Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lasse K. Lien

Regulars
  • Posts

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Lasse K. Lien

  1. Otherwise it's more like an attack on them that they happen to need the money enough to endure, and that does not sound fun for either party.

    - That depends how you percieve it, people endure far worse for far less quite frequently.

    But given that your talking about the whole experience of casual sex, not just the actual sex, it can be seperated from escorts so its not really that relevant and we dont need to take it that much further ;).

    Its more interesting to what degree casual sex interfere with you getting into meaningfull relationships, as I mention in the second part of my original response.

  2. One possible difference is that the act wouldn't be fun anymore if you couldn't be sure the other person was having fun. It would be like paying someone to hang out with you - it would be super awkward and unsatisfying if you knew they didn't actually want to share your company. As far as the morality of it… Not sure…

    - But hanging out with someone is not really comparable to your description of sex as a form of multiplayer masturbation, so its social context would be very different and im not sure it would apply.

    Given that casual sex is exclusively about the act of penetration, I doubt it would be akward for you.

    Let me make the disclaimer that the definition of casual sex is usually not debated with such a "radical" premise, usually your talking about sleeping with someone you meet in a bar after a lenghty interaction where you find that person to be some sort of a value - just not someone your necessarily going to be in a relationship with.

    I'm tempted to say it would be moral, but a bad sign psychologically. And a very bad sign for the prostitute. But I haven't given it enough thought to be sure.

    - I dont really see how something can be both moral and a bad psychological sign.. Surely if your doing something that is genuinely in your interest, it would not be a bad psychological sign at all.

  3. First off you probably should not respond to that, as there is basically no way you are going to get anywhere intellectually with this person on that premise. If he is a die hard Obama supporter I would probably just outright not talk politics with him, especially on christmas (and especially since theres a good chance your related).

    Talking about the law specifically there would not seem to be any need for such a preventive law, as there is little to no presidence of people shitting in there gardens while living uphill without any sort of structure between his house and the neighbour.

    However if it should occour it is protected by property rights already, if you fill up you inflateble pool with urine or some other annoying liquid, and it should somehow be destroyed in a way that makes all that liquid get into your neighbours garden then he can make a legitimate legal claim of property damage from you.

    The same would apply in the case of him taking a dump, and it influencing you.

    Same I assume would apply if he had an outhouse (which I presume is legal in the US?) that got destroyed by a storm leading to the same net result for the neighbour.

  4. Given your description of point one, seeing sex as basically multiplayer masturbation one can use as a treat for oneself - is there then any moral difference between simply paying escorts rather then going through the motions of actually having to charm a member of the opposite (or same, for that matter) sex?

    I intuitively agree that casual sex is not necessarily a bad thing, however im having trouble differentiating it from outright prostitution on a moral level. All though you would think there would be one (I can think of several contexts where the use of escorts would be explicitly moral) - right..?

    Having given this issue (casual sex, not escorts) some thought myself since debating it a few months back, I wonder if its possible to have casual sex without it being a contradiction to your pursuit of a decent relationship and the far superior sex that provides (in my experience) in the sence that you get kind of "used to" meeting women in a certain setting with a certain additude, compromising the odds that would otherwise be present in and of itself for you to achieve a normal loving relationship.

    If the casual sex in some way prohibits your odds of establishing a proper relationship, the essential would have to be to what degree does it impair you - and if its worth it.

    Answering the latter outside of a specific context also seems difficult.

  5. To answer your friends argument, his principal is accurate - if you want to allow your costumers to throw soft objects at eachother in your bar or restaurant that is your privilege as the owner of that establishment.

    Nobodys forcing anyone to use your facilities.

    However, since the market demand for bars where the throwing of objects are permitted are somewhat absent it would be quite a silly rule to implement. But there should be no legal barrier to doing so (I actually kinda doubt there are such restrictions today :P )

  6. Mrs Lien - You have no children, you should have stopped there. Perhaps next you could teach us Korean.

    - First off im a dude. This is usually the case for Objectivists in general, so I find your presumption somewhat strange :P. If your thinking of my first name in relatin to the female dog lassie I do get it though, however Lasse is the male equivilant - such as christian/christine, Julian/Julie - etc. Nobodys previously refered to me as a female, so I found that somewhat funny.

