Some of my favorite people are pacifists.

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 02:25:01 AM by Tom Foppiano »
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2011, 02:22:14 AM »

Stick all the murderers on a fucking island.


If someone I loved was murdered, I would want to see that happen. No better revenge than knowing the murderer is spending the rest of his life scavenging for nuts and berries and living in a grass hut, far away from the rest of us....... where he can do no harm to anyone ever again cept maybe the other murderers....... but fuck them.

I dont believe in the death penalty because I just think its wrong for anyone to take another life, except in self defense if needed. Once the murderer has murdered, you've already moved past the point of self defense. All you can do after the fact is prevent that same person from doing it again.

Another benefit of my prison island, is that if new evidence proves the guy to be innocent, you can always go back and get him and pay restitution for his time on the island. You cant do that with execution. Once thats done, no going back........you fucked up bigtime.

Yeah, I don't think I could kill a murderer after the fact. But I certainly don't want to pay for them to live on an island either.
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2011, 04:17:22 AM »


Yeah, I don't think I could kill a murderer after the fact. But I certainly don't want to pay for them to live on an island either.


Who said anything about paying for them to live there? Ok, maybe helicopter gas to and from the island, but once you get him there its "Ok asshole, have a nice life" put your foot on his back and push him out and hope he's got some serious Bear Grylls survival shit going on.

Thats it.
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

sanchopanza

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2011, 07:07:18 AM »

From my point of view, I would want the murderer to suffer for the rest of his/her life. Death would be too easy. American prisons would be too easy. Survival on a deserted island would be a good start. Or maybe, THE ARCTIC. Now we're talking!

So, you see, revenge is subjective and, as discussed on the show, the death penalty as a deterrent for murder is ineffective.

Many proponents of the death penalty quote The Bible to justify it's use. However, the "Eye for an Eye" philosophy was Old Testament. The New Testament was a game changer. The Bible isn't 1 book. It's many books that put together make the Old Testament and a few more that make the New. For that reason alone there should be a moratorium on the Death Penalty, while we, as a society decide if or not we want to use The Bible as our guide to what is moral or immoral or if we should look to other sources for moral guidance. If we decide to use The Bible as our guide, then we need to consider if we want to use the New Testament or the Old. And, if we're not about imposing our religious views by force on others, then maybe the Biblical view of restitution should be undone completely.

The Christian scriptures also state:

"Suffer not a witch to live." and,

"'Vengeance is mine',  sayeth the LORD."

So where exactly do we draw the line?


2 wrongs don't make a right.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 09:12:05 AM by sanchopanza »
Logged
"If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them." -Samuel Adams

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2011, 11:30:21 AM »

No but 3 rights make a left.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty.  That actually changed after finding Libertarian sites and ultimately here.  3 main reasons.

1  I (and many other proponents) wanted revenge not justice.

2  Killing someone after they are caught and incarcerated is incompatible with the NAP.

3  After seeing how many people the Innocence Project has cleared from death row I am sure there are more innocent people on Death Row.  If it is wrong to kill a murderer it is abhorrent to kill an innocent.
Logged

Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)

  • A Cut Above The Rest
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8299
  • If government is the answer, the question is stupi
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2011, 12:01:29 PM »

No but 3 rights make a left.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty.  That actually changed after finding Libertarian sites and ultimately here.  3 main reasons.

1  I (and many other proponents) wanted revenge not justice.

2  Killing someone after they are caught and incarcerated is incompatible with the NAP.

3  After seeing how many people the Innocence Project has cleared from death row I am sure there are more innocent people on Death Row.  If it is wrong to kill a murderer it is abhorrent to kill an innocent.
2 is false.
Logged
"Do not throw rocks at people with guns." —Hastings' Third Law
"Income tax returns are the most imaginative fiction being written today." —Herman Wouk 

"If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom." - Dwight D. Eisenhower

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2011, 12:15:47 PM »

No but 3 rights make a left.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty.  That actually changed after finding Libertarian sites and ultimately here.  3 main reasons.

