US State department admits to lying.

paddymee

Anyway Hong Kong aside the point was, try being accused of being a terrorist simply from where you come from then come back and tell us if you like it.

I think you where treated as a potential terrorist. If you were accused of being a terriorist you probably would have been in a cell at the time.

And I lived in London so dont come back saying that I dont know what its like to be Irish in England ;-)

Typedef

Originally posted by Sand
Wow you guys got stopped and were checked to see if you were a potential terrorist? By that logic I should have been treated as a terrorist when I visited the UK, I mean Im Irish and thats all they need according to you- But I was only ever treated as a tourist. Funny that.

Paddys right about the laws not being racially based but rather US citizenship vs non US citizenship. Hence they cant be second class citizens given they arent citizens at all? Neither can it be racism or whatever other buzz words have been used.

If the UK police want to check Irish people fine by me. Ive got nothing to hide and a few minutes inconvenience are a small price to pay should someones life be saved on the slight chance theyll identify a terrorist. Amazingly enough youve got a higher probability of being an IRA terrorist if youre from Ireland as oppossed to being from Hong Kong. Hence, if youre looking for IRA terrorists it makes sense to concentrate on people from Ireland as opposed to checking people from Hong Kong and where ever. Again call it profiling or whatever.

Jesus Christ Sand, you are condoning the wholesale ascription of human rights based on a caste system of socio-political segregation. You are espousing a quagmire based on politcal eliteism and qualified by the sanitised "citizen" as opposed to the underclass foreigner. It's such a roaring condraction for the "west" or any citizen of a "western country" to turn around and vindicate segregation and cultural eliteism, when that person or regieme is supposed to be coming from a school of political thoughts that is meant to foster equivalence, so roaring a contradiciton as to be laughable. Sand you seem to think that regiemes have the right to ascribe "terrorist" properties to a person and thus dehumanise that person to the point that acts may be perpitrated against said "terrorist" in the name of the "greater good" that would be considered crimes if perpitrated against a member of the same regiemes "middle class", example Israel and asassinations of "terrorist Palestinians", or the USA and secret military trials, I will assume you support internment in the UK as it stands right now and frankly I am aghast that someone who is so obviously intelligent as your self may allow such delibrate or subliminal lapse of logic.

How can "we" ever live in a truly fair, equal and illucidated society if that society may allow the ethos of equality to be compromised so much so as to allow such a dicotomy of the enumeration of entitlements to humans to be ascribed in a partisan and imbalanced fashion? The answer is that your society is no longer a "free" one but a totalitarian and hirerarchical one, admitadely human society is hirearchical by its nature, but the laws that "we" sentient entities make, seek to redress this kind of reptilian and Darwinian hirerarchy, because being sentient "we" are able to look beyond mundane and primitiveness of hirearchy and the domination of the weak by the strong..... lets evolve.

People are born with rights, a citizen is a person who lives in a country but the entitlements that a person has in a country should stem from an ethos within that country of what rights are afforded to people, to humans not "citizens" and "non-citizens".
We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, not some men, but all.

Sand

Nah Type- Im condoning common sense measures that help reduce the risk of another 9/11. Some peoples feelings may be hurt - but i believe saving even one life is worth it. Wouldnt you agree that if similar measures had been in place prior to 9/11 and had even by the flukiest of circumstances prevented the terrorists taking even one of those planes that it would have been worth it?

Its a practical measure and I tend towards the practical, Im a realist while you and a few others on this board are idealists. Nothing wrong with being an idealist, but idealism isnt going to solve questions like "How do we stop terrorist cells that may be already present from carrying out further attacks?"

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

The death penalty is supported by a majority of Texans btw- Thats democracy, not the morals of a political elite.

