Random political thought thread.

[The Cat]

The age old argument of who is and isnt a real person has many faces, none of them particularly pleasant to look upon.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I know but in my book younger generations in most cases lack some of the practical skills that olders don't. Plus social media isn't what defined them in their early days. This is something that goes far beyond left-right divisions. Despite being a fairly young person I am not sure that my or younger generations will be able to keep things together. In my view the mindset for that just doesn't seem to be there. Everything is just so: blablabla :insert meme: blablabla.

What do you mean by practical skills? Interpersonal skills?

I try to avoid Boomer bashing these days, but to me it seems like the older generation is only barely holding it together as it is. I suspect the problem with them is endlessly re-litigating the 1960 as the years march on, which would explain the limited progress. But, as I see it Millenials will have our own fixations if such things will still be relevant when we reach an advanced age.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I don't think that argument holds any water. However, you are entitled to hold it.

My main goal here was to point out there are pros and cons to the death penalty. It's not cut and dried. I think the contention that killing is morally wrong is flawed in that it equates the life of a murderer who has killed innocent people to that of the innocents. I contend the life of murderer, who has committed the ultimate moral wrong, is not equivalent to the innocent victim, and if that individual is executed by the state after due process, the state is not committing an immoral act.

The whole 'life is sacred' argument is shallow and one dimensional, and takes little to no account of the lives of the victim(s).

Ok, then let's turn it like this. I was born in a Communist dictatorship, which in the end tried to kill me due to my cultural background (I got lucky I suppose, unlike some other children). Therefore I have really strong doubts about killing people through the legal system or decisions. Since the real question is where exactly you draw the line that something deserves death penalty. Therefore in my book it is better to just work in the direction that there is less of severe crime and some drastic individual cases can be solved with life sentence, and that would be it.

In theory I can say that your argument is psychologically disturbed and if I had power I could kill you and the rest of your family (for making you like this). Comrade Stalin style. After all of you posts clearly show that you are Capitalist ... so in a sense that is all I need to know.

Therefore for me this is all quite a slippery slope that should be avoided if possible. I know about people who died for less than your opinion(s) presented here.

 

[Virtual ghost]

What do you mean by practical skills? Interpersonal skills?

I try to avoid boomer bashing these days, but to me it seems like the older generation is only barely holding it together as it is. I suspect the problem with them is endlessly re-litigating the 1960s as the years march on, which would explain only limited progress. But, as I see it Millenials will have our own fixations if such things will still be relevant when we reach an advanced age.

By practical skills I mean exactly that. Construction, doing agriculture that has results, changing your electricity sockets in the house, making furniture, fixing smaller thing in your car. Maybe I am have a wrong picture but people used to be more physically skilled. While today just thinking about the problem is enough in most cases. This is exactly why infrastructure is coming down all over the first world. Since there is not enough people to make it work. What in my opinion is a huge strategic problem.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

By practical skills I mean exactly that. Construction, doing agriculture that has results, changing your electricity sockets in the house, making furniture, fixing smaller thing in your car. Maybe I am have a wrong picture but people used to be more physically skilled.

No, I think that's true.

While today just thinking about the problem is enough in most cases. This is exactly why infrastructure is coming down all over the first world. Since there is not enough people to make it work. What in my opinion is a huge strategic problem.

I think some people pass those skills on to their children, but there are many who don't. I sorta had some of them passed down, kind of. Another thing that happens is that people simply pay someone else to do it.

 

[The Cat]

The someone administration fighting for affordable housing. Guess even an old dog has a few tricks up his sleeve, meanwhile the opposition party continues to clomp closer to authoritarianism. Doesnt seem like a tough choice to vote to me.​

 

[Virtual ghost]

No, I think that's true.


I think some people pass those skills on to their children, but there are many who don't. I sorta had some of them passed down, kind of. Another thing that happens is that people simply pay someone else to do it.

Of course that not everyone can do it all by themselves. After all you need specific tools for some of those "fixing scenarios".

But in a sense I am getting impression that there is a growing amount of people who don't even call someone to fix it. So they just let it be until it is beyond repair. On the cases like that I am getting impression that people in a sense lost the contact with reality or they have "strange" priorities. Cities all over the developed world are objectively becoming a pile of rubble, trash and dirt. The trend is simply too big to be a pure coincidence.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Of course that not everyone can do it all by themselves. After all you need specific tools for some of those "fixing scenarios".

