The Futility of Violence

By -
You shortsighted libertarians agree with me that initiating violence is wrong, but you still believe it's a good thing to forcibly punish true "bad guys." Well what about this story? Oh wait, don't tell me: This just proves the sentence wasn't harsh enough. If we executed bank robbers, you wouldn't see this type of thing.

Comments

  1. Anonymous9:21 PM

    Exactly, Bob, exactly!

    ReplyDelete
  2. BJV10:24 AM

    What? I see a guy who just decided to make himself eligible for welfare.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous4:46 PM

    I guess Bob is trying to argue that a substantial motive for crimes is to be incarcerated?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Margaret4:24 PM

    Aren't there cases where suicidal people engaged the police in order to die? Maybe their punishment shouldn't be death in a nice hail of bullets but being strapped to a comfy hospital bed and force fed?

    We need the punishment not to fit the crime, but the causes of the crime! Or maybe we should waste our time on prevention instead of punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Margaret4:27 PM

    I was discussing something along these lines with Jeremy recently. If he shoots me, it's okay for me to shoot him--in self defense. One is bad and one is good. Doesn't that mean that what we are actually punishing is the "thought crime"? If we were actually punishing the action, we'd punish both people. But we let the second person get away with their crime because the reason for it was different.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous6:38 PM

    Thought crime? Interesting way of putting it. No, you're punishing the intent of the action. In Kantian language, you're punishing them for violating a Categorical Imperative. From a utilitarian perspective, I guess shooting the other guy back does make things worse, unless you're a rule of utilitarian and say the greatest good for the greatest number is that people who shoot people be shot themselves. Which would make sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Margaret7:55 PM

    "Thought crime? Interesting way of putting it. No, you're punishing the intent of the action."

    Does "intent" exist anywhere outside the mind? Obviously, we aren't punishing pure thoughts--only the thoughts behind certain actions.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more