And yet while the Texan population has been grossly in favor of seceding from the federation for the best part of a hundred years, I haven't seen many governors (including George Dubyah) put it on their policy agenda. Could this be *shock horror* double standards?
That is precisely what I, and several of my fellow citizens object to, and in no small manner. The guiding principle behind the idea of responsible government (in Europe for example), is that government policy should stay ahead of public opinion, instead of merely keeping pace with it as we do. If public opinion calls for actions that are morally or practically untenable, then a responsible government, in my opinion, has a duty to challenge the views of its citizens. In many European states, the electorate is in favor of the death penalty as a form of punishment. By the same token, I doubt the majority of citizens are aware of its effectiveness as a punishment tool, the benefits of rehabilitation, or even a basic understanding of the criminal jurisprudence concepts of crime and punishment. Which is why we elect officials to responsible positions, they take responsibility for these tasks, and represent our confidence in a government. If a government were nothing more than a reflection of public opinion, a situation of extreme instability can quickly become destructive conflict, as society, filled with righteous fury, tears itself to bits.

To illustrate this, let us take an example from Henry Kissinger's paper submitted to the ISS last year. In it, he paints a hypothetical situation, assuming a fair schedule of elections, and a day-by-day policy poll of the electorate in Germany during the 1930's under the National Socialist Party. The figures, hardly suprisingly, show that the weight of public opinion was not only directly in line with most of the Nazis' policies, but more extreme in areas, such as the treatment of POWs. This only goes to show, that if the huddled masses are screaming for concentration camps and burnings at the stake, a responsible government, far from giving in to ensure its own political survival, has a duty to stand fast against such barbarism. A belligerent society has a far greater potential for irreversible harm than an obstinate government.

While we elect officials based in part on their policies and agendae (which seem to change as rapidly as the NW Pacific's weather), they also need to be mindful of a moral obligation to fair treatment of citizens, and most importantly, a basic understanding of criminal jurisprudence. In the absence of these ideas, the state of Texas is just another state stamping conservative policies on a centrist populace, playing to the crowd as is necessary. Which is probably why the state of Texas offers neither recourse for federal appeal, nor mitigation in sentencing. In other words, it is a policy of convenience and to serve the end of politics, rather than that of justice- that just makes me sick.
And people wonder why the state bar in Texas is not a qualification for transfer practise in all but 3 other state exams...

Occy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Nah Type- Im condoning common sense measures that help reduce the risk of another 9/11.

Actually, there is little "common sense" in many of the measures you describe, and the reduction in risk for another 9/11 is miniscule, and arguably not worth the loss of rights which accompany these rules.

For example, the argument that the new laws are rightly targetted on "foreigners" and not citizens is ridiculous. What you're saying is that someone who is gaining citizenship is a valid suspect until the day they become American, after which the risk suddenly evaporates? That the only people who would commit these atrocities would be foreigners? I think not.

By passing such bigoted and blinkered laws, you completely open a direct path for any successive attacks to follow. Citizens arent suspects? Fine - use citizens to perform the attacks. Or maybe the US is going to close its doors of citizenship to anyone of Middle Eastern descent to be sure. I mean - gross racial discrimination is fine, as long as it helps prevent another 9/11, right?

The simple point is that these measures are knee-jerk based and ultimately ineffective. If only non-citizens are targetted, then there is a clear way for terrorists to completely avoid the laws.

jc

Sand

We disagree Bonkey- We could keep trading view points but at the end of the day I believe the measures are practical and reduce the risk of terrorism. You dont. Im not particualarly stressed because they *are* carrying out what I believe to be practical. End of the day we disagree on a matter of opinion. We might as well argue which shade of green grass is.

Bob: If seceding from the union was such a vote getter Im surprised it hasnt been used as a ploy, by even some fringe right wing nut. And if it has- why wasnt that manifesto approved by Texans?

I dont believe a Government should ignore the wishes of the people. Perhaps they should temper them, but ignore? The European elitism you mention is a very large part of the resentment many euro-skeptics and others have against the EU - because its undemocratic and is basically somebody deciding they know better than you what you want. As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

Lemming

Originally posted by Sand
As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

Sand .. I am absolutely horrified by what you said. That's callous at its worst! Death does not justify death.

The likes of a paedophile murder getting the death sentence is too easy a way out. He suffers (relatively little) about 3 mins. of the procedure .. then its over. People like that should be PUNISHED (ie. lasting) for their crimes.