But in a sense I am getting impression that there is a growing amount of people who don't even call someone to fix it. So they just let it be until it is beyond repair. On the cases like that I am getting impression that people in a sense lost the contact with reality or they have "strange" priorities. Cities all over the developed world are objectively becoming a pile of rubble, trash and dirt. The trend is simply too big to be a pure coincidence.

Well, in the U.S, we also told students for a long time that those kinds of jobs are for losers, and that everybody needs a degree (thus creating inflation in the number of degrees, decreasing the value, which people really should have been able to foresee), even though lots of them pay quite well. I know someone who dropped out of college to be an electrician and they are doing quite well, from what I know.

 

[The Cat]

Well, in the U.S, we also told students for a long time that those kinds of jobs are for losers, and that everybody needs a degree (thus creating inflation in the number of degrees, decreasing the value, which people really should have been able to foresee), even though lots of them pay quite well. I know someone who dropped out of college to be an electrician and they are doing quite well, from what I know.

Hell of a thing getting manipulated your whole life just to be funneled into a machine aint it?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well, in the U.S, we also told students for a long time that those kinds of jobs are for losers, and that everybody needs a degree (thus creating inflation in the number of degrees, decreasing the value, which people really should have been able to foresee), even though lots of them pay quite well. I know someone who dropped out of college to be an electrician and they are doing quite well, from what I know.

I know, since we across the Atlantic have imported this model. I don't even think that college is fundamentally the problem here but many of the job that come of of them are simply about sitting in the office. Thus too little people are doing something of practical use. What almost by definition is causing inflation.

 

[Tomb1]

Ok, but in my book those two are two separate issues. One can exists without the other.
After all there are other worldviews other than Libertarianism where death penalty isn't positively looked upon. But ok, under US political logic this was kinda Libertarian point to make since government powers are at the center of your political logic.


However this is exactly why I find US politics frustrating. Since in it argument always has to be expanded on everything instead that it is concentrated where it gives the desired effect. The logic doesn't have to add up always. In my part of the world this is simply called "thinking things through".

Logic has to add up enough that you don't wind up producing absurd results...the principle that "governments don't have the right to do anything that people don't have the right to do" leads to absurd results if honestly adhered to. That's why using it as a basis for your argument against the death penalty is flawed.

 

[Tomb1]

I don't think that argument holds any water. However, you are entitled to hold it.

My main goal here was to point out there are pros and cons to the death penalty. It's not cut and dried. I think the contention that killing is morally wrong is flawed in that it equates the life of a murderer who has killed innocent people to that of the innocents. I contend the life of murderer, who has committed the ultimate moral wrong, is not equivalent to the innocent victim, and if that individual is executed by the state after due process, the state is not committing an immoral act.

The whole 'life is sacred' argument is shallow and one dimensional, and takes little to no account of the lives of the victim(s).

The life is sacred argument is not shallow and one dimensional....the argument is a serious one but wholly misplaced. The death penalty is just about the punishment fitting the crime...it is a response to certain extreme actions people choose to undertake and them having to shoulder the responsibility for their choices. Illusory conceptions of morality and "right/wrong" don't need to come into any of this.

Due process is not necessarily reliable. Juries can be misled. It is much more thornier issue. Only where guilt is not reasonably disputable do I favor putting the person to death. In some cases like with most mass shooters guilt/innocence is not even close to being reasonably disputable.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Logic has to add up enough that you don't wind up producing absurd results...the principle that "governments don't have the right to do anything that people don't have the right to do" leads to absurd results if honestly adhered to. That's why using it as a basis for your argument against the death penalty is flawed.