    And not having children does not limit ones understanding that beating them is wrong.

    I dont keep any slaves either, that does not disqualify me from moral judgement toward others treatment of them.

    As far as doing things together and having fun, we have plenty of that. Between where we go and the activities we do here, there's no lack of options, only a lack of time.

    - So why not punish him by limiting these options rather then violence? You have still not made any rational arguments for why beating him is the superior option.

    He hits the world in roughly 3,000 days. He rarely misbehaves, not out of fear, but because it's not the way for him to accomplish what he's trying to do.

    - First of all im not certain its ideal for a child never to misbehave at all to begin with, and to think that this is going to continue throughout his teens seems somewhat naive.

    I certainly disobeyed my parents when I was a teenager, and presumably most people did.

    Are you going to continue using violence at this point?

    If your sixteen year old son goes out drinking, are you going to beat him up then?

    What if he gets someone pregnant at seventeen? What would a proporsionate response be at that point?

    I just can not see any valid arguments for why this strategy is optimal for raising an independent functional adult. Nor do I see how it prevents your kid from being somewhat of a gay male stripper as you implicated in your prior post.

  7. If one is to rationally evaluate whether or not smoking is morally legitimate given your context, would it not be wise to take into consideration the odds of improvement in the medical care of loung cancer?

    Even despite Obamacare, there is no reason to think medical evolution will simply freeze for the next fifty years - and certainly not regarding a disease claiming so many lives as loung cancer is.

  8. He certainly won't have to compete with drunkards, the unmotivated, nor men who wear pink panties, get up on stripper poles, and "express" themselves.

    - Ahh, the unavoidable consequences of a non-violent upbringing..

    Im not certain it will have a severe negative effect on a child to be beaten (evolutionary speaking it would seem unlikely, as it has probably been the standard throughout history) - but I dont see why you would prefere this alternative.

    I have no children, but could never imagine myself beating up any child in any fashion, particularly not one of my own (!)

    Why not simply restrict the child from participating in activities he enjoys for a certain amount of time, force him to do extra chores around the house, etc?

    Or excluding a positive, say once a week you take your kid to the movies or something else he finds enjoyable (depending on age, this would certainly not work on a fourteen year old), and the times he misbehaves you make it clear that you are not going to be doing it this weekend, for the following reasons..

    That a child should not see his parents argue seems obvious, but there is no relation beetween that and beating up the child.

    I've never seen my parents argue once over the years I lived at home, or even the times I see them now.

    It had given me the impression that they never argue, which is probably not the case - but nevertheless a decent impression to leave your child with.

  9. That equation is wrong. People who smoke a pack or more a day die ten years early on average (not 5-10, by the way, but 10) .............

    The above facts

    - On what basis are you claiming this to be facts?

    What do you define as dying because of smoking?

    If were talking about smokers in general there could be many other factors involved in such a statistic (smokers are on average poorer, drink more, etc) - that does not mean that the act of smoking itself puts you in the statistics.

    As far as I know here in Norway there are about 2000 people who die from lounge cancer every year, and considering there are several reasons for lounge cancer lets assume 1500 got it because they where smoking. I'll estimate the smoking population on about 20%, and then im not even taking into consideration that it was closer to fifty just a few decades ago - which obviously would affect a majority of the people dying today.

    20% comes to 900000 people - if we assume that there is on average a sixty year span beetween them (starting at 15, ending at 75), it would seem that the yearly casualty should be 7500 (900k/60/2)- five times the amount occouring at present.

    Now im not great at math, so my analysis is probably flawed at some point (and purpusfully exaggerated) - there are people dying from KOLS for example, but these come to about 10% of those dying from loung cancer I belive. Even if it was the same rate, the numbers still dont match.

    I would put the estimate of death closer to ten percent, or on average one-two years of the end of your life (that is the on-average risk you would be taking by smoking.)

    Or do you have some documentation claiming otherwise? Keep in mind that research into tobacco is rarely objective - its either payd for by the Tobacco-companies, or by government agencies exclusively interested in material to back up legislation.

  10. I get it, I am aware of all what you've said. But thing I'm afraid of is the way government could use this margin of freedom given to citizens. I don't believe there is a chance to resolve problems by government, because I consider government as the only problem.

