Child rapists, evils, and the state

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So what's your position on imprisonments under AC? What level of medical care will they get? Because the group that does the imprisoning is going to pay significant costs for the upkeep of these prisoners, just like the state does now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note: AC hijack started by Phil.

You're begging a question, of course. There's no reason to assume that prisons will even exist without a state.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that the more you force someone into slavery or deny them basic human care, the more inhuman the whole system becomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Of course, it starts off inhumane.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's take another example: Quite a few prisoners become mentally ill while in prison. Some are unfit to work. What do we do with these people? Deny them expensive drugs and let them become more and more insane? Shoot them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps a good start would be to avoid the immoral behavior that forms part of your assumptions.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line is that this isn't a problem specific to any political system. One you take ownership of someone, you have to take care of them unless torture is morally acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

So don't take ownership of other people.

[ QUOTE ]
The state sets the bar at "humane, minimal cost treatment", because anything else is cruel punishment, and people don't want that to happen. Do you disagree with this stance?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Once I decide to keep my neighbor locked up in my basement, is it OK to feed him dog food, or do I have to give him steak?"

[Phil153]

Note: AC hijack started by Phil.

I will be using this bold note on every ACer hijack of legitimate threads from now on. I appreciate your vigor in noting such examples and I hope to see you putting this tag on ACers hijacks in future. In the name of intellectual honesty, thank you very much!

The reason it's not a hijack is because OP has called the state evil specifically for providing for the medical needs of those it's imprisoned.

Since imprisonment is required in any society, and some prisoners will not be competent enough to work to pay for their needs, the same will exist under any social system. Something for which there is no lesser evil alternative is not evil.

It's like saying "cutting off someone's gangrenous leg is evil". Well sure, but if there is no other alternative to save their life, then it's not. GET IT? I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
So don't take ownership of other people.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight...in AC land, all child rapists are either murdered, carstrated, or walk free. Is that your position?

How about murderers? Serial killers? Serial assaulters and muggers? Do mobs go around killing them?

I want to get this clear...is it your position that there will be no imprisonment whatsoever under an AC scheme?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight...in AC land, all child rapists are either murdered, carstrated, or walk free. Is that your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not "my position". I take positions normatively, not predictively. And murder and (involuntary) castration don't seem compatible with voluntary transactions.

Walking free is sort of a misnomer, since, as jogger is fond of pointing out, there's really no guarantee you'll be able to walk in any particular location. You might find that the only place you aren't excluded from is the desert.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to get this clear...is it your position that there will be no imprisonment whatsoever under an AC scheme?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't make predictions in such absolute terms. But it seems likely that if there is imprisonment, it would be a very, very small number of people. There may be some who "self-commit" to charity institutions. There may be a market for keeping serial killers humanely contained so they can be studied. Perhaps some can even be convinced to go along with such a plan rather than face ostracism to the desert (and the waiting vultures).

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Note: AC hijack started by Phil.

I will be using this bold note on every ACer hijack of legitimate threads from now on. I appreciate your vigor in noting such examples and I hope to see you putting this tag on ACers hijacks in future. In the name of intellectual honesty, thank you very much!

The reason it's not a hijack is because OP has called the state evil specifically for providing for the medical needs of those it's imprisoned.

Since imprisonment is required in any society, and some prisoners will not be competent enough to work to pay for their needs, the same will exist under any social system. Something for which there is no lesser evil alternative is not evil.

It's like saying "cutting off someone's gangrenous leg is evil". Well sure, but if there is no other alternative to save their life, then it's not. GET IT? I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
So don't take ownership of other people.

[/ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight...in AC land, all child rapists are either murdered, carstrated, or walk free. Is that your position?

How about murderers? Serial killers? Serial assaulters and muggers? Do mobs go around killing them?

I want to get this clear...is it your position that there will be no imprisonment whatsoever under an AC scheme?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like this thread to stay focused on evils of the state. I was very accomodating in a couple of extremely long threads about the evils of AC recently and in fact defended the OP in those threads when a lot of the other ACers were objecting.

This thread is about evils of the state. If you want to take the position that what I deem 'evil' is in fact virtuous go right ahead but I am not looking to have the state compared to AC in this thread. I am asking you to respect this for the above reasons in particular. If you want to start another thread that compares AC to the state go ahead but keep it out of this thread please.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about evils of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


But you started this thread with the child rapist example in order to prove that the state is in fact evil. Whereas now you say you have basically assumed your conclusion in your premises. Which means that you don't need any particularly heinous examples of state actions since *all* state actions must be evil axiomatically. Which was the point of my previous post.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This thread is about evils of the state.

[/ QUOTE ]


But you started this thread with the child rapist example in order to prove that the state is in fact evil. Whereas now you say you have basically assumed your conclusion in your premises. Which means that you don't need any particularly heinous examples of state actions since *all* state actions must be evil axiomatically. Which was the point of my previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your other post and thought you made some interesting points. Unfortunately, if memory serves, I felt like it was kind of like 2 posts in one. I was going to reply but chose not to because of this complication.

As I told phil, if anyone wishes to challenge my statements around the child rapist matters as virtuous instead of evil they are quite welcome to do so.

It is not necessary to accept that the state is evil, or to hold the opinion that the state is virtuous, in order to participate in this thread. If someone thinks giving a million or so to child rapists (after confiscating it from innocent people) is good then they can tell me why.

If someone disagree's with my conclusion that giving lots of money in the form of goods and services to child rapists is evil they are welcome to state their case.

What do you wish to argue about with me bluffthis?


And as an aside, I am still waiting for cody (and others) to tell me if there should be a limit on the amount of money available to child rapists to use for legal defense and medical procedures.

[Phil153]

pvn,

Thanks for the response. Banishment is an interesting idea but it seems largely unworkable for a number of reasons, most related to the fact that it likely won't be effective in keeping killers and rapists and thieves out of populated areas.

bk,

That's fair enough. However, my very simple point is this: if we accept that some people must be contained, and that some of these will be unable to pay for necessary medical care, then the evils you describe will exist under any system, and are in fact not evils at all, but necessities. See my leg amputation analogy. Clearly, cutting of a child's leg and disfiguring them for life is evil. But if it is the only way to save their life, it isn't.

Sorry for the "hijack" and I'll let you have your fun. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
There may be a market for keeping serial killers humanely contained so they can be studied. Perhaps some can even be convinced to go along with such a plan rather than face ostracism to the desert (and the waiting vultures).

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me there.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There may be a market for keeping serial killers humanely contained so they can be studied. Perhaps some can even be convinced to go along with such a plan rather than face ostracism to the desert (and the waiting vultures).

[/ QUOTE ]

You lost me there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe they will be gladiators. They get the opportunity to kill while the children are kept safe (no under 18 gladiators).

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the response. Banishment is an interesting idea but it seems largely unworkable for a number of reasons, most related to the fact that it likely won't be effective in keeping killers and rapists and thieves out of populated areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

Banishment/exile was effective in Athenian society--do you think ti wouldn't work because there are more people now? I think the power of the internet would make it so that exile was a resonable option (info about the Athenian system, which is in most respects more libertarian than our own, here.