And if the death penalty is so effective a deterent, why are there so many people on death-row in the states?? It's simply making a quick-fix solution which isn't really a solution, just another problem. What if you excute an innocent person. What about all those seriously retarded people that have tried as adults and been executed for crimes that they didn't really understand?

HELL!! Why don't we just execute EVERYONE who commits a crime. 0% re-offending, right??

Sand

And if life imprisonment is such a detterent why are there so many murderers in Europe? No point rehabilitating a prisoner in for life is there? So detterence is only value and its clearly not effective.

Im sorry if I shocked your idealistic delicacies Lemming, but if you care to examine the views of the average joe on the street youll find plenty of them will agree paedophiles and murders deserve the death penalty- In fact many I know advocate torture in the case of paedophiles (not kidding - it would satisfy your desire for paedophiles to suffer over a long period of time, I just believe its more humane to shoot them and get it over with) . Luckily the lefts elite is in power to tell us what we want.

Not knowing the law isnt much of a defence in many courts that I know of.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

This is not a valid example, as the murder of Sarah Payne is believed to be at least the third by the same offender. The death penalty, or the possibility thereof, did not and would not protect her. Would it have worked in the West case, no. Or in the case of that doctor believed to have killed up to 400 of his patients, no.

In 1800 in Britain, there was more than 200 crimes carrying the death penalty (including writing graffiti on Westminster Bridge). the Death Penalty was not a deterrent. Nevertheless crime remained at high levels as the death penalty was rarely implemented as the criminal was rarely caught. Reforms by Robert Peel (he of the Peelers fame) to criminal law and in the founding of civil police forces had a real effect on crime levels and peoples feeling of security.

If you want to prevent the Sarah Payne and Deirdre Crowleys of this world, then what you need is a reform of the family, mental health and social services law, not the death penalty.

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
And if life imprisonment is such a detterent why are there so many murderers in Europe? No point rehabilitating a prisoner in for life is there? So detterence is only value and its clearly not effective.

Actually the murder rate is quite low in most parts of Europe. Specific exclusions would be parts of Russia (not so sure about other CIS republics) and the Balkans - the reason murder rates are so high there are because people believe (not unreasonably) they can get away with it. That or they are beyond caring. However, these are the countries in Europe with the death penalty.

Sand

Hmm I never argued for the death penalty because it was a deterrent, I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just. If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

Interestingly enough according to a UK home office survey Amsterdam, Helsinki and Lisbon all have comparable murder rates per 100k to US cities. Granted the other EU cities surveyed had minor rates compared to the US average ( Washington had 69.3 or something but next highest was 27.4 down to 8), but a lot of this can be accounted for in ease of gun laws that turn what wouldve have been a punch up in Dublin into a shooting in New York.

This is not a valid example, as the murder of Sarah Payne is believed to be at least the third by the same offender

Its an even better example. If he had been shot the first time it would have saved two children.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

Bob: If seceding from the union was such a vote getter Im surprised it hasnt been used as a ploy, by even some fringe right wing nut. And if it has- why wasnt that manifesto approved by Texans?

I dont believe a Government should ignore the wishes of the people. Perhaps they should temper them, but ignore? The European elitism you mention is a very large part of the resentment many euro-skeptics and others have against the EU - because its undemocratic and is basically somebody deciding they know better than you what you want. As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

The reason secession hasn't been a vote-getter is that there are few state governers of states as large and powerful as Texas, California, New York or Massachussets who haven't thought about 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And having campaigned for the secession of your state from the union doesn't look splendid on a presidential ticket, needless to say :P

To address your next point, I never said that a government should ignore its people's wishes- I said that if a majority of people support blatantly amoral policies, a government has a duty to establish debate and challenge the root causes of these views. Racism is a classic example that sociologists use. As far as someone deciding that they know better- leading politicians are advised on innumerable issues by experts including various prominent academia, scientifica and politica- certainly more than the average schmo on the street can claim. If a politician convincingly argues to me why he/she overrules what he/she sees as an amoral policy, then I for one won't be too concerned.
You yourself Sand have taken this line of thought as regards the recent anti-terrorist measures introduced in the US- you support them because a convincing argument can be made that is only marginally questionable ethically.

