The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

No, I don't. See above. Society law != moral law. Don't confuse the two. Not all social laws are moral ones, though most moral laws may reflect in social laws. Since both are subjective as we've already conclusively established, all you've managed to prove is that you believe in your society's social laws, and perhaps by extention some of their implied moral ones as well. That's it. You still haven't defined "innocence", "evil", or "moral" for that matter.

That's the problem with lawyers - they actively use fallacies to make their points in court, not realizing that said fallacies are barring the path to true rationality. Begging the question, red herring, etc. are all traits used by lawyers to position the evidence in their favor. Legal precedings do not have any relevant bearing to moral discussions because lawyers twist the system to meet their own ends. Most judges are passive and juries are completely subjective, so the system in its entirety cannot be used as a foundation for moral reasoning.

And if you're working to become a lawyer, I suggest you pull up Wikipedia and start memorizing the list of fallacies, because that'll help you in the courtroom. Reactive judges and stupid jurors buy into that kind of stuff. Just remember that it was lawyers who killed Socrates.

Some Islamic countries think it is morally correct to kill those poor foolish Danish comic produces who depicted Mohammed because of their laws. They totally ignored the point that Danish laws do not prohibit such drawings, and that Denmark is not an Islamic state.

That's why subjective society views cannot be the basis of reason either. [/B]

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
So it just happens to be a work of marvelous coincidence that the United States' crime rate is absurdly high compared to the modern world, a world that, at large, abolished the death penalty? It is coincidence that the states within the U.S that do not have the death penalty have a lower crime rate? And not just any lower crime rate: a lower homicide rate, the crime that is generally punishable by the death penalty.

Now honestly tell me a correlation does not exist. I'm not saying the death penalty increases crime, but it is certainly a poor deterrent of it, and countries that pursue alternative methods of fighting crime have achieved greater success within that field.

Not really. You're looking for a singular cause, and oftentimes that's the worst approach to deciphering something that involves statistics with millions of real people.

Death is an impressive deterrent when used correctly. If you marched into a store right now with a gun the size of your arm, and threatened in a maniacal voice to start shooting people, you would likely get your way. If you actually demonstrated that ability, it'd be even more effective, right? That's common sense. Few if any really want to die.

Now let's consider the impact of the death penalty in the US; it's been months since I had this debate, but I promise to search for sources if you're insistent. Suffice to say that I pulled the numbers of executions in the US from the seventies through until the past few years, and fewer than 400 had been sentences to death row, and less than that actually died. The average time spent on death row was 12 years, costing almost 100k per year depending on the criminal and where they were kept. California spends more on the budget for keeping criminals alive than the Federal Government spends on education nationwide.

More people die from lightning strikes, bee stings, or falling off of ladders every year than die from the death penalty in three decades. You're more likely to get killed on the way to work than to end up committing a crime, getting caught, getting tried, and then eventually dying.

Now, obviously since the threat of death is barely impacting crimes (Keep in mind not all crimes incur the death penalty; in fact, rape was removed from the offenses previously as one worthy of death), how can you argue that it somehow affects the murder rate? Are people knocking each other off so they can break out the party hats when they hit 500 executed?

China executes more people (officially) per year than we do in ten years. If there's a correlation between the death penalty and homicides, they should be all killing each other with their shoes right now.

Here's one for you; Jamaica is above and beyond the US in murder rates. They abolished the death penalty years ago.

So again, correlation is not causation.

Are people knocking each other off so they can break out the party hats when they hit 500 executed?

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Not really. You're looking for a singular cause, and oftentimes that's the worst approach to deciphering something that involves statistics with millions of real people.

Death is an impressive deterrent when used correctly. If you marched into a store right now with a gun the size of your arm, and threatened in a maniacal voice to start shooting people, you would likely get your way. If you actually demonstrated that ability, it'd be even more effective, right? That's common sense. Few if any really want to die.

Now let's consider the impact of the death penalty in the US; it's been months since I had this debate, but I promise to search for sources if you're insistent. Suffice to say that I pulled the numbers of executions in the US from the seventies through until the past few years, and fewer than 400 had been sentences to death row, and less than that actually died. The average time spent on death row was 12 years, costing almost 100k per year depending on the criminal and where they were kept. California spends more on the budget for keeping criminals alive than the Federal Government spends on education nationwide.

