On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, L.D. Best wrote: > We all, in one way or another, base what we believe and what we do -- or > want others to do -- upon a personal definition of "right/wrong" > "good/bad" ...
Yup... though some use logic and reason to define what is right and wrong. > One problem which has always faced any person or organization is the > fact that nothing can be totally good or totally bad, and at what point > does the good for the many off-set or excuse the bad for the few. The logical answer is that the few are a subset of the many. Therefore any negative for the few is also a negative for the many. > However, at what point should society start to reconsider the > consequences of not having the death penalty? Ends justify means talking. Please don't fall into that trap. "We the people" delegate certain of our rights to a group of people we designate as "government." As individuals, we have an inherent right to protect life and property. That includes the use of deadly force when it's the only way. As individuals, we do not have an inherent right to kill in revenge. We can not therefore delegate a non-existent right to government. Government has no lawful authority to kill in revenge because individuals have no such right. > But the money spent to keep someone in prison could support a family of > four which would otherwise be homeless. > > Doesn't anyone beside me see something wrong with that picture? Yes, I see something wrong with it. Taxpayers should not support murderers at all. Victimless crimes should all be put in proper perspective and all such laws should be revoked. Those who remain in prison need to support themselves. Prison should be a place where murderers, rapists and robbers learn how to farm, build furniture, weave cloth, and whatever else it takes to support themselves. Taxpayers should probably be responsible for paying the warden and guards, but all care and feeding of the prisoners should be provided by the prisoners. The answer doesn't have to be either death or taxpayer supported luxurious living. > At what point do we draw the line about using limited resources [and > even sunlight is "limited" in a long enough time frame] for criminals > when non-criminals are deprived of the basics of life? Simple. Do not rob from the taxpayer to pay the prisoner. > And please -- don't expect me to take that debate to a world-wide level; > it hasn't been properly addressed yet on the local level. I believe a prison should consist of a few hundred acres of mixed arable land and forest. A life sentence should consist of being supplied an ax, a knife, a few packages of seeds, and the standard Vulcan salutation. The prisoner perishes or prospers depending on how well he can adapt, both to the harsh new living conditions as well as the "society" that will already exist among pre-existing prison population. > There are times that I get really upset with "bleeding hearts" and WWJD > radicals. At one point or another, if survival of the "good" is going > to be a possibility, we're going to have to do what was the rule of > survival in the 60s & 70s: Kill 'em all and let God sort them out! We have no right to do so. > [GAWD! Did she really say that?!?!?!??????!!!!! If you believe in a > good god of any sort, don't you think it might be kinder to "send > someone on" a bit earlier, than to increase the suffering of many for > decades?? If you don't see that as a possibility, might I suggest that > your religion or ethics may need rethinking.] You look at a situation only in black and white. Please try out a few shades of gray. > I'll head for the bunker now ... Grenades aren't the only answer. ;-) -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff)
