Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gulo who wrote (5420)	4/15/2003 12:43:07 PM
From: Wildstar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

I also happen to have great reservations about having a state that holds the power of life and death. I was just wondering how to reconcile the thought that some penalty can be considered an appropriate punishment with the notion that no one be allowed to meet out the punishment. Have you read _The Machinery of Freedom_ by David Friedman? The personal defense agencies he proposes might be better entrusted to carry out a death penalty, since individuals would voluntarily buy laws and their enforcement, but since such a system has never existed, I hesitate to declare them fit to do so. Since the word "libertarian" covers a lot of political territory, bounded by conservative, authoritarian and socialism and their blends, it is not surprising that libertarians often disagree on fundamental principles. Most libertarians, IMHO, are perfectly comfortable with the notion of a government that provides policing and justice systems. I think most libertarians feel an independent judiciary is the main safeguard against state power. I probably fall on the more radical end of the spectrum of the word "libertarian." I think that recent events have shown that juries use the guns of the state to tyrannize their fellow man. In such cases, the only solution is a radical one. For example, the recent uproar over the surgeons leaving WVa due to high malpractice premiums has IMO only a radical solution, with the problem being the independent judiciary itself.

To: Gulo who wrote (5420)	4/21/2003 11:38:50 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 13056

Some, including myself, are also willing to pay to keep people alive in prison to avoid the problems with the death penalty. And some are less so. Our present system has made it almost more expensive to execute somebody than to keep them in prison for life. Either way, IMO, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for the benefit of a person who has made clear that they don't want to be a contributing member of society, indeed beyond that that they want to damage or destroy the society on whose good graces they cast themselves when they are caught, is just plain stupid. I'm not advocating Castro's policy of sentence today, execution tomorrow, but somewhere between that system and ours lies Aristotle's golden mean for imposing death on those who by their acts have shown that they deservve it.