As you wish, here the cultural divide is so deep that we will just have to agree to disagree.
My national logic is that you cheery pick your options the best as you can. Thus you don't have to use the same logic in all areas. I am currently living in the 6th political system since my grand farther was born, even if I live in the same piece of land as he was. So for me the picture of the world is much more fluid than yours. I am simply incapable to thinking about the world in so abstract and static way as you do. Not to mention that I currently have complete ban on death penalty and no one is even talking about removing the income tax. So for me you got lost in the arguments inside your head. Since these are two completely different issues. We banned death penalty as a sign of rejecting all of the the local dictatorships that where killing people with questionable arguments and practices. While we use income tax to speed up development of communities in order to progress away from where the dictatorships left us. So as you can see this can work pretty fine as logic when you think about it less abstract manner. Whole of Europe banned the death penalty exactly because just about everyone has a family tree that got damaged due to some "quite questionable practices".


In my view all of this could possibly be the main reason what will cause a crash of USA. Since you don't know how to use various practices in situational manner. Instead everything has to be set in stone and newer reviewed again. Back in a day when you were isolated colony at the end of the world this worked but in a world that is getting ultra dynamic the odd are that this just wouldn't work. You can't go through just about every wall with you head.

 

[Tomb1]

As you wish, here the cultural divide is so deep that we will just have to agree to disagree.
My national logic is that you cheery pick your options the best as you can. Thus you don't have to use the same logic in all areas. I am currently living in the 6th political system since my grand farther was born, even if I live in the same piece of land as he was. So for me the picture of the world is much more fluid than yours. I am simply incapable to thinking about the world in so abstract and static way as you do. Not to mention that I currently have complete ban on death penalty and no one is even talking about removing the income tax. So for me you got lost in the arguments inside your head. Since these are two completely different issues. We banned death penalty as a sign of rejecting all of the the local dictatorships that where killing people with questionable arguments and practices. While we use income tax to speed up development of communities in order to progress away from where the dictatorships left us. So as you can see this can work pretty fine as logic when you think about it less abstract manner. Whole of Europe banned the death penalty exactly because just about everyone has a family tree that got damaged due to some "quite questionable practices".


In my view all of this could possibly be the main reason what will cause a crash of USA. Since you don't know how to use various practices in situational manner. Instead everything has to be set in stone and newer reviewed again. Back in a day when you were isolated colony at the end of the world this worked but in a world that is getting ultra dynamic the odd are that this just wouldn't work. You can't go through just about every wall with you head.

Questioning and redirecting onto my grander worldview is unprofessional and inappropriate....not to mention a red herring.

I'm not lost at all. I was only adhering to the libertarian principle you introduced that "the government should not have a right to do what people don't have the right to do." If you honestly adhere to that principle, then you'd also be against a government-imposed income tax.

Since you're not against the income tax, then your reliance upon that libertarian principle was arbitrary....you pick and choose when to use it.

Rather than come up with a better argument for opposing the death penalty, you've now explained it as "you don't have to use the same logic in all areas." That's fine...American politicians don't use the same logic in all areas either if they use any logic at all, so in that respect you and them have something in common.

 

[The Cat]

I'll bet that all the news outlets you're not seeing this covered on, you're seeing a lot of pharma commercials...weird how that works.​

 

[Red Herring]

Ironically, yesterday, December 10th, was Human Rights Day and also the 75th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here are a few goodies from this essential document - keep in mind that this was internationally recognized as the bare minimum standard in 1948!

Preamble​

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Article 1​

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2​

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3​

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 22​

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23​

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24​

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25​

1. Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
2. Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26​

1. Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
2. Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
3. Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 29​

1. Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Questioning and redirecting onto my grander worldview is unprofessional and inappropriate....not to mention a red herring.

I'm not lost at all. I was only adhering to the libertarian principle you introduced that "the government should not have a right to do what people don't have the right to do." If you honestly adhere to that principle, then you'd also be against a government-imposed income tax.

Since you're not against the income tax, then your reliance upon that libertarian principle was arbitrary....you pick and choose when to use it.

Rather than come up with a better argument for opposing the death penalty, you've now explained it as "you don't have to use the same logic in all areas." That's fine...American politicians don't use the same logic in all areas either if they use any logic at all, so in that respect you and them have something in common.

I am sorry if that came out of as rude.
I simply can't believe that one can't separate issues such as death penalty and income taxes.

Plus to tell you the truth I don't know that much about libertarian principles. I never even heard about the term until I came to this forum, since in my part of the world the term doesn't exist. Here liberals are as far as you can go into individualism.

As I said let's just agree to disagree, we are evidently living in different bubbles, realities or however you want to call it.