The majority of US citizens don't support military tribunals in any shape or form- but no one's going to march on Capitol Hill if the measures are sensibly and selectively applied. And while I consider them xenophobic, even barbarous in the callous and racially discriminatory nature of the rhetoric on the table, I'm willing to concede that some of the measures will at least create the impression of greater security back home. The practical ineffectiveness of the majority of security measures doesn't bother our government- it's the same reasoning behind our using Patriot missiles to "intercept" scuds in the Persian Gulf conflict. Again though- if a reasonably well-supported argument is presented to me, the citizen, I'm not going to be incredibly dissatisfied.

The same is true of the political issues in Europe- well informed politicians explain to their people the reasoning behind national policies, and while they don't have to like it, they'll at least admit the reasoning is sound enough to avert a revolution :P

As far as your argument that the death penalty is an effective punishment for a number of crimes, I don't dispute that. That the death penalty is effective is unquestioned...what I object to are the justness and reliability of irreversible punishment. Do our justice systems make mistakes? All the time- the facts of a case are frequently incomplete, state-biased, or subject to judicial review later on. Hence the reasoning behind a system of appeals, and custodial sentences. Wrongful imprisonment is certainly disturbing- yet nothing I believe, is worse than depriving an innocent individual of their life. Imagine how the death penalty must work in China, where there is a 90% conviction rate in state-prosecuted cases. Worrying, isn't it? The day that I can be assured that a justice system is 100% effective in fact-finding related to guilt-determination, that is the day I will support the death penalty as a means of punishment for serious crime. Until then, I'm quite happy with a system of custodial sentencing.

Occy

PS- The point of life imprisonment without parole is not rehabilitation, but sustained punishment. Where parole is concerned, a 'life sentence' is usually 20 years and subject to prison board review.

paddymee

The majority of US citizens don't support military tribunals in any shape or form- but no one's going to march on Capitol Hill if the measures are sensibly and selectively applied. And while I consider them xenophobic, even barbarous in the callous and racially discriminatory nature of the rhetoric on the table, I'm willing to concede that some of the measures will at least create the impression of greater security back home.

That is a very good interpration of the situation in the US at the moment. That was what I was trying to say, but Bob is a bit more elequent than me.

Paddy

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just.

Unfortunately, its not just for those sentenced incorrectly. Your 0% no re-offend also includes the state-sanctioned murder of innocents who happen to have fallen foul of the judicial system.

Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. You are advocating that it is acceptable for the state to accidentally kill innocents now and again, because it stops the occasional death-sentencer from re-offending.

If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

So - if the state murders an innocent man through the death sentence and a miscarriage of justice, who loses their right to live in retribution? The judge? The jury?

jc

Victor

Originally posted by Sand
Hmm I never argued for the death penalty because it was a deterrent, I argued for it because of the 0% re-offend rate and because its just.

But if you execute an innocent person, you are re-offending.

Originally posted by Sand
If you murder somebody you invalidate youre own right to life imo.

I disagree that it is just, there is no chance of rehabilitation of the offender or offer apology or recompence to society. The death penalty is an easy way out for the offender also. It also creates martyrs.

Originally posted by Sand
Interestingly enough according to a UK home office survey Amsterdam, Helsinki and Lisbon all have comparable murder rates per 100k to US cities. Granted the other EU cities surveyed had minor rates compared to the US average ( Washington had 69.3 or something but next highest was 27.4 down to 8), but a lot of this can be accounted for in ease of gun laws that turn what wouldve have been a punch up in Dublin into a shooting in New York.

But Dublin's rate is probably as low as 2 per 100,000 (assuming half the murders in Ireland are in Dublin, with about 40 murders a year in the country), that would mean 0.67 per 100,000 in the rest of Ireland, creating a national average of 1 per 100,000. I suspect a large proportion of (non-criminally organised) murders in the USA are not street murders, but domestic incidents where a gun or other weapon was readily available and the scene was not in public view, but I understand your reasoning on the punch up.

Originally posted by Sand
Its an even better example. If he had been shot the first time it would have saved two children.

