From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Nov 25 1998 - 14:52:15 MST
From: Dick.Gray@bull.com
>Brian writes, in response to my characterizing capital punishment
>as initiation of force inconsistent with the non-aggression
>principle:
>> The force was initiated by the murderer, so it is not
>>inconsistent.
>Force was initiated by the murderer, but since the death penalty
>is not an immediate and direct response to the murderer's force,
>it does not qualify as defensive counterforce. Any harm inflicted
>after the fact is a *separate* application of force, and hence an
>initiation. Or is there some flaw in my reasoning here?
The flaw lies in the fact that I just re-read "the extropian
Principals v2.6, and there is no non-aggression principal.
"have some fire Strawman"
>> As citizens of a government we are subject to legal definitions.
>I disagree. Most of us haven't chosen to be "citizens" in the
>first place, we are simply claimed as such by the nearest
>gangsters calling themselves "government". "Subject to legal
>definitions" is somewhat ambiguous, but if you mean we're somehow
>("morally" or otherwise) bound to define things the way the
>powers-that-be tell us to, I'd like to know why.
You don't have to agree on the definition, but if you violate it,
you will be punished. In a world where private agreements handle
these matters you can be assured my contract will call for the
death of anyone who murders me.
>In response to my objection that there's no substantive difference
>between punishment and revenge:
>> Revenge: to inflict harm in return for an injury etc.
>> Punishment: To undergo pain, loss etc as for a crime.
>> (source: Websters New World dictionary.)
>OK, I ask again: wherein is the difference? Those definitions look
>to me like alternative ways of saying the same thing.
Punishment requires being convicted of a crime.
> No compensation or restitution is adequate or possible. Only
> justice in the form of equivalent punishment.
>Here you're simply assuming that justice equals punishment, or at
>least implying, without support, that punishment is just. But
>isn't justice in essence simply fairness? You need to _argue_ for
>the fairness of punishment, not just assert it in passing, and, as
>a first step, you should distinguish it from mere revenge, which
>you have so far failed to do.
Semantic's. The only fair punishment for the illegal malicious
taking of another persons life is to forfeit yours.
I argue it is fair because it is the only thing a murderer has of
equivalent value to what he/she took.
If an individual does it it is revenge.
If you are tried lawfully, fairly, and convicted. It will be just,
fair, punishment.
Brian
Member,Extropy Institute
www.extropy.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:51 MST