More people die from lightning strikes, bee stings, or falling off of ladders every year than die from the death penalty in three decades. You're more likely to get killed on the way to work than to end up committing a crime, getting caught, getting tried, and then eventually dying.

Now, obviously since the threat of death is barely impacting crimes (Keep in mind not all crimes incur the death penalty; in fact, rape was removed from the offenses previously as one worthy of death), how can you argue that it somehow affects the murder rate? Are people knocking each other off so they can break out the party hats when they hit 500 executed?

China executes more people (officially) per year than we do in ten years. If there's a correlation between the death penalty and homicides, they should be all killing each other with their shoes right now.

Here's one for you; Jamaica is above and beyond the US in murder rates. They abolished the death penalty years ago.

So again, correlation is not causation.

I do not think the death penalty is the exclusive cause for increasing homicide rates (it certainly does not, all of its own, actually increase them); simply that it is an incredibly ineffective deterrent to it, within a civilized world. I believe that if you honestly want to deter crime in a violent manner, then you must move towards the creation of a militaristic, fascist regime (I'll take a guess and say that Nazi Germany had an extremely low crime rate). And we do not do that; because the stability it will generate will come at the expense of the people's ability to lead a life of freedom, happiness, self-expression, and without consistent fear of governmental retribution.

Now, let's take a look at a certain statistic. Most violent crimes are committed by the poor, working class; we can both agree that poverty is obviously a factor that leads to desperation and creates motivations for criminality. And within the human psyche, desperation will always, always override any fear of retribution or rationality; this is simply how we function, as can be seen by countless examples throughout history and even some modern terrorism. Fear of the death is generally ignored by an individual who is led to violent crime partially because of the results I've listed above.

That's why Jamaica is a poor comparison to the United States. Its culture is both more violent (more on that later), and it is a far poorer nation. Poverty leads to violence, irrationality, and subsequently violent crime. The average conditions within there simply cannot be compared to the United States, the wealthiest country in the world. All of the countries I've listed are urbanized and at least have similar conditions to the United States; they all have drastically lower crime rates and most take a liberal policy when it comes to the legal system. Coincidence? I think not.

As for cultural issues, I do believe American society is largely violent in nature, but certain states simply operate on less violent standards- the abolishing of the death penalty is an integral part of that. Media? Been there. Diversity, segregation, and multiculturalism? Been there too. Can you please list the types of cultural beliefs and standards that you think are a factor in violent crime?

The conclusion: the death penalty is certainly not the only variable, but when comparing countries of similar culture, wealth, and diversity, the ones without the death penalty have been proven to have lower homicide rates. A relation certainly exists, and it is quite clear that the death penalty is an extremely ineffective way of combating crime.

(Btw, what are your actual stances upon the death penalty? You don't think we should keep it, do you?)

So what you're saying is that what you see in front of you is your reality? How would do for people with mental diseases? Or people on acid, shrooms, etc? I agree with the objective reality but I don't agree that everyone sees a different reality, rather they have a different perception, which could or could not be accurate.

Everyone sees everything differently because of how percetion works. Perception is something which only one person can perceive. You may both look at a plant, but you do not necessarily see the same plant. If one person is colorblind, they do not see a green plant. If that person is insane, they do not see a plant at all but something monstrous. No one can occupy the same space as you and see through your eyes, use your ears and touch, and your thought processes. Your own mind can determine how you perceive something; the mind already works to shut off your optic nerve when you move your eyes around to prevent from motion sickness, or eliminating the network of veins that go over your line of vision.

You never step in the same river twice, is an appropriate maxim here.

Is this based on imminent or inevitable danger?

You're just throwing out terms though. Define them. Imminent and inevitable go hand-in-hand. And both of my moral dillemma examples can be considered both imminent and inevitable when it comes to danger. I don't see your point.

And when I use "excuse", I mean defenses for murder. "Oh he grew up poor/he didn't know what he was doing/society did this to him/etc". That's unexcusable. And if you DO kill the official, you have made the personal choice.