A very big IF. It didn't happen. Think of Myra Hinkley (sp) - shes been in jail for more than 35 years. I personally find that a great incentive to not murder the people I would like to murder (there are a few). The death penalty is not.

Sand

I feel the death penalty is just. You disagree. Another area where we might as well argue over the colour of grass.

Miscarriages of justice can and do happen. You are advocating that it is acceptable for the state to accidentally kill innocents now and again, because it stops the occasional death-sentencer from re-offending.

Taking the US as an example it often takes many years between sentencing and execution - plenty of time for exonerating evidence to come to light should there be any.

So - if the state murders an innocent man through the death sentence and a miscarriage of justice, who loses their right to live in retribution? The judge? The jury?

And if a man is wrongfully committed of murder and gets life and is cleared 30 years later what happens to the judge and jury then by your logic? they spend 30 years in jail? What if theyre wrongfully committed of robbery and get 9 months, should they be cleared does the judge and the jury have to serve 9 months?

As far as someone deciding that they know better- leading politicians are advised on innumerable issues by experts including various prominent academia, scientifica and politica- certainly more than the average schmo on the street can claim.

Autocratic rule in other words, approved every few years by the public by means of an election which determines which politicians are in power and by exstension which acadademic elite decides what the people want. I for one am glad not having to worry about what I want as a voter. Thank god those left wing academics are there to tell me what I want and all I have to do is give them the money (taxes) so they can carry out what I want. They must be very smart to know what I want better than I do.


As far as the example you mentioned about americans support of Anti terror laws i used information regarding the unpopularity of critics of the Anti Terro laws, and a poll taken by ABC and some other hicks (cant remember of the top of my head- scroll up to article) which showed 60% support for the most contreversial element of the bush plan (milatary tribunals). That wasnt a political elite but a measure of public support.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Sand

Autocratic rule in other words, approved every few years by the public by means of an election which determines which politicians are in power and by exstension which acadademic elite decides what the people want. I for one am glad not having to worry about what I want as a voter. Thank god those left wing academics are there to tell me what I want and all I have to do is give them the money (taxes) so they can carry out what I want. They must be very smart to know what I want better than I do.

You seem to have this disturbing habit of putting words in my mouth and taking my arguments in directions irrelevant to my original point. I will reiterate again what I am trying to get across. When an obviously amoral and ineffective policy is the popular choice, a government is duty-bound to challenge it. That does not amount to autocratic rule, but responsible and ethical governance.

Furthermore, a government is far better equipped than the people to stipulate basic policy considerations and administrative issues. You seem hell-bent on putting every policy decision to a poll every time the question arises. With all due respect, that is not only a facetious suggestion, but completely unnecessary. Do individual citizens possess the staff and infrastructure to study a policy decision from all angles? Or conduct strategic evaluations of such decisions? Let's look at focus groups- the government is able to decide far better than I how to handle policy regarding disabled persons. Not being disabled myself, would a popular vote be fair, considering the disabled are a minority? By electing a government, we give them a respectable degree of latitude in reacting to issues in a responsible manner. If we need to put them to a public vote of confidence on every damn issue, then why did we elect them in the first place? If you're that suspicious about a government's motives, you'd be better off living in anarchy.

As far as the example you mentioned about americans support of Anti terror laws i used information regarding the unpopularity of critics of the Anti Terro laws, and a poll taken by ABC and some other hicks (cant remember of the top of my head- scroll up to article) which showed 60% support for the most contreversial element of the bush plan (milatary tribunals). That wasnt a political elite but a measure of public support.

If I put my stock in the polls, I'd have predicted us to win the Vietnam war, for Israel to nuke Syria 11 years ago, for India to have kept Karachi in 1971 and for Gore to have won the presidential election. Needless to say, opinion polls are a less than reliable instrument of querying an electorate about policy- these poll trends are frequently bucked spectacularly at elections, simply because pollsters can at best, sample a cross-section of the population to suit the political line taken by the newspaper. Suffice to say, the majority of private citizens assessed by registration polls on their shiny tax return forms have expressed dismay at the idea of military tribunals. So it would seem ABC have polled non-residents, PR's, welfare-users, the homeless and tax-evaders. A fine pool of opinion on judicial policy if ever I saw one- that, or they polled Jesse Helm's neighborhood in NC. Needless to say, I wouldn't put much stock in those opinions- when Rhenquist, Somers or Gratchow all present critical opinions of military tribunal, that's worth listening to- these are some of the brightest and most brilliant legal minds in recent history. While it's nice to be listened to by your government, I'm more than happy to have the likes of those three judges speaking on how jurisprudence is to be observed rather than listen to Joe Shmo from Cocomo.

