Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 18:34:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2478 times
|
| |
|
|
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <389057B0.D972D535@eclipse.net>...
> I don't personally think that courts should dictate who can do what job.
> That's over the line of too much interference _for me_. Similar with
> dictating how a company should operate. If they don't do an efficient
> job, the market will weed them out. If they don't do a safe job, the
> courts and the market will weed them out. And, unlike Frank (and most
> of you, I presume), I'm also uncomfortable with slavery (jail terms).
> For this one I'm not sure what should replace them, but I know that the
> use of slavery to the state as a punishment bugs me. (Slavery in a
> limited form to a person against who they have committed crimes doesn't
> bother me to the same degree.)
Two comments. First, what do you propose to do with the (few) people who
absolutely refuse to follow the rules of the society they participate in? At
some point, putting someone in jail seems required (and to be honest, I can
even see a very small window where the death penalty may be warranted - if
someone has proven themselves so far out of society, and has proven that if
they get any opportunity to, they will kill, I can see where it could reach
the point where the probability that one or more people will die in the
future because of this individual is so close to one, that the only way to
reduce the probability is to terminate the person's life). Second, I think
that in a Libertarian society, the only reason someone in jail would be
forced to work (and there should be limits on how much force can be used),
is to make restitution to the victims (and the victims include anyone who
has contributed to however the police and justice system is funded to the
extent of the cost of dealing with the criminal). The state won't be doing
things like building roads using taxes (now the state might build roads
using user fees - I think there is value to "public" roadways), so there is
no reason for the criminals to be offsetting some of those taxes.
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) As clearly stated above, I don't know. If someone were hell-bent on murder, I suppose they should be put down and parted out to pay for the whole affair - or their assets given to the kin of the victims. I suppose there should be some method (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) Except that the fines from the first time would be sufficient incentive. And would also be sufficient incentive to prevent all the other companies in that industry from following their example. Perhaps I'm not following you. (...) I don't (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
