Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!" (Read 639 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40998
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #50 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:05pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 6th, 2019 at 5:56pm:
I'm only going to explain this to you once. My species is considered to be a separate species.

If you go by the literal definition of a species, it shouldn't be.
This is a pretty good literal definition of "species":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

Vulcans and dragons and humans don't fit into any sort of literally defined single species.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40998
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #51 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:06pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 6th, 2019 at 5:56pm:
I have an interesting question for you, and anyone else who favours respecting the rights of criminals absolutely.

It's about the scenario Jeff mentioned: The girl with her forearms chopped off and left in a dumpster to die, but who happened to survive.

Suppose it was possible to attach the nerves so they worked, and it was found that the man who did this to her, and the victim, were an exact genetic match - she could receive his forearms to replace her own. Would you then favour chopping his arms and giving them to her?
She was dumped in a roadside ditch, not a dumpster.

If pigs start laying eggs, would you favor calling them chickens?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5648
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #52 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:46pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 11:18am:
Rothbard says that even locking up the most violent of criminals violates the criminals' rights. Reparation is the only way to make sure the rights of the aggressor are not violated.

Obviously Rothbard would never favour chopping people up as reparation either. The staunchest libertarians are always in favour of the most lenient punishments, even such that the Expected Value of crime becomes positive.

They justify this with the criminal's rights.

I wish I could debate the heavy hitters at the Mises Institute. They would obviously say that chopping arms violates rights. I wonder what case they would make that if possible to graft the arms onto the victim, she shouldn't get them.

Maybe all property is so sacrosanct that even taking money from the criminal to make restitution to the victim would violate the rights of the criminal!


I wrestle with the idea of locking people up since killing them is a natural self-defense, but locking them up is very contrived.  Maybe forced reparations with the force being that if you make them, we exercise our natural right to self-defense by killing you?  That would be a lot cheaper than jails and prisons.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 7408
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #53 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 5:58pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:46pm:
I wrestle with the idea of locking people up since killing them is a natural self-defense, but locking them up is very contrived.  Maybe forced reparations with the force being that if you make them, we exercise our natural right to self-defense by killing you?  That would be a lot cheaper than jails and prisons.


It's so odd how Little Biq Man came and you left, then he left and poof, you were back.  Almost like you and he are both Don.

Let me guess.  You'll post until the weekend. Then disappear, and Little Biq Man will reappear!
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 40998
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #54 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 7:24pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 5:58pm:
It's so odd how Little Biq Man came and you left, then he left and poof, you were back.  Almost like you and he are both Don.

Let me guess.  You'll post until the weekend. Then disappear, and Little Biq Man will reappear!
Does trolling a troll make you a troll too?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9282
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #55 - Apr 10th, 2019 at 8:44pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:05pm:
This is a pretty good literal definition of "species":

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

Vulcans and dragons and humans don't fit into any sort of literally defined single species.


D1. You do not read the links you post, confirmed.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 1:46pm:
I wrestle with the idea of locking people up since killing them is a natural self-defense, but locking them up is very contrived.  Maybe forced reparations with the force being that if you make them, we exercise our natural right to self-defense by killing you?  That would be a lot cheaper than jails and prisons.


The big libertarians like Rothbard and Mises would veto that one too. Self-defence is for being immediately attacked, not punishing someone who once attacked you.

https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense
Quote:
It is important to insist, however, that the threat of aggression be palpable, immediate, and direct; in short, that it be embodied in the initiation of an overt act.


So no locking people up.

No post-facto self-defence.

Just restitution.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5648
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #56 - Apr 11th, 2019 at 10:42am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 10th, 2019 at 8:44pm:
D1. You do not read the links you post, confirmed.


The big libertarians like Rothbard and Mises would veto that one too. Self-defence is for being immediately attacked, not punishing someone who once attacked you.

https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense

So no locking people up.

No post-facto self-defence.

Just restitution.