Inexcusable according to whom? You? Society? Or an objective moral law? I'm not here to argue legal semantics, DS. You came across as attacking subjectivism, and backing objectivism, and now you're turning it into a legality issue. It's not a legality issue; either argue for objective moral laws, or don't and admit that I was right originally. You've made the assumption that certain "crimes" cannot be morally justifiable, but then when I attempt to work with you, you begin to fall back on subjective legal definitions and stances. You have not provided any reasoning of your own yet.

Why is it wrong? Because the law said so? Sounds like a flimsy justification for me, not any better than "my dog told me to do it". It's not what you believe, DS; it's how you prove that it's the right thing to believe in. He who knows nothing cannot know truth.

But that's my point. I don't want to single out a group but the liberals in this country, when they see someone commit a crime, they ask why and blame it on society, whereas I would put some of the blame on the person's outside factors, but ultimately the blame lies with the person and his poor moral values and poor choices.

But establishing the limits of personal accountability doesn't solve the moral dillemma. What if he was on drugs against his will? What if he was held at gunpoint, and was too scared to fight back? What if he genuinely felt it was the right thing, and he was horribly wrong and sorry? What if? You're not asking all the important questions here. You're laying down blanket judgments with foundations in society norms. That's all.

And again, if I were to wade into the "free will" argument, I'd question the idea of blame at all. That would really turn your legal world on its ear. Determinism, which is presupposed in all explanations in the thinking world from science to philosophy to how to start the clock on a VCR, pretty much implies that we are all caused. Freedom is not an emerging factor from the human mind, as the mind itself is caused. Since you cannot ever break the chain of events which caused you and your actions up until this point. If you were able to try and deviate, it would still be a choice determined by past events, so therein lies the contradiction. In short, determinism is the most logical explanation for reality itself, and by extension, our very actions. We are caused, and further cause along the chain. Thus, how can any one person be truly accountable for everything that has happened up until the moment of their choice?

The clear answer is, they can't. Philosophically speaking, to hold them accountable would be to blame them for being caused, which is illogical.

But socially speaking, we must have law. We cannot forgive and forget all crimes, and we cannot give exceptions based on being caused, since that would mean everyone would have exceptions to do as they pleased. That is the ultimate slippery slope that you fear. No, the true answer lies in balancing the two approaches. Law must be preserved because the reverse - a lawless state - defies prudence. No prudent nor arguably moral person would will a state of lawlessness on a group of people. But at the same time, determinism is very likely true. So humans have to work with being contradictory to their own true natures in order to survive. Those who accept this as true must realize that everyone is a victim of cause, and hopefully embrace this so as to better empathesize and not to be prone to righteous indignation over the misdeeds of others.

We are all equal in that we are caused, flawed, and ultimately selfish. What differentiates morality from those base features is the will to do what's best for everyone.

There, I'm done preaching.

How about Country X commits mass genocide. Country Y invades Country X because country Y believes Country X engaged in a great injustice.

How does this relate to your original stance of objectivism? If laws are all that require humans to act within the moral sphere, how come you only cite your own laws? What about universal laws? Are there universal laws? How are they decided upon? How are trespassers judged and punished? Who maintains equilibrium in this system?

Before you go asking me to justify or condemn a situation, I'd like for you to answer those questions finally.

How is the fat guy inevitable and not imminent? I believe (and I can't go back and look because I'm typing this up)that you said there was only 20 minutes to decide, making the threat imminent and not inevitable. If you didn't then I apologize. If you think the official is going to destroy the world at a certain point, that threat is inevitable, not imminent. I guess I missed the point then because when we talk about your cases, from a legal sense the only differences are imminent vs. inevitable danger.

I think again you're confusing the terms. They can be both, you know. Death is inevitable in both scenarios, although the scope is different. Both note that the option is either murder, or passive death. You could argue that the victims of murder may be morally of different value, but I'd argue in turn that it is far worse to condemn many for the sake of a few. Also, I find it ridiculously self-righteous when people claim that won't make the right choice because they may become morally tainted. Such selfish behavior does not make anyone moral in my eyes.