1  I (and many other proponents) wanted revenge not justice.

2  Killing someone after they are caught and incarcerated is incompatible with the NAP.

3  After seeing how many people the Innocence Project has cleared from death row I am sure there are more innocent people on Death Row.  If it is wrong to kill a murderer it is abhorrent to kill an innocent.

Even though I wanted to discuss how preferences are subjective and it is impossible to claim that all victims are better off having money, I'll respond to your points.

1. I honestly don't know the difference between "justice" and "revenge." Prison seems really "revengey" to me too. So does putting people on an island and letting them sort out their differences Bear Grills Style.

2. I can understand how killing isn't compatible with the NAP only if you are a pacifist. If killing isn't compatible with the NAP, how is putting someone in jail compatible, or forcibly taking property from an aggressor to give to a victim?

I think there are two main libertarian theories of justice. One is pacifism. No one EVER has the right to use force against anyone else for any reason. I remember Robert Lefevre, an outstanding libertarian, would say things like, "I have no more right to cut rope that I'm being tied with than he has a right to tie me up."

The second group of legal theory is that once you violate the property rights of someone else, you forfeit some of your property rights. So if a person is raping someone, it is within the NAP to use force against them....even after the fact. Some libertarians that subscribe to this basic theory are Judge Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Robert Murphy, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella,........though Robert Murphy is a pacifist and claims that he would never want to use force even though it would be justified.


3. This one drives me nuts. How it is acceptable to put an innocent person in jail for the rest of their life but its not ok to kill them.

"Because we can let an innocent person go." What!? Do you really think that its OK to ENSLAVE innocent people because there is less than a 1% chance they could be set free? Huh? How many innocent people have rotted in prisons until they were DEAD and never got let go?

To me, there is no qualitative difference between killing innocent people and enslaving them for the rest of their lives. None. It is the difference of arguing for an income tax vs a sales tax. Yes, I find one slightly preferable, but they both suck giant horse dick and are incompatible with the NAP.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 12:25:53 PM by Tom Foppiano »
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!

Turd Ferguson

  • Opportunist Extraordinaire
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • https://twitter.com/#!/realmikequick
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2011, 12:31:51 PM »

The problem with believing in the NAP and also believing in "justice" for offenders is this......   How are you going to adhere to the NAP and at the same time pay for a place to keep these violent people once they have done the crime? You have to feed them, provide heating and cooling, medical care, guards, etc etc. All of that costs shit-tons of cash.  Isn't making uninvolved bystanders pay for prisons using force against them?


Its either provide all of that, or just let them walk free. So what do you do?
Logged
Some peoples idea of hell is having to mind their own business.

SeanD

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2011, 12:39:59 PM »

No but 3 rights make a left.

I used to be a proponent of the death penalty.  That actually changed after finding Libertarian sites and ultimately here.  3 main reasons.

1  I (and many other proponents) wanted revenge not justice.

2  Killing someone after they are caught and incarcerated is incompatible with the NAP.

3  After seeing how many people the Innocence Project has cleared from death row I am sure there are more innocent people on Death Row.  If it is wrong to kill a murderer it is abhorrent to kill an innocent.

Even though I wanted to discuss how preferences are subjective and it is impossible to claim that all victims are better off having money, I'll respond to your points.

1. I honestly don't know the difference between "justice" and "revenge." Prison seems really "revengey" to me too. So does putting people on an island and letting them sort out their differences Bear Grills Style.

2. I can understand how killing isn't compatible with the NAP only if you are a pacifist. If killing isn't compatible with the NAP, how is putting someone in jail compatible, or forcibly taking property from an aggressor to give to a victim?

I think there are two main libertarian theories of justice. One is pacifism. No one EVER has the right to use force against anyone else for any reason. I remember Robert Lefevre, an outstanding libertarian, would say things like, "I have no more right to cut rope that I'm being tied with than he has a right to tie me up."

