[QUOTE=GenPol;36369491]'Let's say we decided to abolish the death penalty. Risk of an innocent being killed by the death penalty eliminated.'
There's a still a risk of getting killed in the prison system, and a rather big one. An innocent can get killed for this reason.
A very low risk of innocents getting killed (1 in thousands) still justifies saving thousands of people by investing more money in health care.[/QUOTE]
What money? In a system that the death penalty would have a part in there would be due process to take into account. No amount of slave labor is going to pay for due process.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369532]Which points? I addressed all of the points I recognized. Make a proper list.[/QUOTE]
make a proper list? the last 2 posts ive made in this thread are direct replies to you and you've outright ignored them.
[QUOTE=Boxbot219;36369533]What money? In a system that the death penalty would have a part in there would be due process to take into account. No amount of slave labor is going to pay for due process.[/QUOTE]
"No amount of slave labor is going to pay for due process." - That's highly arguable.
If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369547]make a proper list? the last 2 posts ive made in this thread are direct replies to you and you've outright ignored them.[/QUOTE]
I didn't even understand half of your post. It seemed like a random mix of words.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369578]
I didn't even understand half of your post. It seemed like a random mix of words.[/QUOTE]
hahaha this is where the debate ends. it's clear you're either trolling everyone in this thread or you're just trying to avoid citing sources for the 'billions' penal labour brings. cone seemed to understand, why can't you?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369578]"No amount of slave labor is going to pay for due process." - That's highly arguable.
If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.[/QUOTE]
so wait, you get money by using prisoners as slaves. how do you know who to imprison? you use the money to fund due process!
I'm seeing some really circular thinking here
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369578]On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities ([B]ranging from cakes to prostitutes[/B]) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care.[/QUOTE]
so you intend to use prisoners as prostitutes if slave labour doesn't work? well that's still gonna be slave labor, isn't it? nobody wants to get railed every day of the week, you'd have to force the majority into it. which is rape.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I think it is pretty clear you're trolling at this point, or at least you're trolling now
[QUOTE=Cone;36369644]so wait, you get money by using prisoners as slaves. how do you know who to imprison? you use the money to fund due process!
I'm seeing some really circular thinking here
so you intend to use prisoners as prostitutes if slave labour doesn't work? well that's still gonna be slave labor, isn't it? nobody wants to get railed every day of the week, you'd have to force the majority into it. which is rape.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I think it is pretty clear you're trolling at this point, or at least you're trolling now[/QUOTE]
"so you intend to use prisoners as prostitutes if slave labour doesn't work? "
No, not at all. Prisoners would be able to buy prostitute services from normal prostitutes.
"so wait, you get money by using prisoners as slaves. how do you know who to imprison? you use the money to fund due process!"
Uhh, yes? You use some money from the government budget to fund the due process. After that, the repetitive murderers are enslaved and pay back the costs of the due process, and start making additional profit for universal health care.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369639]hahaha this is where the debate ends. it's clear you're either trolling everyone in this thread or you're just trying to avoid citing sources for the 'billions' penal labour brings. cone seemed to understand, why can't you?[/QUOTE]
I've already replied to this.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369578]"No amount of slave labor is going to pay for due process." - That's highly arguable.
If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I didn't even understand half of your post. It seemed like a random mix of words.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369679]"so you intend to use prisoners as prostitutes if slave labour doesn't work? "
No, not at all. Prisoners would be able to buy prostitute services from normal prostitutes.
"so wait, you get money by using prisoners as slaves. how do you know who to imprison? you use the money to fund due process!"
Uhh, yes? You use some money from the government budget to fund the due process. After that, the repetitive murderers are enslaved and pay back the costs of the due process, and start making additional profit for universal health care.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I've already replied to this.[/QUOTE]
i would still like to see credible sources that claim that there are noticeable profits from forced manual labour camps, that benefit society.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369679]No, not at all. Prisoners would be able to buy prostitute services from normal prostitutes.[/QUOTE]
right, and that requires giving them money. why would they have money and, more importantly, where would they get it? as well as that, that would mean being near a woman (and a scantily-clad one at that) and, as I've already mentioned, that will inevitably lead to rape and murder. after all, I'd be pretty stressed out if I worked myself to death each morning with no possible prospects for hope or survival. probably stressed enough to kill someone - why not the vulnerable woman cat-calling me?
again, no amount of pay is worth that. you'd only get very desperate or very stupid people going offering themselves, and do you want said desperate people to have to risk that in the first place? do you want the foolhardy's blood on your hands?