I didn't avoid it, I just didn't answer it, my mistake. Am I innocent? By your definition that if I'm sitting on a porch I don't deserve to get killed, sure. By my definition? I have done wrong in my life but I don't do harm to others and I try and treat others the way I want to be treated for the most part.

But the point is that circumstances could change. You could do something bad which, intentionally or not, may cost you your life. The point is, would your killer be justified at any point? If so, what points? If you killed his family, is he justified? Of course he is. You committed a great wrong to him. You acted immorally, and dangerously, and it is both prudent and morally just to put you out of his misery.

I define evil as doing harm to an innocent person, maybe not my definition of innocent but yours, which seems more convincing than mine for the time being. Mass genocide/rape, those I consider evils.

I accept this definition. It seems to be for now a sound one. There may be a point at which it needs improvement, but no definitions are truly adequate for all situations.

I suppose not. My stance was that some laws are laws because they are immoral, not the other way around. But when I think in legal terms, I think of the slippery slope argument. With the idea of subjectivity, you can convince almost anyone of whatever it is you're doing and if that is allowed, more injustices will be allowed.

True, but that's another argument altogether. It's very easy to abuse legitimate systems. It's just important that we try to minimize those abuses.

Does that make them right because they advocate death by some ridiculous principle? Or is it ridiculous for just me? I consider radical islam evil because they will twist the Quran to justify almost anything.

IMO, I think that foundamentalism is incredibly dangerous. The problems with organized religion isn't their good messages; it's the mob effect that occurrs when one group thinks they're better than another. Violence usually isn't far behind, because we're still not that much higher than most animals. It's also easier to demonize other groups rather than people. When we see people as real people, it's harder to hurt them. That's also why most murderers and rapists are unable to see their victims as human; if they did, it's possible they could not commit the act.

Wow, I made it under the character limit this time.

I do not think the death penalty is the exclusive cause for increasing homicide rates (it certainly does not, all of its own, actually increase them); simply that it is an incredibly ineffective deterrent to it, within a civilized world. I believe that if you honestly want to deter crime in a violent manner, then you must move towards the creation of a militaristic, fascist regime (I'll take a guess and say that Nazi Germany had an extremely low crime rate). And we do not do that; because the stability it will generate will come at the expense of the people's ability to lead a life of freedom, happiness, self-expression, and without consistent fear of governmental retribution.

Not a bad position to start from. I'd argue though that it's not the act itself which is ineffective, but the judicial system which precedes it. In small villages where the elder can exact quick and efficient judgment and punishment on say, a murderer, crime tends to be proportionally low. But in a society with millions of diverse people in a highly stressful environment (And anyone who's self-supporting themselves in the US knows what I'm talking about) with a judicial system that's a virtual car wreck won't be deterred, simply put. It doesn't take much to snap off and then use the legal angles to keep you alive. It's not like they shoot you in the street if you're caught. You get "due process".

Tookie Williams pretty much blasts some hotel owners for no good reason at all, and it took years before he was sentenced and eventually executed. Crimes don't get much more blatant than that. If folks were hung up in the courtroom after the verdict, I'm sure you'd see a huge decrease in homicide and other heinous crimes. To add to that, if the judicial system had far fewer loopholes and flaws (And relied more on common sense and less on stupid precedents) that in itself would be the best deterrent. Capitol punishment should be administered as a just reward firstly, and deterrent is just icing.

But seriously, think about it - the US justice system will throw out evidence if it was thought to be stolen, regardless of what it may prove. If someone beats trial and is found innocent, but new evidence surfaces which proves their guilt, they cannot be tried due to "double jeopardy". That's just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with a determined lawyer, or an internet connection and a few hours can weasle out of serious offenses. The potential for abuse is too high, and the judges are too caught up in precedents.

As for the rest of your post, you do have some good points and I'm glad you are putting forward ideas of what else can cause these crimes to be committed. I think you're right that poor countries are more prone, as are those with social strife (Places with recent upheavels are topping the list). My concern is more with the death penalty being a correlation for the US' high murder rate. It seems contradictory that a punishment rarely used but meant to be the ultimate judgment for those who commit murder is a major factor in increasing murder rates. That would be like a new cigarette brand which causes brain damage that causes smoking rates to increase.

