They'll come for you, too
Interesting to note that the bank in question didn't loan out its money but instead made its profits on transaction fees. Also to note, the bank's primarily conservative investors are out their $65 million. Can we say legalized THEFT?
Voting is manipulated and will not solve anything.
The con-gress is nearly filled with power seeking traitors.
Be prepared for the certain collapse and the war that the elite have planned to save themselves.
NIFO.
Lavrentiy Beria
Beria was Josef Stalin's (USSR) Merrick Garland, IRS, CIA, and FBI rolled up in one person.
The opposite of the rule of law is the rule by whim.
You can't have choice without consequence - that is the lie. If there is action without consequence, the entire universe falls to chaos.
Freedom is control of self <- This is probably it, meaning that you control your actions and not somebody else.
I'm a bit unclear about your "action without consequence" point. Not sure what you mean exactly.
"If they murdered, they have to pay back (to next of kin or somebody) a monetary value of the life of the murdered person."
Uh... They do this already AND add in pain and suffering. It doesn't really deter murder, unfortunately. The death penalty does. Dismiss that reality at your own peril.
Death penalty is final. If it later comes out that the verdict was in error and someone else was responsible for the murder then you have no way to back out. This has been known to happen.
With my idea, there is a possibility of undoing the damage.
I guess if the murderer goes through rehab and 'society' decides that he is sincere, he may not need to be in captivity but he would still be required to work hard to pay back the debt.
Sometimes, captivity/rehab is not necessary because it may have been an involuntary manslaughter. In that case he would still be working hard to pay back the debt.
The reason why captivity should be avoided is because it is costly, someone has to pay for it. It should not be tax payers but the perpetrator. However, that will interfere with his efforts to pay back the debt, so, we should try to not have that expense.
The debt is not some silly 'time' in the 'slammer' owed to some abstract notion of 'society.' It is actual monetary units to some actual victims.
Also, the first murder has already happened. There is nothing we can do about it. What we can control is the future, and we should not waste it by arranging a second murder.
repay?
what planet are you on??
must not have any "liberals" on it
Exactly the question I find myself asking sometimes.
I think if you follow the thread up, you will see that we were talking about an alternative justice system that would be more 'logical' from my point of view.
"because it may have been an involuntary manslaughter."
So you get to play back-seat judge and overturn a conviction of your peers? Wow. Just... wow. Do you realize what an elitist mindset that is?
"The reason why captivity should be avoided is because it is costly, someone has to pay for it."
Then just execute all the criminals. Problem solved. [/s]
You seem to think that money can act as sufficient repayment for any crime. It is a naive world view. Under such a view, the rich can get away with anything because they can pay for it. "Hey, that business associate knows too much about my dealings with the mob. I'll just have him whacked and if they catch me I'll pay a couple million to the family." There is a reason why the penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary.
"Also, the first murder has already happened... we should not waste it by arranging a second murder."
Let me know when you get your definitions in order. Oh, wait. You've already demonstrated repeatedly that isn't going to happen.
I'm guessing you are referring to my questionable use of the word "murder".
Ok fine, let me fix that for you:
"Also, the first killing has already happened. There is nothing we can do about it. What we can control is the future, and we should not waste it by arranging a second killing. "
I do realize this consequence of my logic. However, I think it is valid. At least, I could not find anything wrong with it so far. If you can help me find a problem with my reasoning, please do so. However, please don't use assertions like "penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary" because I don't accept it as being axiomatic or following from any acceptable line of reasoning.
Presumably, someone is rich because society owes them. Society might owe them so much that it would equal to the same amount someone's life might be worth (to them, plus everyone else who is involved (family, business associates, etc)).
I mean, think about this. This situation might exist. It is unlikely in a perfect world where we stop all predation. Mostly nobody would be that rich, but I guess some would be.
One of my propositions is that you can always place a price on someone's life. The reason for this is that there is indeed a monetary value you can attach to every hour of your life. People give up hours of their life to work, do they not? Why are they doing that? Clearly, there is a monetary amount for which they are willing to spend away their life.