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369737]i would still like to see credible sources that claim that there are noticeable profits from forced manual labour camps, that benefit society.[/QUOTE]
Did you even read my post? You keep strawmanning, you keep giving into logical fallacies.
I said:
"If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care."
Can you see the if? Means it's not a statement.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369785]Did you even read my post? You keep strawmanning, you keep giving into logical fallacies.
I said:
"If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care."
Can you see the if? Means it's not a statement.[/QUOTE]
when he says he wants a source, he means he wants you to point towards evidence that you can make any kind of noteworthy profit with slave-labor
[QUOTE=Cone;36369773]right, and that requires giving them money. why would they have money and, more importantly, where would they get it? as well as that, that would mean being near a woman (and a scantily-clad one at that) and, as I've already mentioned, that will inevitably lead to rape and murder. after all, I'd be pretty stressed out if I worked myself to death each morning with no possible prospects for hope or survival. probably stressed enough to kill someone - why not the vulnerable woman cat-calling me?
again, no amount of pay is worth that. you'd only get very desperate or very stupid people going offering themselves, and do you want said desperate people to have to risk that in the first place? do you want the foolhardy's blood on your hands?[/QUOTE]
They would get money by working in the prison camps, in a voluntary manner. Ex: Uranium mine prison camps, industrial prison camps, service prison camps and even science prison camps.
"again, no amount of pay is worth that. you'd only get very desperate or very stupid people going offering themselves, and do you want said desperate people to have to risk that in the first place? do you want the foolhardy's blood on your hands?"
If they give in into it, they think that it will improve their situation, and it probably will.
"again, no amount of pay is worth that."
Haha, really? Simply give prisoners 1/5 of the normal wages - that would almost certainly make profit due to the reduced labor costs, implying that their products would be sold on a market with the said labor prices.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369785]Did you even read my post? You keep strawmanning, you keep giving into logical fallacies.
I said:
"If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care."
Can you see the if? Means it's not a statement.[/QUOTE]
but it would still imply that you feel that penal labour is ever justifiable; which i believe, is not.
HOWEVER, rehabilitative work of some kind is a foreseeable solution, i can agree with you on that.
[QUOTE=Cone;36369818]when he says he wants a source, he means he wants you to point towards evidence that you can make any kind of noteworthy profit with slave-labor[/QUOTE]
I won't go and research it as of now, and this is why I said:
"If forcing slave labor would generate profits to save lives by reinvesting those profits in the health care, then I would support it. That includes due processes and other factors.
On the other hand, if it doesn't - then simple labor for benefits and commodities (ranging from cakes to prostitutes) system would be used. The profits from this system would still be reinvested in health care.".
Please learn to read. It might help you in the future.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bobie;36369825]but it would still imply that you feel that penal labour is ever justifiable; which i believe, is not.
HOWEVER, rehabilitative work of some kind is a foreseeable solution, i can agree with you on that.[/QUOTE]
"but it would still imply that you feel that penal labour is ever justifiable; which i believe, is not."
Read the IF statement that I posted many posts ago. This is my position by the way. What you think I imply is irrelevant - my position is what counts. Read it. I openly stated it.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369822]They would get money by working in the prison camps, in a voluntary manner. Ex: Uranium mine prison camps, industrial prison camps, service prison camps and even science prison camps.[/QUOTE]
so you're paying the prisoners... to pay prostitutes. who you also pay just to go there. riiiiight.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369822]If they give in into it, they think that it will improve their situation, and it probably will.[/QUOTE]
being dead and raped is not an improvement
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369822]Haha, really? Simply give prisoners 1/5 of the normal wages - that would almost certainly make profit due to the reduced labor costs, implying that their products would be sold on a market with the said labor prices.[/QUOTE]
I meant for the prostitutes. also I'm fairly certain paying your workforce a tiny amount to get a lot of money is A) incredibly amoral, and B) one of the reasons the economy is so shit right now. do you actually have any economics knowledge with which to base your system on? do you know how much money you're likely to get in comparison to what would happen to the world-wide economy?
if not, I don't think your system is likely to take off.