Can you please list the types of cultural beliefs and standards that you think are a factor in violent crime?

I'm thinking more of behaviors which emphasize the pressures of society and "making it" coupled with the consumerist viewpoint of cheap entertainment and easy escapes. The vicious contrast between how the world should be according to the murderer and how the world really is because of society pressures makes for a huge disaster.

Joe Bob works his ass off and supports his brother and wife and kids. His job is cutting back, they judge him all day long, his customers judge him. He's surrounded by turbulent social confrontations all day long, and anger. And it eventually gets to him over the months, or years. He builds it up, and builds it up. He comes home and engrosses himself in distractions - alcohol, prescription drugs, action movies with perfect outcomes, video games, etc. His real world is a mountain of stress, and the anger that buffets him from all sides is building. He pours his time and money into escapism, because it's what society specializes in. There's no free clinics to help with his sleeping condition, nor are their any socialist programs that will protect his family from losing their home and starving in the streets. There's no paid vacations at this shitjob, because he was never economically viable enough to go to college for years while his parents footed the bill.

Let's say his brother is a slug and doesn't pay the rent, and keeps the house dirty, and his wife is overstressed about the money situation and the kids who are starting to act up in school, sensing the problems at home. Everyone's in a situation of high stress, anger is just simmering beneath the surface, and society isn't going to step in and make things easier. Joe Bob takes a day off, he could get fired. He could lose money and make things worse. His brother could do something stupid, like sell drugs on the side and get caught. A multitude of different factors shape events around Joe Bob, until one day he comes home and finds his wife has taken solace with another man. Out comes the revolver.

Joe Bob doesn't have to believe in real American values, or even have inflexible standards. He can just be some guy trying to get by in an environment that's little better than poverty. Actually, perhaps much worse. The standards his society places on him can make his existence miserable. Perhaps death would be an easy out. Perhaps he is harboring so much pent up rage at a society which expects more of him than his parents ever did but offers little to nothing in return, that when that last straw is placed, he just completely snaps. Walking time bombs.

And that's not every situation, but you can see how easy it is to make a killer out of a man who would be docile in a society without so much pressure. Most of the nations you mentioned in your murder figures are more laid back, work fewer hours, have more social programs available. They also have the benefit of more homogenous societies, common backgrounds, the benefit of older legal systems, and homogenous beliefs. They do not have strong roots as capitalist regimes, but work with mixed economies. Countries like Germany for example still manufacture products and believe in extensive higher learning for their citizens, whereas the US is outsourcing its jobs, and college is only getting more expensive. Job qualifications are rising, with jobs being harder to attain because of lack of schooling. Many Americans find the deck is stacked against them before they graduate high school, and with the government being lobbied left and right by leviathans like big oil companies and auto industries, it's a small wonder the everyman gets overlooked.

So to wrap up this wandering story, unlike most of the other countries, the US is a shithole of enormous proportions, unable to sustain is own people in relative safety and comfort because it sees people as assets, and it does not work intelligently enough to stave off the kind of desperation that feeds murder.

How would you propose our judicial system operate outside of precedents and just focus on logic(although I would argue for the most part, the majority of our legal system IS logical)? For instance, privileged conversations. If they are allowed as testimony, you're setting a bad precedent(slippery slope). Is that illogical? I agree there are a LOT of loopholes but I would think these loopholes are necessary for "due process" and fair trials.

And there's no innocent Janus, just "not guilty", which just means the defense raised reasonable doubt and the prosecution couldn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt. Also, I completely agree with the 4th amendment. If it didn't exist, any officer of the law/court could come into anybody's house, find what it is they want, and move on. It sets a dangerous precedent(yes that word) of privacy.

And I would disagree with the US being a "shithole". It's tough to please 270million citizens. You think socialism is a better system than capitalism? There's a reason why this country was the most prosperous for most of the 20th century. While there ARE grave injustices, I would rather live here than anywhere in the world.

I'll be frank, I don't have the energy left to tackle that one today. Ask me another time.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I'll be frank, I don't have the energy left to tackle that one today. Ask me another time.