Occy

Sand

Youre basically saying the people should keep their noses out of decision making and let the academics deal with it. It might be impractical to ask the peoples opinion on every little detail, but when their opinion is exspressed it should not be ignored because academics feel their opinion is amoral or ineffective- by whose standards? The academics?

The role of the government is not to decide policy, but rather form the peoples exspressed wish as policy- The people say what they want and the government makes it happen. The public you dismiss as "Joe Shmo from Cocomo" mightnt be legal einsteins but they pay the bills and they are entitled to have their opinion listened to as long they continue to do so.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
The role of the government is not to decide policy, but rather form the peoples exspressed wish as policy- The people say what they want and the government makes it happen.

So, what you're saying is that if the vast majority of the people said in a poll that they would like to never pay taxes again, that the government should implement this into law? I dont think so.

The idea behind (most) democracies is that the people choose their representatives, and those representatives then make the decisions. They should take public wishes into account, but should not be ruled by them as you are implying.

The only country which I am aware of which caters far more to its public than the norm typified by the above is Switzerland. Over here, when a major change is needed, the public vote on it via a referendum. Unlike Ireland, this is not just constitutional change, but any major state-law change.

Should the public wish for a legal change, there are ways where they can force a referendum to be held. Similarly, however, the government cannot make changes without consulting the public. OK - this is hardly different to (say) Ireland, until you consider the types of issues addressed.

Recent votes included whether or not Switzerland could participate in international peace-keeping missions, and whether or not armed soldiers could be included in these missions. Whether or not certain restrictions should be put in place on road-usage and traffic. Whether Capital gains tax should apply to public investments as well as corporate ones...and so on.

A gopvernment cannot take straw polls into account. Either it should allow the people to vote, or it should decree policy according to its own educated principles. If the public disagree strongly enough, they can always put another party into power in a few years. Basing policy on uneducated opinions, expressed in a poll would be a road to disaster.

jc

Sand

Em no Bonkey....should the people want to never pay taxes again the policy should be okay-no taxes, but no social welfare payments, police force, etc, etc by exstension. Wouldnt take too long for the people to come round in that case. Assuming the people were as stupuid in the first place as you consider them to be to consider such public services could be provided without any taxation.

There seems to be an awful distrust of the public will, with the people often being passed off as too stupid to understand the issues. I assume thats just a characteristic of the left which goes from the socialists thinking they know better how to spend your money to the communists who dont want to confuse you by having more than one party to vote for.

JustHalf

What's going on? Bob is posting short, concise, and to the point posts which I agree with (yes, I said SHORT!). And Sand is acting like Typedef.

Sand, you're villainising the left in the same way Typedef villainising 'the man', ie. inaccurately and falsely. Relax, and read what Bob and Bonkey have been posting, and think about it without tarring it with all you associate with the left. Please. Think.

Sand

Sorry Just Half, Im not here to agree with you:) My own view is the government should not attempt to second guess the publics wishes, but should instead formulate the publics known wishes as policy. Bonkey and Bob appear to disagree, feeling that academics are more informed as to what policy should be than the public who pay the bills are- they may be, but such policies would be coloured by the academics personal opinons rather than by the publics who evidently arent trusted to have intelligent views. Thats fine if you like having decisions made for you, but its not the basis of any democracy as i recognise it.

Typedef

Originally posted by JustHalf
Sand, you're villainising the left in the same way Typedef villainising 'the man', ie. inaccurately and falsely. Relax, and read what Bob and Bonkey have been posting, and think about it without tarring it with all you associate with the left. Please. Think.