[QUOTE=Cone;36369885]so you're paying the prisoners... to pay prostitutes. who you also pay just to go there. riiiiight.
being dead and raped is not an improvement
I meant for the prostitutes. also I'm fairly certain paying your workforce a tiny amount to get a lot of money is A) incredibly amoral, and B) one of the reasons the economy is so shit right now. do you actually have any economics knowledge with which to base your system on? do you know how much money you're likely to get in comparison to what would happen to the world-wide economy?
if not, I don't think your system is likely to take off.[/QUOTE]
"so you're paying the prisoners... to pay prostitutes. who you also pay just to go there. riiiiight." - Where's the argument?
"being dead and raped is not an improvement" - ?
"I meant for the prostitutes. also I'm fairly certain paying your workforce a tiny amount to get a lot of money is A) incredibly amoral, and B) one of the reasons the economy is so shit right now. do you actually have any economics knowledge with which to base your system on? do you know how much money you're likely to get in comparison to what would happen to the world-wide economy?" - No, it's not, if the workforce are prisoners who repeatedly murdered people, and if the profits from their work get reinvested in health care.
"if not, I don't think your system is likely to take off." - It already took off in Japan. I'm talking about the labor for benefits one.
You're one of the reasons why I think the standard parliamentary democracy is a failure. People-elected soviets with supreme soviet-elected General Secretaries would be far better. Also, the soviets would have to meet certain education levels and test results to be eligible for elections. That, combined with constitutional information transparency and a more decentralized power system than in the SU would be far better.
GenPol, you must be kidding.
You claim that you don't want static laws. That wouldn't work, because then how the flying hell would anybody know what they could or couldn't do? What would happen if there was a bias towards an individual? You have to factor in the possibility for abuse (and place this higher than the possibility of it working, of course). A government without static laws would never function to the benefit of its citizens.
That being said, I completely disagree with the idea of penal labor for convicts. First of all, the possibility for abuse is there if it's profitable and to the benefit of the government to imprison people and make them work for no wages, only cost is providing them food/shelter, and that's pretty cheap. I don't want a society where laws will take that into consideration. "If we legalize marijuana, then we could lose out on a possible source of labor." This might be exaggerated, but the ability for abuse is there, and definitely needs to be considered before making something incorporated into the justice system.
As I don't believe the government to be a benevolent entity, I also believe that the person who is incarcerated does not owe anything to society or the government. Instead, they should be rehabilitated and put back into society, able to exercise their right to freedom (as I believe all individuals are entitled to). The government cannot force labor from them, or life.
You also talk about utilitarianism in a horrid way. One that infringes on the rights of the individuals, assuming that they owe something to society or others. If somebody is dying from a dying liver or similar, the burden is not on one with a healthy liver. I would not kill an innocent person to save thousands, even millions. It is their right as an individual to THEIR body and life, not the state or those who are unfortunate.
A society is a collection of individuals, not a large collective hive mind. A society does not improve by hurting individuals. I would hate to live in a society where I could be potentially murdered at any time for somebody else. That's horrid and an atrocity.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36395588]GenPol, you must be kidding.
You claim that you don't want static laws. That wouldn't work, because then how the flying hell would anybody know what they could or couldn't do? What would happen if there was a bias towards an individual? You have to factor in the possibility for abuse (and place this higher than the possibility of it working, of course). A government without static laws would never function to the benefit of its citizens.
That being said, I completely disagree with the idea of penal labor for convicts. First of all, the possibility for abuse is there if it's profitable and to the benefit of the government to imprison people and make them work for no wages, only cost is providing them food/shelter, and that's pretty cheap. I don't want a society where laws will take that into consideration. "If we legalize marijuana, then we could lose out on a possible source of labor." This might be exaggerated, but the ability for abuse is there, and definitely needs to be considered before making something incorporated into the justice system.
As I don't believe the government to be a benevolent entity, I also believe that the person who is incarcerated does not owe anything to society or the government. Instead, they should be rehabilitated and put back into society, able to exercise their right to freedom (as I believe all individuals are entitled to). The government cannot force labor from them, or life.
You also talk about utilitarianism in a horrid way. One that infringes on the rights of the individuals, assuming that they owe something to society or others. If somebody is dying from a dying liver or similar, the burden is not on one with a healthy liver. I would not kill an innocent person to save thousands, even millions. It is their right as an individual to THEIR body and life, not the state or those who are unfortunate.
A society is a collection of individuals, not a large collective hive mind. A society does not improve by hurting individuals. I would hate to live in a society where I could be potentially murdered at any time for somebody else. That's horrid and an atrocity.[/QUOTE]
No, I don't want 'sacred' laws or 'sacred and universal codes'. Nothing is sacred and nothing is permanent. I believe that there should be a moral code which would be established and reasoned by the society. A moral code which would result in the maximum net moral benefit. A moral code which could be changed and adjusted.
And democratic governments usually don't conspire to put people in prison intentionally, due to the structure of a democratic state apparatus. Obviously, freedom of information as well as freedom of the mass media is necessary for more efficient ethical systems to be in place. Rather high decentralization of power and high political activity, as long as with the government obligation to report its every action while monitored by civilian monitors are all required too for such moral systems to work.
Conspiracy theories usually arise out of the belief that the democratic governments these conspiracy theorists live under are actually highly totalitarian, and can hide all the information in a more or less efficient manner, which is simply not true.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369978]Where's the argument?[/QUOTE]
do you not see the flaw in giving people money which they then spend on people who you have already paid? it's a waste of money, you're paying the same people twice, and at your own expense at that. you'll be hiring these prostitutes as an official part of the government, right? so you'll have to pay for life-insurance, medical, dental, as well as just convincing them to go in there in the first place. how much money do you really expect to pull from this?
you'll get money from the prisoners making cakes or whatever, you give them, say, a tenth of it - but how much money would you even make in the first place? unless your prisoners are really, really good at what you get them to do, which is really unlikely, the amount of people that actually are repeat murderers will not make anywhere near enough money for you to maintain the camps, send in and insure the safety of groups of prostitutes, pay the prisoners, pay the guards, and give the prisoners materials and tools.
and for that matter, you'll probably want to give the prisoners livable conditions and medical care anyway. if they die, you'll actually be waiting for someone else to flip out so you can replace them. in that time, the whole camp could fall apart, putting a serious dent in your profits. and then you might not be able to afford to pay every single prisoner, which means no more prostitutes, which means the prisoners get antsy and [I]at best[/I] start murdering and raping eachother, and at worst they riot.
and don't say the whole camp won't fall apart just from one guy dying until you say how many people are actually repeat offenders in whichever poor country you want to see this system implimented in. for all I know it could be as low as 100 a year, which could mean as little as 25 prisoners per camp.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369978]?[/QUOTE]
do you see any other outcome for sending prostitutes into a camp of people you know are incredibly unstable?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369978]No, it's not, if the workforce are prisoners who repeatedly murdered people, and if the profits from their work get reinvested in health care.[/QUOTE]
what do you mean "it's not"? it's not amoral? you're enslaving people! at least you could have just pretended it was a necessary act of evil, but do you seriously fucking think that's something someone deserves? horrid, desperate life toiling away in a death camp until your hands fall off and you're shot because the money spent feeding you could go to people who need it more is apparently the fate of people with critical mental illness. "better not have an abusive childhood in my world, or your ass is heading straight to the mines!" "hope that time your mind shut down your empathetic capabilites to stop you from going insane taught you how to sew, you little shit!"
and your complete lack of response for my question about your knowledge on economics probably points towards how useful your input is on this. you just keep saying "imma put the money into healthcare and save ALL THE PEOPLES" whilst having absolutely no idea about how many people you will actually help, how much money you will make, how much money you will have to spend, and what this system will do to the economics of this hypothetically-depressed country. if you want a functioning system you WILL have to put some monetary thought into it - nobody wants an ideas-guy.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369978]"if not, I don't think your system is likely to take off." - It already took off in Japan. I'm talking about the labor for benefits one.[/QUOTE]
so is your system actually based on scientific and statistical evidence, or will you just keep saying "it works in Japan!"? do you know whether it would ever work in anywhere other than Japan? do you even know if it actually does work there in the first place?
[QUOTE=GenPol;36369978]You're one of the reasons why I think the standard parliamentary democracy is a failure. People-elected soviets with supreme soviet-elected General Secretaries would be far better. Also, the soviets would have to meet certain education levels and test results to be eligible for elections. That, combined with constitutional information transparency and a more decentralized power system than in the SU would be far better.[/QUOTE]
I don't really understand what you're saying here, something about Soviets? could you please rephrase it, or something? if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'll have to point out that Soviet Russia was a horrible place to be, so why you would want to emulate its leadership is a mystery to me.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36395904]No, I don't want 'sacred' laws or 'sacred and universal codes'. Nothing is sacred and nothing is permanent. I believe that there should be a moral code which would be established and reasoned by the society. A moral code which would result in the maximum net moral benefit. A moral code which could be changed and adjusted.
And democratic governments usually don't conspire to put people in prison intentionally, due to the structure of a democratic state apparatus. Obviously, freedom of information as well as freedom of the mass media is necessary for more efficient ethical systems to be in place. Rather high decentralization of power and high political activity, as long as with the government obligation to report its every action while monitored by civilian monitors are all required too for such moral systems to work.
Conspiracy theories usually arise out of the belief that the democratic governments these conspiracy theorists live under are actually highly totalitarian, and can hide all the information in a more or less efficient manner, which is simply not true.[/QUOTE]
You honestly believe that the government tells us everything? Whether you believe it's right or not that they hide it, it's pretty silly to think that they don't. How about when Wikileaks revealed that the government had caused more casualties than ever believed? They didn't tell us this. It's obvious that they can, in fact, hide things from us.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's common sense. Don't assume that the government is going to tell us everything, that's just putting your faith into the state. I get that you want a transparent government, but again, that could potentially be abused.
Again, I don't believe in conspiracy theories so I'm not sure where you got that from. I'm pretty sure this is an attempt to discredit my argument without a counter-argument. And who's to say they wouldn't put people in prison intentionally? You love to claim that anarchists and libertarians are idiots for putting their faith that corporations (that have a check called competition) could provide better services than states (which have no check, they have a monopolization of power), when you're putting your faith into a state. States that, as long as they have that power, can do as they wish.
You also want tests for if you can or cannot vote, and that's just ridiculous for a number of reasons. Who writes these tests? How can you decide what skill sets are essential to voting? How can you decide which aren't? And most of all, why should a person who is required to live under the state not be allowed to vote? That, in and of itself, is creating a division between people. If you advocate a public education, then shouldn't that be sufficient to decide if they can or cannot vote? Are you advocating a higher education that must be purchased (similar to our current system)? Then why should the people that decide to go to college be the only ones allowed to vote?
You're crazy to allow the state that much power. To only allow what you consider smart people (such an opinionated term, by the way), to be able to access voting rights is crazy. The less intelligent people SHOULD be allowed to vote, because they should have a say in what they can and cannot do.
You only focused on one part of my argument, by the way. Likely because you saw what you wanted to exploit as a "conspiracy theory", instead of focusing on the actual arguments. The idea is, you should always factor in the potential for abuse when you create laws, instead of putting faith in that the government will just handle it and will always have you (not the general public, but you as an individual) in mind when it decides and acts.
[QUOTE=Cone;36396273]do you not see the flaw in giving people money which they then spend on people who you have already paid? it's a waste of money, you're paying the same people twice, and at your own expense at that. you'll be hiring these prostitutes as an official part of the government, right? so you'll have to pay for life-insurance, medical, dental, as well as just convincing them to go in there in the first place. how much money do you really expect to pull from this?
you'll get money from the prisoners making cakes or whatever, you give them, say, a tenth of it - but how much money would you even make in the first place? unless your prisoners are really, really good at what you get them to do, which is really unlikely, the amount of people that actually are repeat murderers will not make anywhere near enough money for you to maintain the camps, send in and insure the safety of groups of prostitutes, pay the prisoners, pay the guards, and give the prisoners materials and tools.
and for that matter, you'll probably want to give the prisoners livable conditions and medical care anyway. if they die, you'll actually be waiting for someone else to flip out so you can replace them. in that time, the whole camp could fall apart, putting a serious dent in your profits. and then you might not be able to afford to pay every single prisoner, which means no more prostitutes, which means the prisoners get antsy and [I]at best[/I] start murdering and raping eachother, and at worst they riot.
and don't say the whole camp won't fall apart just from one guy dying until you say how many people are actually repeat offenders in whichever poor country you want to see this system implimented in. for all I know it could be as low as 100 a year, which could mean as little as 25 prisoners per camp.
do you see any other outcome for sending prostitutes into a camp of people you know are incredibly unstable?
what do you mean "it's not"? it's not amoral? you're enslaving people! at least you could have just pretended it was a necessary act of evil, but do you seriously fucking think that's something someone deserves? horrid, desperate life toiling away in a death camp until your hands fall off and you're shot because the money spent feeding you could go to people who need it more is apparently the fate of people with critical mental illness. "better not have an abusive childhood in my world, or your ass is heading straight to the mines!" "hope that time your mind shut down your empathetic capabilites to stop you from going insane taught you how to sew, you little shit!"
and your complete lack of response for my question about your knowledge on economics probably points towards how useful your input is on this. you just keep saying "imma put the money into healthcare and save ALL THE PEOPLES" whilst having absolutely no idea about how many people you will actually help, how much money you will make, how much money you will have to spend, and what this system will do to the economics of this hypothetically-depressed country. if you want a functioning system you WILL have to put some monetary thought into it - nobody wants an ideas-guy.
so is your system actually based on scientific and statistical evidence, or will you just keep saying "it works in Japan!"? do you know whether it would ever work in anywhere other than Japan? do you even know if it actually does work there in the first place?
I don't really understand what you're saying here, something about Soviets? could you please rephrase it, or something? if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'll have to point out that Soviet Russia was a horrible place to be, so why you would want to emulate its leadership is a mystery to me.[/QUOTE]
"do you not see the flaw in giving people money which they then spend on people who you have already paid?"
Uhh, no? Are you stupid? That's how input-output allocation of services work. That's what keeps the economy in motion.
"you'll get money from the prisoners making cakes or whatever, you give them, say, a tenth of it - but how much money would you even make in the first place? unless your prisoners are really, really good at what you get them to do, which is really unlikely, the amount of people that actually are repeat murderers will not make anywhere near enough money for you to maintain the camps, send in and insure the safety of groups of prostitutes, pay the prisoners, pay the guards, and give the prisoners materials and tools."
Total revenues minus the total costs.
"and don't say the whole camp won't fall apart just from one guy dying until you say how many people are actually repeat offenders in whichever poor country you want to see this system implimented in. for all I know it could be as low as 100 a year, which could mean as little as 25 prisoners per camp."
I don't even understand what you're saying at this point.
"and for that matter, you'll probably want to give the prisoners livable conditions and medical care anyway. if they die, you'll actually be waiting for someone else to flip out so you can replace them. in that time, the whole camp could fall apart, putting a serious dent in your profits. and then you might not be able to afford to pay every single prisoner, which means no more prostitutes, which means the prisoners get antsy and [I]at best[/I] start murdering and raping eachother, and at worst they riot."
They WOULD be given health care. I never said they wouldn't. Please teach me the art of talking without saying anything.
"do you see any other outcome for sending prostitutes into a camp of people you know are incredibly unstable?"
No, because there would be heavy surveillance.
"what do you mean "it's not"? it's not amoral? you're enslaving people! at least you could have just pretended it was a necessary act of evil, but do you seriously fucking think that's something someone deserves? horrid, desperate life toiling away in a death camp until your hands fall off and you're shot because the money spent feeding you could go to people who need it more is apparently the fate of people with critical mental illness. "better not have an abusive childhood in my world, or your ass is heading straight to the mines!" "hope that time your mind shut down your empathetic capabilites to stop you from going insane taught you how to sew, you little shit!""
It's not amoral to enslave murderers who murdered even after rehabilitation attempts. And mentally ill people wouldn't do any slave labor or placed in prison. They would be assigned to mental institutions.
"so is your system actually based on scientific and statistical evidence, or will you just keep saying "it works in Japan!"? do you know whether it would ever work in anywhere other than Japan? do you even know if it actually does work there in the first place?"
It's a hypothesis to be tested. One doesn't have to provide evidence to be able to test an untested hypothesis. One doesn't have to argue for it neither. That's how the scientific method works.
"I don't really understand what you're saying here, something about Soviets? could you please rephrase it, or something? if you're saying what I think you're saying, I'll have to point out that Soviet Russia was a horrible place to be, so why you would want to emulate its leadership is a mystery to me."
Wrong. If you don't even understand, don't bother to reply with such stupid nonsense.
I don't see any point of arguing anymore. Arguing over an untested hypothesis is stupid. It has to be tested - that's the point of the scientific method. Testing the untested. Not arguing over the untested, and forbidding it from being tested.
The scientific method is superior to arguing in this respect, therefore I will discontinue it - due to the fact that I've realized to what extent the scientific method can be applied in politics.
GenPol, the scientific method is a great way of proving things. The thing is, we need to decide what we should even attempt to prove, using the past and previous examples, along with if it's infringing on people's unalienable rights and such, on if it's a viable option. The problem is, it's much more opinionated than it would be in science. People aren't something that can be put into a static equation like much of science. There's no laws pertaining to how human beings act or want to be treated, it changes. If you prove something in science, it's fact. If you show something in politics, it can be argued that something can be done better, or that what you showed isn't an improvement. There is a great deal of personal opinion and such that goes on in politics. That's why it intrigues me so much. There's no one answer. There's no one solution. You have to constantly evaluate what goes on around you to see how things would work best.
It's intriguing as all hell to me.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36396642]GenPol, the scientific method is a great way of proving things. The thing is, we need to decide what we should even attempt to prove, using the past and previous examples, along with if it's infringing on people's unalienable rights and such, on if it's a viable option. The problem is, it's much more opinionated than it would be in science. People aren't something that can be put into a static equation like much of science. There's no laws pertaining to how human beings act or want to be treated, it changes. If you prove something in science, it's fact. If you show something in politics, it can be argued that something can be done better, or that what you showed isn't an improvement. There is a great deal of personal opinion and such that goes on in politics. That's why it intrigues me so much. There's no one answer. There's no one solution. You have to constantly evaluate what goes on around you to see how things would work best.
It's intriguing as all hell to me.[/QUOTE]
Of course the scientific method can be applied to politics. For example, the hypothesis "Would enslaving those who aren't mentally ill and have murdered people despite rehabilitation attempts for profit which would then be reinvested in health care save more lives than it takes?" can be tested.
If this hypothesis would be tested and not contradict the evidence up to date, I would support programs which would lead to the widespread application of such a hypothesis. However, other people might not. It's their problem if they don't. I do, and I would do everything I can for such programs to be implemented. This is the source of most social antagonisms - different people have different values. Some people believe that the ends can justify the means, some don't. And so on, and so forth.
Also, I don't believe in any "people's unalienable rights". They often have to be violated. I would be OK with torturing a terrorist suspect who is connected to a terrorist group which is about to pull out a bombing of some public place, for example. The concept of static rights is widespread in the Western culture. However, I don't share about 2/3 of the most widespread values in the Western civilization. They mostly come from the Age of Enlightenment, and are far too outdated. I'm for progress, science and efficiency, and not for tradition, conservation and cherishment.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36397349]Of course the scientific method can be applied to politics. For example, the hypothesis "Would enslaving those who aren't mentally ill and have murdered people despite rehabilitation attempts for profit which would then be reinvested in health care save more lives than it takes?" can be tested.
If this hypothesis would be tested and not contradict the evidence up to date, I would support programs which would lead to the widespread application of such a hypothesis. However, other people might not. It's their problem if they don't. I do, and I would do everything I can for such programs to be implemented. This is the source of most social antagonisms - different people have different values. Some people believe that the ends can justify the means, some don't. And so on, and so forth.
[B]Also, I don't believe in any "people's unalienable rights". They often have to be violated. I would be OK with torturing a terrorist suspect who is connected to a terrorist group which is about to pull out a bombing of some public place, for example. The concept of static rights is widespread in the Western culture. However, I don't share about 2/3 of the most widespread values in the Western civilization. They mostly come from the Age of Enlightenment, and are far too outdated. I'm for progress, science and efficiency, and not for tradition, conservation and cherishment.[/B][/QUOTE]
You're kidding me, right?
You think that the state has the right to torture a [I]suspected[/I] terrorist suspect? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Science and efficiency? Friend, I love science and efficiency, but there's a point where we have to draw the line. If you honestly would like to live in a society where the government has the power to take you forcefully and torture you because they suspect you of something, then I... I don't even know where to start. The government shouldn't exist for the sake of government, but rather for the individuals. If we start sacrificing the individual's ability to do as they please with their life, what [I]is[/I] the point of a government? I would, of course, like to know how these rights are outdated, and why you believe we should abolish them.
[QUOTE=Zally13;36397622]You're kidding me, right?
You think that the state has the right to torture a [I]suspected[/I] terrorist suspect? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Science and efficiency? Friend, I love science and efficiency, but there's a point where we have to draw the line. If you honestly would like to live in a society where the government has the power to take you forcefully and torture you because they suspect you of something, then I... I don't even know where to start. The government shouldn't exist for the sake of government, but rather for the individuals. If we start sacrificing the individual's ability to do as they please with their life, what [I]is[/I] the point of a government? I would, of course, like to know how these rights are outdated, and why you believe we should abolish them.[/QUOTE]
The state has the right to torture a terrorist suspect as long as there's enough evidence to justify the torture. It doesn't mean that there's enough evidence to ensure that he's 100% guilty, because that doesn't happen even with proper legal processes. The amount of evidence that has to be collected would depend on a minimal amount of required evidence, as well as the urgency with which the information is required to prevent the terrorist act.
"If we start sacrificing the individual's ability to do as they please with their life, what [I]is[/I] the point of a government?" - To ensure the greater good for the individuals. Some goods have to be sacrificed to ensure greater goods.
"If we start sacrificing the individual's ability to do as they please with their life, what is the point of a government? I would, of course, like to know how these rights are outdated, and why you believe we should abolish them. "
Because some rights can be violated to ensure higher values. The right of property can be violated for those who have accumulated too much of it, to ensure the right of life to those who lack the most basic health care.
torture doesn't always get the truth, you only what you want to hear
i suppose you want to kill all the disabled and old too as they are only burdens on society and create a limit on how old you can be too before you become a burden for everyone else, because they have no economic value and cannot work only to live off of government funds
[QUOTE=Fire Kracker;36405355]torture doesn't always get the truth, you only what you want to hear
i suppose you want to kill all the disabled and old too as they are only burdens on society and create a limit on how old you can be too before you become a burden for everyone else, because they have no economic value and cannot work only to live off of government funds[/QUOTE]
No, not at all.
I love how the fact that I want those who would otherwise be executed (at least in the US anyway) enslaved somehow brings up all of this. It's OK to enslave the murderers who had rehabilitation attempts but still killed after that, so that it could produce proper health care for the society.
'i suppose you want to kill all the disabled and old too as they are only burdens on society'
No. There's justified spending, there's unjustified spending. Spending on the disabled, on the old etc is justified. Same for the spending on those who require health care and proper education.
However, spending for those who do harm to the society by murdering other people without any justified reason, despite rehabilitation attempts, isn't justified, unless the person in question is mentally ill. These people shouldn't be murdered. They should simply be enslaved and work for the society. Their profits are to be invested in health care.
And torture is effective when the results can be tested. And they often can be. Especially when checking for terrorist group links and hideouts.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36406590]It's OK to enslave the murderers who had rehabilitation attempts but still killed after that, so that it could produce proper health care for the society.[/QUOTE]
you haven't yet explained why this is an OK thing to do, "moral benefits" aside it's still slavery, it's still wholly unecessary as evidenced by countries that have perfectly fine healthcare without resorting to this, and it's still a complete mystery to me what kind of overpopulated hellhole you need slave labour to protect.
Torture is a terrible way of getting information, to be blunt. People'll say anything to get the pain to stop; there was a particularly notable case a while back of a Taliban bloke getting waterboarded til he was a gibbering wreck, but never giving any actually useful intel. He wasn't some uber strong bloke keeping secrets safe until his end, he just said anything to get the pain to stop because he knew fuck all.
[QUOTE=Cone;36422775]you haven't yet explained why this is an OK thing to do, "moral benefits" aside it's still slavery, it's still wholly unecessary as evidenced by countries that have perfectly fine healthcare without resorting to this, and it's still a complete mystery to me what kind of overpopulated hellhole you need slave labour to protect.[/QUOTE]
If the moral benefit outweighs the moral loss of slavery, it's OK. And they do in this case. Sorry, most of the world doesn't share the values which most people in the US or the West believe in..
[editline]21st June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;36423540]Torture is a terrible way of getting information, to be blunt. People'll say anything to get the pain to stop; there was a particularly notable case a while back of a Taliban bloke getting waterboarded til he was a gibbering wreck, but never giving any actually useful intel. He wasn't some uber strong bloke keeping secrets safe until his end, he just said anything to get the pain to stop because he knew fuck all.[/QUOTE]
Torture is a very good way of getting information as long as it (the information provided) can be tested. For example, if an AL-Qaeda suspect is tortured to reveal the location or other identification methods of other members, and this information would be proven to be false, they would just be tortured more, until correct information is given.
[QUOTE=GenPol;36423681]If the moral benefit outweighs the moral loss of slavery, it's OK. And they do in this case. Sorry, most of the world doesn't share the values which most people in the US or the West believe in.[/QUOTE]
at the very least you could pretend it's a necessary evil. if I have the option between saving ten people and saving one person I'll pick the ten people, but that doesn't mean I want to leave the one person to die; this is a similar situation, and you're basically saying it's good for the one person to die regardless.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.