K, I'll get to your previous post a little later. Having a hard time understanding where you're coming from with what you just wrote.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Not a bad position to start from. I'd argue though that it's not the act itself which is ineffective, but the judicial system which precedes it. In small villages where the elder can exact quick and efficient judgment and punishment on say, a murderer, crime tends to be proportionally low. But in a society with millions of diverse people in a highly stressful environment (And anyone who's self-supporting themselves in the US knows what I'm talking about) with a judicial system that's a virtual car wreck won't be deterred, simply put. It doesn't take much to snap off and then use the legal angles to keep you alive. It's not like they shoot you in the street if you're caught. You get "due process".

There is nothing in the world more efficient than a fascist system. Every decision is effortlessly made, without any deliberation; anybody suspected of a crime is executed or exiled. Nobody has the right to free speech, because this breeds instability.

But the problem with the above is that humans will lead a life of suffering. Similarly, our justice system may not be quite as efficient, but it is the only way to ensure humane treatment of the criminals and enable justice to be served appropriately. This 'waiting period' ensures the slightest possibility of rehabilitation, finding new evidence, or perhaps another form of parole. Most people found guilty of murder are probably guilty, but it is for the sake of the innocent that we must create these inefficient 'waiting periods'.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
Tookie Williams pretty much blasts some hotel owners for no good reason at all, and it took years before he was sentenced and eventually executed. Crimes don't get much more blatant than that. If folks were hung up in the courtroom after the verdict, I'm sure you'd see a huge decrease in homicide and other heinous crimes. To add to that, if the judicial system had far fewer loopholes and flaws (And relied more on common sense and less on stupid precedents) that in itself would be the best deterrent. Capitol punishment should be administered as a just reward firstly, and deterrent is just icing.

We agree on a certain, fundamental point: homicide is generally caused by some form of desperation, correct? And even if it is not, and, say, happens within the realm of organized crime, then people who do so are (I'll bet) generally unafraid of retribution, clinging to the possibility that they will be 'protected' or some sort of it.

Bottom line, the conditions that lead an individual to commit homicide are generally the ones that blur a human's ability to think rationally and to foresee the possible ramifications of his actions. That will always ride whatever logical fear they might have of death. And even if execution will be delivered immediately after the trial, it will place a heavy risk at the expense of the potentially innocent or some other form of 'excuse' (if you want to use that word).

Originally posted by Janus Marius
But seriously, think about it - the US justice system will throw out evidence if it was thought to be stolen, regardless of what it may prove. If someone beats trial and is found innocent, but new evidence surfaces which proves their guilt, they cannot be tried due to "double jeopardy". That's just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone with a determined lawyer, or an internet connection and a few hours can weasle out of serious offenses. The potential for abuse is too high, and the judges are too caught up in precedents.

Oh, yes, the United States' justice system, including its lawyers, is incredibly corrupt, blatantly favoring the wealthy and the powerful and glorifying finances as an ability to buy a verdict. There must be some method of fixing that, but I simply do not know how.

And I am open to the possibility that the United States' justice system can be fixed or improved via making it stricter, I am opposed to it both on philosophical grounds (I'm anti death penalty not only due to its failure to deter crime) and, yes, pragmatic grounds (it's possible to heavily deter crime in a more peaceful method, in my opinion).

Originally posted by Janus Marius
As for the rest of your post, you do have some good points and I'm glad you are putting forward ideas of what else can cause these crimes to be committed. I think you're right that poor countries are more prone, as are those with social strife (Places with recent upheavels are topping the list). My concern is more with the death penalty being a correlation for the US' high murder rate. It seems contradictory that a punishment rarely used but meant to be the ultimate judgment for those who commit murder is a major factor in increasing murder rates. That would be like a new cigarette brand which causes brain damage that causes smoking rates to increase.

I want to explain my beliefs, just in order to clarify it:

Country A and Country X both start with a homicide rate of 6 per 100,000 people. Country A utilizes its finances in order to create a stricter method of combating crime, including the obvious legalization of the death penalty. Country X takes an entirely different route to it; it abolishes the death penalty and works in more peaceful and compassionate ways to prevent crime. Instead of focusing upon punishing the existing criminals, they focus upon helping the newer generations from being faced with circumstance that could potentially lead to criminality.