Gafaw, the voice of asutere objectivity speaks, umm thanks for your enunciation there John Paul, I appreciate it.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Assuming the people were as stupuid in the first place as you consider them to be to consider such public services could be provided without any taxation.

You've said elsewhere that the government is not capable of running public services and throwing money at them doesn't work so why not privatise the lot? Sell off health, education, police, water, electricity, transport and the army if anyone could think of a use for it. With no publicly owned services, there's little or no need for taxes and everyone's happy as long as they can afford to pay for everything. If they can't, well then tough luck. Pack up and move to some socialist nanny state hellhole like Sweden.

Originally posted by Sand
As a side note Id imagine the death penalty is pretty effective as a punishment tool , 0% re-offend rate. That english child Sarah was brutalised and murdered by a paedophile re-offender - Death penalty would have prevented her death.

I'd have to agree. But supposing the death penalty was brought in then we'd have to decide on the most cost effective method:

1: Electric Chair - Good earner for the newly privatised electric companies.
2: Lethal Injection - Like watching paint dry. If I was going to kill someone I wouldn't be put off by the possibility that I was going to die peacefully if caught.
3: Firing Squad - Fairly exciting. The jury from the murder trial juries can have the honour of forming the squad. Would be a good crowd puller. Perhaps even we could adopt the Taliban's model and carry out executions at half time at sports events.
4: Hanging - Quick, clean, painless, BORING.
5: Guillotine - Aha! My favourite. A great hit with the public in France until recently.

Alternatively since this is THE 21st CENTURY, It's time to get futuristic. Give the murderer a weapon and a head start then hunt him (or her) down. Would make great telly.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Typedef
Gafaw, the voice of asutere objectivity speaks, umm thanks for your enunciation there John Paul, I appreciate it.

Get it right, call me 'Sir'.

Typedef

So long as you call me "Your Techi-ness"... Sir

Victor

Can we revert to serious discussion. and get a room guys.

Sand

Tools- Id just go for shooting them in the back of the head, one bullet and relatively cheap.

Government *could* be privatised as you state Tools. However in such a case there would be no government as we might recognise it. As long as there was an independant and respected legal system it would probably be workable once we recognised the fact that natural monopolies would exsist. As for Sweden one of its claim for fame is its suicide rate. Im unsure if there are clusters of observations of this around tax paying. However the point you quote was where I said the public are not so stupid as to expect public services without taxation. The relation to the mixture of capitlism and anarchism you mention, Im unsure.

JustHalf

Sand, in Britain an overwhelming majority of people polled (on that lovely Sky News poll, but it's still a poll, of sorts) wished that the new identities of the killers of Jamie Bolger were to be released to the public. Do you believe they should have done so?

Originally posted by Victor
Can we revert to serious discussion. and get a room guys.

I don't think people in here are treating me with the proper respect. I'm off to find two monkeys, get them really drunk, then give them knives and watch the monkey knife fighting. Now THERE'S entertainment.

tools

Originally posted by Sand
Tools- Id just go for shooting them in the back of the head, one bullet and relatively cheap.

Yes the Taliban school of justice. But I don't think shooting people in the head would be that efficient. For reasons of efficiency (and because of the detrimental effect it had on soldiers discipline) the nazis abandoned the bullet in the head in favour of gas chambers and ovens to dispose of their criminals. Market forces would determine that the most cost effective method is used so surely you as a free market advocate would concur with this reasoning.

Government *could* be privatised as you state Tools. However in such a case there would be no government as we might recognise it.

Exactly. A downsized government. The government which governs least governs best.

As long as there was an independant and respected legal system it would probably be workable once we recognised the fact that natural monopolies would exsist.

Why have an independent legal system? The way things stand at the moment, if you have money you can afford a good lawyer, if you can't then tough luck. What would change? In a society controlled by provate companies what power would an independent legal system have? The justice system, including prisons, should be privatised like everything else. Prisons can be profitable if inmates understand they have to work if they want to eat. Natural monopolies eh? Sounds like you're in favour of a corporate totalitarian state.

As for Sweden one of its claim for fame is its suicide rate.

That'd be the long winters. Stats on suicide rates here