Let's not look the case where it is premeditated murder because it is more complicated. Let's first look at the case where it was an accident (rich guy accidentally kills someone). I think it would make sense that the rich guy pay everyone off that suffered, including the victim (via next of kin). If everyone is compensated, I don't see why we need to cause more damage to the rich guy by incarcerating him (or even killing him). This would create more societal damage than was initially done by the accident. The rich guy would be much less rich, so, it is not like he is getting off easy.
Would you at least agree with the logic for the above case?
If you eschew common logic and reasoning and rely on your own biases, that's when productive conversation ends. The universe IS and that isn't subjective to someone's preferred viewpoint.
"Presumably, someone is rich because society owes them."
Don't assume. It just makes you the first three letters.
Debt isn't wealth. People aren't rich because people owe them, they are (ethically) rich because they have provided valuable goods and services which people paid them for.
"This situation might exist."
Those who choose to rely on hypotheticals in spite of reality get what is coming to them.
"Let's not look the case where it is premeditated murder because it is more complicated. Let's first look at the case where it was an accident..."
Those aren't the same crime. They aren't comparable. They don't equate.
"One of my propositions is that you can always place a price on someone's life."
You do realize that slavery is based on that exact same premise, right?
Don't be ridiculous. I'm using it as a tool to reason about things. It doesn't mean that my reasoning is wrong if I am having to use a bit of imagination.
Not sure what your point is.
Slavery is coercion. I am not trying to defend slavery. By saying "you can always place a price on someone's life" what I mean is, there is an "expected value" that a person can expect to receive from their remaining life. If someone was to deprive you of your remaining life then they would deprive you of this "expected value". That is the price of your life.
They would still go to jail, would they not? The process would be the same. The punishment might be less severe.
From my point of view, the same amount of damage was done, so, I would argue the crime is the same. The only difference is that the perpetrator is deranged and needs psychological rehabilitation and extra enforcement expenses (which might be substantial). So, the apparent 'punishment' in monetary amount would be larger for a premeditated murder.
Anyway, I was hoping to get you to agree to a simpler case where there was an accident before moving on to a more complicated issue of premeditated murder.
Right, my point was that hopefully they didn't steal their wealth, in which case if they accidentally killed someone, they would be able to repay for that from their existing wealth. The 'punishment' is that they would become less wealthy and the victim would be compensated. The fact that they were rich to begin with didn't get them off the hook. They just had the means to compensate the victim.
If they stole their wealth, they are in double trouble then. They are going to need to repay for the theft as well.
I don't see that as being "logic". What is the line of reasoning starting from axioms that everyone accepts as being true ending with "penalties for crimes have to extend beyond the monetary"?
Regarding "common", that doesn't matter. People throughout ages had "common" beliefs that were totally wrong. Truth is truth, it doesn't require common belief in it.
I wouldn't say "crime", I would say "damage".
Also, I would say there is no crime if there is no damage. If there is no damage there is no crime. I would say that with a word of caution because now you will be taking this out of context and applying it to the wrong things. But please understand, I mean it in a very specific way.
So, if damage was done, of course it can be undone with repayment. It doesn't necessarily have to be monetary. Money is just a medium of exchange.
Let's go back to basic economics. Money is valuable as a means of trade between two willing participants, right? Both decide on a service or value in terms of a mutually-agreeable "price" in a common currency. But what is key is that both are willing and either can walk away from the exchange at any time.
Not so with a crime. One of the parties is coerced into a "transaction" they did not feel was an equitable one. (Most of the time, they aren't even asked.) For example, if someone breaks into your house, steals your stuff, and rapes your wife, did you - or your wife - agree to any of that? Of course not. And if you were asked you would have flat out refused - even if offered millions of dollars.
Do you begin to see why your ideas of simplifying things into economic terms utterly fails? Crimes are crimes against will itself - against personal volition and the ability of a conscious being to determine their own path in life. To argue that any of that can be supplanted by money is to deny the intrinsic value of free will.
The one thing you are missing is my idea of justice.
If someone breaks into a house, steals stuff, and rapes somebody, they participated in a transaction without doing their part of it, if there was one that could be made.
So, the question is, on what terms would that transaction be voluntary?