If my hypothesis is correct- and it seems to be heavily supported by the data- country A will have a far lower reduction than county X (although it probably will have some sort of reduction). That's not because the death penalty increases crime; but rather because it is a pointlessly violent and ineffective method of attempting to deter crime. Countries that utilize the route of Country X have been shown to have drastically lower crime rates.

I won't quote your subsequent example (saving space!), but I completely and utterly agree upon it. The United States' of hyper-capitalism, as advocated by free market conservatives, is a disgusting ideology, born out of greed, favoritism, and a lack of genuine compassion for the fact that people have a life that extends beyond their basic jobs. While I don't think that we can honestly chalk up all crime to be some sort of product of the United States' capitalist system, it is certainly a leading cause of it. If you want to scroll back a couple dozen of pages, you'd see I actually argued that very point and supported the implementation of some socialist policies.

How much do you think the further control of handguns may affect crime? I don't personally believe that the complete banning of them will serve to majorly deter crime, but heavier regulation of them is sure to have some sort of positive effects.

Again, as Janus said, there is no proof here of causation, although I would argue there's no correlation either. And as for capitalism, it's been successful since the beginning of the 20th century. Everything has its ups and downs but I would rather live in a democratic, capitalistic country, than a Socialist one. I've lived in Communism, and I understand the corruption of Socialism and Communism potentially outweigh the corruption of capitalism.

I agree on two things that might appear uncapitalistic. Gun control for one. More regulation, although not heavy. And I agree on bank regulation. FDR put a cap on how much money banks could lend out, after the Great Depression, and it worked marvelously. Clinton's stupid ass got rid of this bill in 1998, and hell started shortly after. People were spending a lot of money and sooner or later realized they spent either more than they made, or about the same. So they started taking out loans from banks. Meanwhile these banks were giving out loans like hotcakes. But guess what? Everyone (companies and individuals) started defaulting on their loans, and at some point the banks said they have no money. As much as I disagree with Obama's stimulus/bailout plans and somewhat Socialist policies, there's only one real way to get up from this mess, and that's to print a shitload of money. It'll lead to inflation and hyperinflation but eventually this money will be able to pay off foreclosures, as well as put more money back into the economy and create more jobs.

DS, I have a question. You've said several times that 'Humanity is fundamentally flawed'. I'd like to know what you mean by that.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS, I have a question. You've said several times that 'Humanity is fundamentally flawed'. I'd like to know what you mean by that.

Please elaborate.

I said those words? Show me, I don't recall. I have said that human nature is prone to destruction, which is evident of the past 4,000 years, but I don't believe I've ever said "humanity is fundamentally flawed".

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Again, as Janus said, there is no proof here of causation, although I would argue there's no correlation either. And as for capitalism, it's been successful since the beginning of the 20th century. Everything has its ups and downs but I would rather live in a democratic, capitalistic country, than a Socialist one. I've lived in Communism, and I understand the corruption of Socialism and Communism potentially outweigh the corruption of capitalism.

I agree on two things that might appear uncapitalistic. Gun control for one. More regulation, although not heavy. And I agree on bank regulation. FDR put a cap on how much money banks could lend out, after the Great Depression, and it worked marvelously. Clinton's stupid ass got rid of this bill in 1998, and hell started shortly after. People were spending a lot of money and sooner or later realized they spent either more than they made, or about the same. So they started taking out loans from banks. Meanwhile these banks were giving out loans like hotcakes. But guess what? Everyone (companies and individuals) started defaulting on their loans, and at some point the banks said they have no money. As much as I disagree with Obama's stimulus/bailout plans and somewhat Socialist policies, there's only one real way to get up from this mess, and that's to print a shitload of money. It'll lead to inflation and hyperinflation but eventually this money will be able to pay off foreclosures, as well as put more money back into the economy and create more jobs.

You seem like an economic leftist in disguise.

Nah, seriously now. I don't want to live in a communist country or even a socialist one, although I believe both of these regimes are infinitely more efficient than capitalism. The problem is that they prevent an individual from having economic freedom and the right to choose his financial path in life, which, efficient as it might be, leads to unhappiness. The Soviet Union was a totalitarian, fascist regime; it's the 'fascist' part, not the 'communist' part, that led to the violence and arguable corruption within it.