The second group of legal theory is that once you violate the property rights of someone else, you forfeit some of your property rights. So if a person is raping someone, it is within the NAP to use force against them....even after the fact. Some libertarians that subscribe to this basic theory are Judge Napolitano, Lew Rockwell, Robert Murphy, Walter Block, Stephan Kinsella,........though Robert Murphy is a pacifist and claims that he would never want to use force even though it would be justified.


3. This one drives me nuts. How it is acceptable to put an innocent person in jail for the rest of their life but its not ok to kill them.

"Because we can let an innocent person go." What!? Do you really think that its OK to ENSLAVE innocent people because there is less than a 1% chance they could be set free? Huh? How many innocent people have rotted in prisons until they were DEAD and never got let go?

To me, there is no qualitative difference between killing innocent people and enslaving them for the rest of their lives. None. It is the difference of arguing for an income tax vs a sales tax. Yes, I find one slightly preferable, but they both suck giant horse dick and are incompatible with the NAP.

Who ever said it was OK to incarcerate innocent people?  I never did.  The point is if you kill them there is NO way to correct an improper incorrect incarceration.  Since every trial system devised so far is imperfect, there will be errors.  The best people can do is try to minimize errors and correct them as soon as possible when found.  Death takes away the chance to correct.
Logged

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2011, 01:05:04 PM »



Who ever said it was OK to incarcerate innocent people?  I never did.

You did right here..."Since every trial system devised so far is imperfect, there will be errors." That means you are advocating the enslavement of innocent people. Right? (I'm using the same logic as Mark when he claims capital punishment proponents advocate killing innocent people.)

I understand that you don't really desire to enslave innocent people, but neither do death penalty proponents advocate killing innocent people.

And there is NO way to fully compensate all innocent people who went to prison either. I feel like some people here think that a few million $$$ will negate any harm committed by enslaving an innocent person for two decades. That is probably not the case.

And lets not kid ourselves. What percentage of prisoners are exonerated and set free? Is it less than 1% (shit, probably less than 1/100%) because the current system is so fucking efficient? I doubt it.

All I'm saying is that there is very, very little difference between killing an innocent person and enslaving them for the rest of their life. I' prefer to be enslaved (I think)....but they both are terrible, terrible consequences of having a "justice system."

« Last Edit: December 13, 2011, 01:06:45 PM by Tom Foppiano »
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!

alaric89

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1842
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2011, 01:26:10 PM »

I have decided I am basically going to sit out death penalty debates. There is no real way of contimplying it to a libertarian in my opinion.
Its all because of that "Crazy" terrorist here in Norway I came to this conclusion. Governments just suck they have no ability to judge a man one way or the other.
In libpar, that evil fuck would be dead already. The same type of people who would execute a defenseless, victimless drug dealer would protect a mass murderer. (It occurs to me I am talking Norway here, how about "completely ruin the life of someone who sells things without paying the fees")
Ex: In libpar a rapist would try the wrong chick after a while and end up with a bullet between the eyes. No execution necessary.
Would you want to try and rob a house in libpar? Some creative people will start to set traps for criminals, and some of the more loopy ones would turn them into performance art. Being a criminal in libpar would be a brief sorry life.
As for every current government, I wouldn't trust those fuckers to walk my dog let alone decide who lives or dies.
In Libpar a emergent solution would materialize, but I don't really know what it would be like.

Tom Foppiano

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 277
    • View Profile
Re: Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong
« Reply #14 on: December 13, 2011, 01:46:37 PM »

In Libpar a emergent solution would materialize, but I don't really know what it would be like.

Agreed. Though we can speculate what the framework might look like. But obviously we don't really know what society would do to solve these problems.
Logged
It might not be very big around, but it sure is short!
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  The Show
| | |-+  Mark + Stephanie + Death Penalty = Wrong

// ]]>

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 32 queries.