1. Breaking into a house: How much would someone want to get paid for having their house broken in? There is definitely a price. I would allow it for a big enough amount. Why not? At a certain point it would be worth it to the victim. I would agree for like a million bucks. Why not? I would fix the doors and windows and still have plenty of profit. Hell, I'll agree to the price of the house, maybe less. I guess it depends on the house.
2. Steals stuff: the price depends on the prices of the stuff they steal, but I am sure there is a monetary amount that people will agree to to give up that stuff.
3. Rape is involuntary. How much would the wife charge for rough sex (assuming the husband also agrees)? There is definitely a specific monetary amount above which the wife & husband would agree to the transaction. You can always buy people's cooperation with money. It might be quite a bit of money, but at a certain point they will agree. They wouldn't be thinking logically if they don't.
So, my idea of justice is to make the perpetrators keep their side of the 'bargain' and make the transaction voluntary. Now the difficult part is to figure out the exact monetary amounts.
No. There isn't. That's where you are 100% wrong. You think that money can solve any problem.
"You can always buy people's cooperation with money. It might be quite a bit of money, but at a certain point they will agree. They wouldn't be thinking logically if they don't."
That's a particularly curious line and it completely contradicts EVERYTHING you pretend to stand for. You pretend that principles and universal law matter and are of paramount importance. If they do, however, no amount of money can trump that.
Your idea of "justice" is a complete and utter nightmare. It is Cuba under Fidel Castro. It is Iraq under Saddam Hussein. It is China. Or North Korea. Or anywhere else where power and money control people's lives. Where people flaunt the notion of universal rights because they think they are immune to its reach.
The fact that you can't see and are unwilling to admit the gaping hell you are proposing is just shocking to me. This conversation is over.
You mean like the US? Or maybe EVERYWHERE else?
How is repayment a nightmare? It seems better (for the victim) than no repayment.
I would argue that the current (western) justice system is illogical. Why is punishment better than repayment?
How so? I'm not seeing it.
Who is going to repay the victims then?
I would do no such thing. Conviction is being proven guilty. I was commenting on what to do with the guilty party AFTER the trial.
My point was that if someone accidentally killed someone else, they should repay the damage but they shouldn't be put in captivity because they are not a danger to society. Accidents happen. Damage needs to be repaid and we need to move on. Any "punishment" wouldn't make sense. It was an accident.
much less likely these days with cameras and DNA
and DNA alone is not proof
and police lie as we see with the FBI
but something must be done to protect people
MUST BE DONE!!!
Please review the concept of "jury trial." Please also include the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."
hey skippy
are you saying police do not lie??
or that DNA alone is proof of guilt?
not sure of your point
"It is proven that societies which enforce the death penalty for murderers see significantly lower rates of murder than those who only incarcerate murderers."
No shit, Sherlock. Who wouldn't want a free hosing and food for life (or for the next 20 years)? I mean, it is better than death for sure.
I don't think the above disputes my idea. Was my exact idea actually tried? I don't think so. If it has, I would appreciate you enlightening me.
Not really. Why would I, as a victim, care that they suffer. It will not improve my situation much. What I would like to see is their "pain and suffering" working and turning over their earned income to me as compensation.
Think about this logically. What would be better for the victim?
1. having the perp killed
2. having the perp be the victim's slave until debt is paid back
I think #2 is better.
For god's sake, at least sell their organs and have something rather than nothing.
You guys are crazy. I want off this planet.
Not really, I can use the Internet without DNS. All you have to do is add all hostnames into /etc/hosts and keep that file updated. That's how it was done pre-DNS. Check for yourself. This is a fact.
Now if the internet was build on IPX/SPX, you'd at least have enough addresses, but you'd still have to have a central router doing resolution. And we're back to why DNS works...
The point I was making was that you can have the Internet without DNS. It was not about efficiency, but mere existence.
You can also have a different systems that serve the same purpose that are just as efficient and even decentralized (https://namecoin.org.
Hence, your argument that the Internet is not usable without DNS (and the very small extent of its centralization) is rebutted.
What's that?
"and it breaks IMMEDIATELY on IPv4"
How? Why?
I almost shipped funds to his bank about 15 years ago or so. Decided to do it on my own. Another lesson. A conservative institution probably isn't secure anymore. And...there you have it...
I am going to confess, I used the word 'sentient' a bit too loosely. When I said 'sentient' what I really meant was 'intelligent'.
Nobody knows what consciousness/sentience is. I would argue it is unimportant. What is important is 'intelligence'.
My understanding of the golden rule (or anything similar) is that it is about the equality of terms based on which people interact, NOT equality of their physical attributes or abilities.
It goes "do to others". So, it is about what you do to other people, in other words, interactions.
It then goes "as you would have them do to you". So, this is implying equality of interactions.
This isn't about 'skin color, eye color, hair color, facial shape, perceived abnormalities or physical defects, speech impediment, autism, visual acuity, cognitive ability or impairment, etc'.
You don't need to perceive the other person as equal to you, you need to perceive their allowed actions with regard to you being equal to your allowed actions with regard to them.
I don't understand your point here. Would you please explain in more detail exactly what you mean by that? How does that nix the golden rule as axiom idea?
I think we already have a vulnerability to misguided experts in the current system. These are judges.
Anyway, I was not claiming that we listen to specific experts. I was proposing that a 'scientific consensus' type of thing is reached for 'laws', meaning that you can't pass a law with 51% of yes votes, only with maybe 90% of yes votes (or more). Also, this vote should not be an opinion but a statement about agreement with the proof and inability to disprove it. I guess it wouldn't be a vote but a confirmation or refutation. If enough plausible refutations occur, then the law would not be arrived at until the issues are resolved. I think if you let enough people debate, things like conflicts of interest and ideological biases would likely cancel each other out and not interfere with the truth of the matter too much.
I don't mean to sound so bold but I was thinking something along the lines of 'humanity not reaching my level yet'.
I guess I might be delusional, however, I just can't see how that is possible. My thinking seems to be logical and my assumptions seem reasonable. I'm definitely not going back to my prior beliefs that I disproved over the years.
For someone who has done so little to understand the topic... Yes.
Yes, I agree there is some overhead with multiple companies providing the same service. There are 'economies of scale' effects with a big customer base.
However, this is no excuse for allowing violence.
My argument was that a forced monopoly is likely going to become wasteful and actually cost more than if there was competition with extra overhead.
More like, it is a classic statist propaganda argument.
Well then, I guess they will have to reap the consequences of their own decisions.
I buy health insurance, business insurance, etc. I do it even without anybody forcing me to do it.
It is immoral to force someone to buy something they decide not to.
Right now you pay taxes and somebody else uses them to fund security services in your area. With my idea, instead of somebody forcing you to pay taxes (and skimming off the top), you would hire security services directly. If you need help, you would call them instead of 911.
Yes, I agree. It is just a bit difficult to do in a forum format. My plan was to maybe write a book once I nail down my vision to something less vague. Which is why I am engaging with you guys, to try to get some initial feedback. I'm sorry to disappoint.
They wouldn't be able to do it for long, as they would make mistakes and quickly accrue huge debts due to being sued for all the damage. Nobody would insure them. They would quickly be taken down by another law enforcement body that knows what they are doing.
Agreed. So, would you consider my proposal to remove people from law making and allow logic to do the job?
No voting for/against laws. No special powers of any kind.
Maybe you can help me understand why this wouldn't work without Vulcans? I am open to improving this idea.
vs
"Law enforcement would exercise it."
Uh... So who exactly are you going to have performing this task? You're saying contradictory things...
"except the laws would be produced by something like academia"
Then all you'll get is congresspeople running into academia. And lest you forget, we had academics running things when Woodrow Wilson was President (only President ever to have served as college professor and dean). That's where we got progressivism and the idea of an "energetic" executive - essentially a dictator. We've seen all this before and it brought NOTHING but disaster.
"Judges and courts would exists but they would not be establishing case law"
Please study some actual law before you say such ridiculous things. Case law is nothing more than the attempt to rule using existing principles on novel circumstances.
"Maybe you can help me understand why this wouldn't work without Vulcans?"
Because you keep saying that everything is going to be dictated by logic. There are no 100% logical humans; the emotional biases and ignorance they inject foil a system based on logic.
You are confusing things. Law enforcement is not the same thing as law making.
"who exactly are you going to have performing this task"
Law making (rather, law deriving): academia or something similar
Law enforcement: private security firms hired by people/entities who need law enforcement services. These entities might be cities, neighborhoods or even individuals.
Seems to work more or less fine in science and engineering. All you have to do is ensure failure in cases of incorrect logic.
"All you have to do is ensure failure in cases of incorrect logic."
When you have less-than-all-knowing people critiquing other less-than-all-knowing people, you're bound to get error. There's no way to avoid it.
You have hypotheticalized a world of Vulcans where everyone is logical. When you find it, you can test out all of your theories. But it doesn't exist in THIS world.
I would argue some of this stuff is people pretending to believe in incorrect things on purpose so that they can defend their predatory actions. I don't think there is consensus on global warming. The population limit thing is contested. There is quite a large community of Austrian economists that contest Keynesian economics. If some government bureaucrats force stuff on people and claim to be the 'science' that doesn't make them a scientific consensus, there were plenty of people contesting that baloney.
You don't need the world to be full of Vulcans, only the people wielding force and those that check their actions. The people need to make sure they allow only logic to control power (by purchasing security services from the most 'logical' entities). The academia needs to do the leg work to determine what is most logically sound. At least, that is what I would propose at this stage. It is my hope that the people would have the sense to chose wisely.
I don't think so.
I don't want academic running things. I don't want anyone in charge. I want academics doing law proofs. There is only two ways to do a proof: the wrong way and the right way. Any mistake would be easily uncovered. There is going to be no room for opinions with this situation.
I don't think you understand how radically different my vision is from the current situation.
There will be no room for initiatives. If somebody wants to start a war on my behalf or use my money for their own little project, they are going to have to go without.
Do you sustain the scientific method? How do you think society proves out hypotheses regarding working social systems? I wouldn't be quite so eager to overlook the thousands of years of history as you are solely because it doesn't appeal to you. The Founders examined dozens of societal governments before coming up with their own plan.
"I don't think you understand how radically different my vision is from the current situation."
I understand more than you may think. I'm an engineer. I look for how to take something from an idea on a cocktail napkin through to fruition. I'm just looking at your "plan" and coming up with more questions. That much of your answers rely on the promise of some hypothetical but completely unknown solution...
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back if you want. Most of us wait until the ship reaches orbit but if you want to pop the champagne over a cocktail napkin, I'm not going to stop you.
Testing hypotheses before accepting them as fact is clearly much better than blindly believing in them, regardless of the evidence. So, yes.
"How do you think society proves out hypotheses regarding working social systems?"
To be honest, I think they are doing it probably not willingly. They don't want to do it. They have 'traditions' and such. That seems to indicate resistance to change. But there is probably an element of evolution at play. Systems that work badly or less better tend to lose out to ones that work better.
I wouldn't say it is completely unknown. I think I can talk about certain attributes of it without being able to express it precisely.
I wouldn't say I "pop the champagne" over anything except my realization that the current "solutions" are completely unacceptable and that my "cocktail napkin" of a solution is already looking much better.
I guess I will continue at it.
Not according to my observations. Certain cases basically make law, such as with judge rulings regarding collection of sales taxes across state lines. Or am I not seeing this right?
Yeah. That's why they call it case law. It's a judge trying to apply principles to the circumstances of the case... (Just exactly what I said.)
Not really. DNS can be swapped out for some other system or used in parallel with some other system for doing the same thing.
There are even some decentralized systems that do the same thing:
https://namecoin.org
https://handshake.org
Trust me, I know a thing or two about DNS, I have been dealing with the stuff for almost 20 years. I know, shameless appeal to authority which I hope you will excuse, like that thing with being a certified debate judge :)
It is worth pointing out that IEEE is not a government entity and one that doesn't use violence to enforce its standards.
Actually, the question was about decentralization vs centralization. There is plenty of workable decentralization. To be clear, I'm not against centralization itself. Only one that is forced by the threat of death.
I guess I am biased against being killed, yes, obviously.
Load more comments...