I think we should implement some socialist policies within the state. I think people should be able to be payed more while having the right to lead a genuine life, which means less hours and more vacations. I believe in that, due to human rights and my previous debunking of 'probable causes for poverty' (if you want to check it out, roll back to the economic debate we had), the state should supply an individual with the fundamental material necessities in life. I don't think that they should buy the individual a Porsche, but the rights to at least live-able food and shelter are inalienable, no matter if the individual is a lazy ass who doesn't want to work (though I believe that line of thought is unrealistic). I think that every line of work out to be respected, so long as it does not directly harm anyone, and that the wealthy blatantly exploit the poor. This exploitation and greed must be strictly regulated by the government. I also think that some environmental standards must be put forth: we cannot continue this rampant, unregulated pollution and destruction of nature, and businesses must find alternative methods to make money other than going the easy route of exploiting their employees and devastating the natural world.

I think that, if this sort of policy is implemented, then we will have a better country. Sure, we'll still be a 'capitalist' one, but economically leftist and socialist policies will serve to heighten its effectiveness and social justice.

And I don't think the death penalty increases crime, like I said before, but countries that focus upon this route of deterring crime clearly fail in comparison to countries that adopt a more 'compassionate' and peaceful way of preventing it from coming into play.

I'm a fiscal conservative but there's certain policies that are uncapitalistic that would work for this country.

And again I disagree that we should give handouts to the ones who don't want to work and are actually a burden on society and the economy. If we are to give handouts, you have to work. It is NOT unrealistic. There are a a huge number of lower class that don't want to do anything.

So you think people who starve to death do so because they are lazy? That's a line of thought I cannot support. An animal is only lazy when they can afford to be lazy. However, it is simply a biological instinct for someone to attempt to work when they are under extreme conditions. I don't think 'laziness' is a genuine cause for most members of the lower class (statistically, most of them seem to be employed).

And a lot of those members ARE lazy. The fact that people resort to crime and selling drugs is laziness. They'd rather make a quick buck than having to work for it. I say if we help everyone, those people are required to work and be productive members of society.

So you think people who starve to death do so because they are lazy? That's a line of thought I cannot support.

Not lazy, merely unmotivated and worn down. If you or me had to get food, we would get it. Any means necessary. Not to mention that their are many perceived obstacles that hold the majority of people back.

And yeah, alot of people are rather lazy, preferring not to put effort in and scrape by.

Season 13 of Southpark's out! It's gonna be leet. First ep has a 50 foot Mickey Mouse breathing fire and flying, so I will be busy for a while.

Whoops, contradicted myself there, the second statement is true but the first means that they are not necessarily just lazy, and that motivation and the heavy press of life play important factor's too.

Look, in order to clarify my position on the matter, I'll have to give an example:

Individual Z lives in poverty. For that matter, he probably grew up in a dysfunctional family- possibly an alcoholic father or a prostitute for a mother. Poverty had taken a heavy toll on them, too; the desperation and the desire for survival, in addition to the hopelessness, has caused them both to become bitter and bleak individuals. Z gets schooling just like everybody else, but he does not get the same encouragement or support as his peers do, and does not get access to the same tutors or private schools. He cannot wait to quit school; he lacks the finances and the grades necessary to embark on college, of course. Now independent, he has an alternative: join a manual job that will result in extremely hard work, or degenerate to crime in order to get easier and more satisfying financial rewards.

You are correct that 'laziness', if you honestly want to use that word, was the one that may cause him to choose crime. But what initially brings him to the alternative and the need to achieve the material necessities of life is the desperation that poverty brews. And that desperation brings out the worst in humanity, which, in turn, leads to hopelessness and a lack of 'peaceful' morality. Laziness is a factor in crime, but the very situation and causes that ultimately lead towards this 'laziness' and need for material rewards is the desperation caused by poverty.

I don't think people are poor because they are 'lazy'. Laziness is a luxury, granted to us by the fact that most of us do not need to work our asses off in order to survive. I can understand that some may be poor because they are lazy, but it is certainly not the leading cause of poverty.