What are your thoughts on the kind of person who would murder nearly a hundred people and injure hundreds more?
I am inclined to agree with BTCMillionaire that that individual has forfeited their right to life. You?
This is pretty interesting. Most of my friends from the left argue strongly against this and consider human rights irrevocable. Which I can't find a perspective to understand it from, seeing how human rights are a human creation.
In defence of your leftist friends, we are all humans so being a human creation is not really something we can examine from the outside.
I would certainly classify myself as leftist. Champagne socialist if you would like a fitting derogatory term.
A death sentence is extreme violence by the State and arguably the most unLibertarian thing ever. You cannot make an argument for death sentences on economic grounds as the inevitable appeals are more expensive than life sentences. On this basis it seems to me that the right should be against death sentences but never mind that.
All said, it seems an appropriate sanction for the most heinous of crimes, even if it does cost the tax payer more.
The whole government and practical implications are another story. I don't know if I would be for a legislated death sentence, mostly because I don't trust the powers to be not to abuse it. There would also be the whole issue of the grey areas. If the world agrees that a rapist should be executed, how would we deal with an alleged rapist that gets convicted but without
hard proof of his acts (such as the dipshit who shared his video online)?
I always secretly hope that anyone who willfully does things to others that they wouldn't want done to themselves would get back what they did several times over. Perhaps even be reborn as battery farmed life-stock. Or someone who will endure physical torture, possibly without even knowing why depending on the gravity of their actions.
As for the tax argument, that's actually surprising, I didn't think it'd be that expensive. Although if we legislated death sentences for only extreme and clear cut cases (terrorists, murderers) I would legislate not to even allow an appeal and only allow execution of those cases where there is no doubt remaining. With the cessation of human rights the person has also lost the right to appeal in my book, so the only cost remaining would be the actual execution.
Edit: They don't need any defense. We argue all sorts of topics day in day out and nobody ever has any hard feelings. We're all a bunch of nerds who just enjoy arguments. Often even for positions we don't believe in just for the exercise, an exercise which I feel schools should have by default and practice regularly.
Not sure I agree with disallowing an appeal (mistakes do get made) but let’s put that aside for the moment.
My largest complaint with conservative politicians is that they are not conservative enough. They only take into account very short term costs and disregard long term costs. There is no planning for the future.
I find it equally frustrating that the left is incredibly poor at prosecuting these economic arguments, because they are so obvious. For example, environmentalism is really an economic argument about taking into account externalities in pricing goods.
Show Posts