    - But was not your original argument that a legalization would lead to higher government healthcare costs, which again would lead to higher taxes for you and therefor it would be impractical?

    Or maybe I misunderstood, I have a tendency to do that it would seem :P

  11. On the other hand, I can't imagine legalization because we all are doomed to government-provided medical care, what means in practice I am responsible for each other and my money (without my permission) would be allocated for drugs-addict cure. There are too many things to change [not only in my country] before legalize drugs.

    - If you look on it from an economic perspective within the frameworks of the welfare state, you'd still be making a good decition to legalize drugs.

    First of all the drug addicts at present are already being treated by the public health care anyways - and there is no reason to think the numbers would go up that much if you legalize it.

    Secondly your spendings on police and prisons would be drastically reduces, surely to a point where it would be a profitable solution compared to the potential new "drug-offenders".

    And then there is the principal of inprisoning the innocent. I could hardly justify to myself putting people whom have done no harm in prison for several years in the hopes that it will keep my taxburden lower..

  12. However, was I suggesting that even 999,999 out of 1 million might fit this category? No. I don't know how many, if any, can be categorized into that compartment, but it is conceivable that such a person has at some point existed.

    - When you make the example, and present them as equal alternatives, it does not leave one with the impression that you feel that option A is a million times more likely then option B. But maybe im not comprehending your intentions fully, English is not my first language.

    "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." - Ayn Rand

    - And you choose to interprit this as happyness being subjective, and whatever you feel works for you as long as you can rationalise it for yourself (such as deciding to have no contact with other human beings, as per your example) is moral? Or that there could be some absurd context where that would be the case? (Other then having some leathal highly contagious disease that nobody else has I can not see such a scenario being realistic)

    Cause thats what it might seem like to some.

    Thus love is not romantic. Do you love your mother or father? Do you want to have a romantic or sexual relationship with either?

    Love does not necessitate sexual attraction and when I speak of it, I do not intend for it to encompass lust, attraction or any other synonym.

    - Your right, I was wrong their. But loving ones mother and father does not really demand that they share your values, they can still be a value TO you. Same goes for your friends.

    You still have not made it clear how you define "sharing your values". Are we talking about other Objectivists? Positive people? Other fans of Nascar, perhaps?

    I do not understand what you mean by confusing knowledge with values, please elaborate. Repeating it with no explanation is not very helpful.

    You cannot have a good relationship with someone if you are completely ignorant of everything about them other than their physical appearance.

    - Right, but where do you set the bar?

    I don't think that any normal person considers from the very first date to be in a "Healthy, intimate, loving relationship" with the person they've only just met...

    - I hardly think any normal person would consider the other person a friend on their first date either.

    You have just stated that Respect = Physical Attraction. To this I say you are utterly incorrect.

    - You said that to respect anyone they have to share your values. I ask again to what extent they have to do so.

    The fact that I don't pick up playboy at all is beside the point lol

    - The articles are pretty good.. ;)

    Have you read any Ayn Rand at all? Your response makes me think that you haven't, or that you don't understand the objectivist philosophy at all.

    - Never even heard of her. The fact that I registered for this forum six years ago (clearly visible) and not two weeks ago might indiciate otherwise obviously, but I assure you it is merely an illusion :)

  13. Firstly, depending on who you are - after all, people are necessarily different - you will either feel a need for friendship at whatever level or you wont. What is, is... You either experience the desire for friends or you don't. Either way, it "is".

    - Either way it is?

    What?

    Im sorry, but this does not make a whole lot of sense to me.

    If you have no desire to interact with other people of any sort during your free time it would appear there is simply something wrong.

    The abstence of any wish to establish social relationships represents, in my oppinion, some sort of psychological flaud.

    What kind? I have no idea. But there is no way that close to anyone would be happier in total isolation then in social interaction to some degree.

    Okay, a real friendship in my opinion is necessarily a form of love.

    - Love is romantic, friendship is just that - friendship.

    You have some very good friends (that you hang out with on a regular basis), friends (people you hang out with occationaly) and aquaintances (people you say hello to if you meet them on the street, at a bar, etc.)

    From what I've observed, the majority of healthy intimate, loving relationships develop from a friendship of mutual respect and admiration.

    - What have you observed?

    Most relationships starts with both parties having a sexual interest in eachother, usually just from the first impression.