I hear you, but restitution under pain of what?  If we don’t lock people up if they don’t meet their obligation for restitution, then how do we enforce it?

I should read for myself, but I trust you not to pretend you read it and say it says what you want it to have said if you did read it.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9282
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #57 - Apr 11th, 2019 at 11:03am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 10:42am:
I hear you, but restitution under pain of what?


Nothing.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 10:42am:
If we don’t lock people up if they don’t meet their obligation for restitution, then how do we enforce it?


It's not about getting a practical result; it's about respecting rights. Criminals still have them - all of them.

Little Big Man wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 10:42am:
I should read for myself, but I trust you not to pretend you read it and say it says what you want it to have said if you did read it.


You should never do that. Trust is illogical. See immediately below.

Amazing how people who are not actually lying don't get all offended and crazy and just offer up the proof, isn't it? It's almost like you wouldn't need, "how dare you not trust me?!" unless you actually were lying. (See: Every sexual relationship on this planet.)

Rothbard - Libertarian Manifeso p. 55-56
Quote:
Moreover, in the system of criminal punishment in the libertarian world, the emphasis would never be, as it is now, on “society’s” jailing the criminal; the emphasis would necessarily be on compelling the criminal to make restitution to the victim of his crime. The present system, in which the victim is not recompensed but instead has to pay taxes to support the incarceration of his own attacker—would be evident nonsense in a world that focuses on the defense of property rights and therefore on the victim of crime.


Rothbard - Libertarian Manifeso p. 97
Quote:
If there is anything a libertarian must be squarely and totally against, it is involuntary servitude—forced labor—an act which denies the most elemental right of self-ownership.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 5648
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #58 - Apr 11th, 2019 at 11:07am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 11:03am:
Nothing.


It's not about getting a practical result; it's about respecting rights. Criminals still have them - all of them.


But . . . But . . . Then it wouldn’t be peeeeerfect!

Just kidding.  I like your ideas.  I’ll lock up my own damn lawnmower and not expect the government to steal from others to hire goons to protect me.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9282
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Reply #59 - Apr 11th, 2019 at 11:21am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Apr 11th, 2019 at 11:07am:
But . . . But . . . Then it wouldn’t be peeeeerfect!

Just kidding.  I like your ideas.  I’ll lock up my own damn lawnmower and not expect the government to steal from others to hire goons to protect me.


They're not my ideas; they're the objectively correct ones.

I unfortunately realise, however, that a system where criminals cannot lose and can only win (Expected Value of crime = positive) will breed more criminals.

You can lose your lawnmower. But you can't kill the criminal because his life is more valuable than your lawnmower. The criminal can't lose anything if he's poor. The time will come for punishment, he'll turn out his pockets, and that will be the end of it.

https://mises.org/library/right-self-defense
Quote:
Secondly, we may ask: must we go along with those libertarians who claim that a storekeeper has the right to kill a lad as punishment for snatching a piece of his bubblegum? What we might call the "maximalist" position goes as follows: by stealing the bubblegum, the urchin puts himself outside the law. He demonstrates by his action that he does not hold or respect the correct theory of property rights. Therefore, he loses all of his rights, and the storekeeper is within his rights to kill the lad in retaliation.

I propose that this position suffers from a grotesque lack of proportion. By concentrating on the storekeeper's right to his bubblegum, it totally ignores another highly precious property-right: every man's — including the urchin's — right of self-ownership. On what basis must we hold that a minuscule invasion of another's property lays one forfeit to the total loss of one's own?


If life > gum, then surely life > lawnmower. (You can prove this by just letting the lad in question steal enough gum that it equals to the price of a lawnmower.)

Remember, this is part of an article about self-defence, not punishment. You must let the child walk away with your property if your only alternative is to shoot him.

Because he knows this, he will always just run. He will struggle so that he will be seriously harmed or even die if you grab him.

Respecting the NAP absolutely will lead to its practical destruction.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Supreme Court: "Cruel and Unusual Sounds Fine to Us!"
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy