Does capitalism work?
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
Baron Max said:
Thanks, bygones are bygones, no matter what you wish to be otherwise.
Criminals and murderers are going to try to do what they want, when they want. They are criminals and murderers, that's what they do.
When considering how to minimize risk, that should be accounted for.
Setting up guidelines for "acceptable behavior" is society's deal.
Designing consequences for failure to adhere to the guidelines is about the only deterrent society has available that I can think of at the moment.
That doesn't stop people from those failures, obviously.
"laws are made to be broken"
Like I said above somewhere, society can establish whatever "rights" they want, but they are fictitious. Physics is what limits an individuals action.
Stronger deterrents might motivate people to behave as desired, but not necessarily. If a person doesn't give a fuck if they live or die for instance, they might go into an amish school, tie up a bunch of children, slaughter them, and then kill themself.
Once done, there's no bringing those poor kids back.
Retribution is pointless in terms of adding to the stability of society... unless we presume it to provide more deterrent, which obviously it doesn't to someone bent on dying. If for instance, the asshat murdering piece of shit survived, I think it would be a fair choice for society to end his right to exist - as he demonstrated clearly that he cannot be trusted to adhere to society's guidelines. It would be reasonable IMO, to consider that this demonstration of such horrific behavior establishes a precendence in his instance that cannot be allowed to persist.
Doing it for retribution would be entirely irrational.
Doing it for the reason of minimizing risk is perfectly rational, as I see it anyway.
What's important to society should be "what minimizes risk to society", not some fictitious "payback". I'm just saying, retribution bad, responsibility good, at least from the perspective of how "society" must view this kind of crap.
That's not to say that the parents or whoever suffers lost isn't perfectly justified in feeling whatever kind of need for retribution they are prone to do. I might very well be a vehicle of mighty vengeance were harm to come to my family, but that is not the place of society - at least IMO. Society's role should be rational.
Baron Max said:
Then it's hurting itself.
When you design a building, do you do so out of hate or vengeance? Does that help you understand the systems in question and how they are related to one another?
This is a question of design. "if it is not" the desired design, then you modify the goddamned design. While your dick may be static, and given your personality, it must be... *smirk*, but society is not a static thing at all.
So your dick problems aren't at all relevant.
Baron Max said:
Hath ye haveth no cranial goodness?
Who said there should be no laws, and no accountability? I'm only illuminating the futility of the notion of "punishment" as a petty, pointless, vindictive thing. It is my opinion that there is plenty of petty, pointless, vindictive bullshit between individuals, and that 'society' - to the end of minimizing risk to itself, must strive to ignore such pettyness while focusing directly on the balance of liberty and safety.
Perhaps I'm just whining about semantics, but I do think it's important at least to me to see the difference between accountability and punishment.
For instance, does this seem to you to endose a consequence free existence?
"I think it would be a fair choice for society to end his right to exist - as he demonstrated clearly that he cannot be trusted to adhere to society's guidelines. It would be reasonable IMO, to consider that this demonstration of such horrific behavior establishes a precendence in his instance that cannot be allowed to persist."
Would you say that endorses accountability without a vindictive, petty "payback" element? That's not to say that an individual won't feel that way, just that it's society's job to improve itself in reaction to the threat represented by the fucknut murderer.
wesmorris said:
And thus it's been so for several million years, but you expect wonders from the very same humans? And you don't claim to be just dreaming?
wesmorris said:
Interesting that you should bring that up. I've been involved in many projects that started out from land and old buildings that people hated and wanted torn down and replaced. But ya' know something? There were many people who claimed that we were all just being greedy and selfish? Two sides to every issue, huh?
wesmorris said:
Easy to say, Wes, but damned difficult to accomplish. If for no other reason than that there might be others who simply don't agree with you ideals or methods or stated goals. So what do you do then ....force them to accept your ideals and goals?
Baron Max
Baron Max said:
You don't think society has changed by adapting to attempt to minimize risk in several million years?
Of course there are.
Well yeah. That's what laws are all about idnit? Isn't that exactly what they are designed to do? Actually, I don't care if they accept it or not, that only goes to evaluation of the risk they represent to society.
And laws are changed every day.
You're confusing "me" with "society".
Dreamworld, Wes, I'm sorry ..but that's all I can see that you're talking about. A world that can not and will not ever exist as long as there are free humans in it.
Yes, sure, you're allowed to dream if you want to, but I think posting those dreams is something else entirely .....it's preaching!
Baron Max
Yes, sure, you're allowed to dream if you want to, but I think posting those dreams is something else entirely .....it's preaching!
Baron Max
When talking about the optimal, it's always a dreamworld. Thank you captain obvious.
There is no question I'm correct in terms of a system being optimized. It's not preaching, it's just stating facts. I've basically said "the focus of the creation of laws needs to be on optimizing the system for minimal risk". That's not rocket science there. How does stating the obvious equate to preaching?
And exactly what "world" is it you think I'm describing, as if I'm somehow threatened freedom? What are the implications you think arise from actually focusing on minimizing threat in society, while maximizing personal liberty? You seem to think that attempting to avoid thinking in "retribution mode" is some sort of threat to you. That's weird to me. What's up?
I've started a thread to stop this derailment: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1163238#post1163238
There is no question I'm correct in terms of a system being optimized. It's not preaching, it's just stating facts. I've basically said "the focus of the creation of laws needs to be on optimizing the system for minimal risk". That's not rocket science there. How does stating the obvious equate to preaching?
And exactly what "world" is it you think I'm describing, as if I'm somehow threatened freedom? What are the implications you think arise from actually focusing on minimizing threat in society, while maximizing personal liberty? You seem to think that attempting to avoid thinking in "retribution mode" is some sort of threat to you. That's weird to me. What's up?
I've started a thread to stop this derailment: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1163238#post1163238
Last edited:
I totally agree.wesmorris said:
wesmorris said:
Wes, as I see it, you're simply not taking into account the natural tendencies of the human animal in reality. You're either overlooking it, or you're minimizing in your dreamworld ...that's all. Humans simply are not going to be and act as you want them to be or act, and all the dreaming in the world is not going to change that. Humans have been around for millions of years, and they've changed their basic bahavior very damned little! Greed, selfishness, emotional, quick to judge, quick to fight, quick to hate, quick to argue, ...need I go on? And none or very little of that have you taken into account ...or if you have, you've minimized so as to make your nice little world nicer.
wesmorris said:
Minimizing threat? By not punishing evil-doing or criminal violence???
Wes, you've just got the human animal all wrong. The very first thing that people think of when confronted by evil or vicious killings, etc. is revenge, hanging, beating, killing, torturing,..... And yet you expect them to be nice to the evil-doers, to be nice to killers and to put aside their natural tendencies for revenge. How? How do you force them to do that? Drugs? Threats?
Baron Max
Maybe to primitive humans, like you....
Baron Max said:
You ignore what is said in order that you find yourself superior, apparently. If you'd actually put some thought into it, you'd see such things are not ignored and are in fact, part of the considerations as to how to minimize blah blah.
Right. You're hung up on a word that you don't seem to be able to live without. Lack of "punishment" doesn't mean "inaction". It could in fact leave to more action, depending on the resultant of the debate as to what laws should be, etc. If you murder someone, it is arguable IMO, and completely excluding punishment, that society deems to exterminate the murderer to minimize its risk, as I've said a couple of times and you apparently can't comprehend. That is not punishment. It's prudence on the part of society. The point is that society needs to avoid vindictiveness completely and focus on "where do we go from here". IMO, the death penalty for such an act need not be vindictive at all, but merely prudent risk and resource management. Of course, the murderer might benefit society better by oh, mining uranium or something for the rest of their existence. Some high risk job where they're completely managed, and we don't have to risk a decent citizen.
Lol, no you're wrong about that baron. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone more understanding on the issue. You simply don't understand what I'm saying. That's fine, it's not necessary that you do.
Yah I know, I count myself amongst the humans thanks. But we're not talking about "a person", we're talking about a system that "manages people". They're different things.
Nice? Where did I mention "nice" once? My argument is to maintain emotional indifference when construing systems that manage people. Vindictiveness is for individuals and inevitable as you've noted. The system that we use to manage society however, can't afford to be so, IMO.
Codger.
To be fair, I really don't think TS has a clue what I'm saying either, though Roman clearly does.
First of all, is anyone arguing tha punishment is vindictive? Liek you said wes, I believe that most punishment is done not out of revenge but to minimize risk.
Im not saying that we shouldnt punish people out of revenge, we should punish people to minimize risk, but that usually involves teh same punishment and lead to teh same result. For example, if someone robs a store and is put in jail for 10 years, that punishmnet is meant to casue the person suffering, but not to just get revenge. It also minimizes teh risk because that person will remember how awful prison is and that wil stop him to an extent from commiting crime again. It also serves as an example to other potential criminals.
You are right ther will always be crazy fuckjobs who dont care if they live or die or are punished and they wil still commit crimes but there is nothing you can do about that unless you can identify some kind of brain defect and kill him as a baby or something liek that.
Basically, punishment can be meant to casue suffering and pain to the wrongdoer while also minimizing risk and not being solely for revenge.
And truth seeker, i know even you, teh sophisticated, not primative human, would want revenge on someone who killed your family. I think you would be extremely upset if the laws of society took a completely objective view of the crime and there was no emotional response. You would be outraged and call teh system cold and unemotional. It is easy to sit back and lok at society and demand cool, levelheaded, unemotional decisions, but it is simply impossible especially in very emotional subjects such as murder. The syatem neds to refelct the individuals, who you ghave admitted are animals given to revenge and hate
Im not saying that we shouldnt punish people out of revenge, we should punish people to minimize risk, but that usually involves teh same punishment and lead to teh same result. For example, if someone robs a store and is put in jail for 10 years, that punishmnet is meant to casue the person suffering, but not to just get revenge. It also minimizes teh risk because that person will remember how awful prison is and that wil stop him to an extent from commiting crime again. It also serves as an example to other potential criminals.
You are right ther will always be crazy fuckjobs who dont care if they live or die or are punished and they wil still commit crimes but there is nothing you can do about that unless you can identify some kind of brain defect and kill him as a baby or something liek that.
Basically, punishment can be meant to casue suffering and pain to the wrongdoer while also minimizing risk and not being solely for revenge.
And truth seeker, i know even you, teh sophisticated, not primative human, would want revenge on someone who killed your family. I think you would be extremely upset if the laws of society took a completely objective view of the crime and there was no emotional response. You would be outraged and call teh system cold and unemotional. It is easy to sit back and lok at society and demand cool, levelheaded, unemotional decisions, but it is simply impossible especially in very emotional subjects such as murder. The syatem neds to refelct the individuals, who you ghave admitted are animals given to revenge and hate