 

[Red Herring]

Countries whose laws do not provide for the death penalty for any crime:
Albania, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Benin,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Canada,
Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Congo, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire,
Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia,
Finland, Fiji, France, Gabon, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti,
Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius,
Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Mozambique, Namibia,
Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, North Macedonia, Norway, Palau,
Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda,
Samoa, San Marino, Sao Tome And Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland,
Timor-Leste, Togo, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay,
Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City, Venezuela.

Countries which retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes such as murder but can be
considered abolitionist in practice in that they have not executed anyone during the past 10
years and are believed to have a policy or established practice of not carrying out executions:
Algeria, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Eritrea, Eswatini, Ghana, Grenada, Kenya, Laos,
Liberia, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco/Western Sahara, Niger, Russia, South
Korea, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Tunisia.

Countries and territories that retain the death penalty for ordinary crimes:
Afghanistan, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus,
Belize, Botswana, China, Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cuba, Dominica,
Egypt, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan,
Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Oman,
Pakistan, Palestine (State of), Qatar, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand,
Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America, Viet Nam,
Yemen, Zimbabwe.

Look at the list of those countries and consider what company you want to be keeping. That's a matter of preference, of course.
What's a matter of fact though is that this list does show how the United States are the only Western country and the only first world country except for Japan to use the death penalty. The United States are a clear outlier here. The abolition of the death penalty is pretty much a given in the vast majority of the developed world. That's why I don't see it as yet another political hot button issue on which you can have several different positions, each equally plausible and legitimate. The debate is as outdated as the debate over slavery or the equality of women. Most of the developed world has realized this, acted accordingly and moved on.

My ethical reasoning is based on those basic humanist principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The most fundamental axiom of that system is the inalienable and unimpeachable nature of human dignity and the right to life. Like any axiom you might reject it and propose something else instead, but you've gotta start somewhere and I haven't found a better one in human intellectual history.

However, I have not yet seen a reply to my post yet that is not based on an (explicit or implicit) rejection of that fundamental principle.
Practical arguments for the death penalty like deterrance and safety have been debuked by numerous studies. They are simply factually wrong. The "moral" argument that a killer forfits his right to live is - as both @Virtual ghost and I have tried to explain - based on a the assumption that the value of human life is relative and conditional. You can take that position, but then your entire system of ethics is sort of shaky, fragile and unsound ... and it lessens the moral authority of the state and its legal system. And you also go against both the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several other bills of right. I have not yet seen anyone here adress that point - which is in fact my main argument.

@Virtual ghost did not back out of the debate because he didn't have any arguments. He just correctly stated that on this issue the cultural differences between the USA and almost the entirety of the rest of the developed world is too big to find enough common ground for a productive debate.

 

[The Cat]

good faith like good taste is easy to recognize.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The "moral" argument that a killer forfits his right to live is - as both @Virtual ghost and I have tried to explain - based on a the assumption that the value of human life is relative and conditional. You can take that position, but then your entire system of ethics is sort of shaky, fragile and unsound ... and it lessens the moral authority of the state and its legal system. And you also go against both the spirit and the letter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several other bills of right. I have not yet seen anyone here adress that point - which is in fact my main argument.

Moral authority of the state !?
I am sorry Herring but you can't really say stuff like that on US forum without looking either ridiculous or autocratic.

The problem is that yours and mine government are quite unlike the government of the people you are trying to talk to. They don't have perks that the government will pay their chemo therapy (even if they are unemployed). That there are no guns all over the place and that police is actually doing their job in a way that it was meant to be. Or that the government fund will pay you the college degree and thus no one will have student debt, (what allows for more free lifestyle). Etc. etc.

Therefore in order to really remove the need for death penalty you must first make a massive overhaul of the economic paradigms. Since just going straight for the removal of death penalty can only require extra prisons, and that isn't that much of a solution.

When did you see that US mass media brought some politicians from Europe to studio in order that journalists can ask them how they solved healthcare, how is the taxation going, what are their solutions about crime, how is green new deal going, what are their views on education ... etc. That isn't happening and thus you have to be careful with what you are saying. Since most will have no idea what exactly are you talking about or how that should work (what probably isn't a coincidence).