    Its much rarer to become bestfriends then move that to a relationship.

    2. It is quite possible to lust after someone of the opposite sex regardless of whether you have respect etc for them, but this constitutes an "Irrational whim"

    - Are we not getting a bit off-topic here?

    This seems to have no relevance to the original question posed?

    And if respect presumes a knowledge of their value, are you saying that you in no way find women you do not know the personal beliefs of attractive?

    People on the street, celebrities, etc.

    Values, on the other hand, are something which, if contrary, will make it nearly impossible to achieve a genuine friendship.

    - This is not true in any way.

    Obviously they have to share your sense of life, and probably you couldnt be friends with some selfdestructive environmentalist - but normal positive nice people who just dont really care that much about politics and vote the same as "everyone else" can certainly be a value as a friend to you.

    If they share your values, you will respect them. If they don't, it will be impossible for you to respect them (without compromising your own values) and thus, it will be impossible to have a genuine friendship with them.

    - How did you come to this conclusion? Do you have no respect for anyone that is NOT an Objectivist? None of my parents are Objectivists, and most of my friends are not - I have great respect for most of them.

    Or how exactly are you defining "share your values"?

  14. Where the people know they are related, I think it would have to be a case by case basis. In general, I think consenting adults who hold the highest value for each other could be moral. A man wanting to bang his 14-year-old daughter, maybe not so moral.

    - Would this be one of the cases of consenting adults we could consider an exception? :D

    "Here is the heartwarming story of 72-year-old Pearl Carter, her lover and grandson Phil Bailey, and the $54,000 surrogate mother they have impregnated. Sorry, did I say heartwarming? I meant, oh my god get it out of my head."

    Indiana grandmother having baby with her grandson

  15. were cigarettes illegal I guarntee you'd start seeing nicotine as a really concentrated white powder.... with as many nasty consequences as snorting cocaine.

    - Probably would not work, as there is much more to smoking cigarettes then just the nicotine that your body and mind gets used to.

    You already have a bunch of alternative methods of getting nicotine, but not alot of people use them frequently.

    and caused few to no problems that way. Only after it became illegal did it become a problem.

    - Im fairly certain cocain did not get illegal in 1902.

    In fact im pretty sure nobody in the west even particularly used it prior to the seventies, but may have been as early as the sixties.

  16. Well, no, I assume that you believe that draconian punishments will cause a major decrease in crime, and I dispute that assumption -- maybe 15% drop. We could do an experiment, if we had some aquariums full of Sand Kings. All of the criminals that I know (okay, a very small set) are not persuaded by punishments because they're not gonna get caught, anyhow.

    - It would be significantly more then 15%.

    Lets look at the countries that practise draconian punishments today, Sharia-law (im not defending Sharia obv, but proving a point) cut the hands of anyone caught of stealing. Do you not think this effects the number of thefts?

    Signapore executes anyone guilty of drugpossesion. Their airports clearly states "if you enter this country with drugs, or use drugs here, you will be executed". Do you not think there are fewer people using drugs in Signapore?

    I've played alot of poker in Norway, and considering how its illegal all clubs are underground - they know that they will likely get caught once a year on average if there really popular - but the standard sentencing is a fine of about 1500 dollars, which they mostly consider a reasonable risk.

    Had the punishment been ten years in prison, or a million dollar fine, nobody would be able to do it (thankfully the Norwegian government would never impose such strict punishments, though ;) ).

    If the likelihood of a person committing a crime is inversely related to the duration of the punishment, you're saying that it's unimportant to eliminate those crimes that are punished with only a year in prison.

    - I dont think so, because the crimes that are punished less will also be easier to avoid.

    For example risiking five years for vandalism is a big enough deterrant, as very few have an extreme desire to vandalise.

    When it comes to murder and rape on the other hand, people will risk much more.

    As I've stated before, I think that a very strict "get back what you gave" policy is the best. If someone, for example, was raped in a particular fashion, then theoretically the victim and/or state could rape them in a similar manner. If they don't want to be raped, the parties could negotiate a prison sentence, a restitutive payment, etc.,

    - Given that I've presented quite a radical suggestion myself im going to try not being to hard on you with this one.

    But its very tough, because it is a very very bad idea.

    Basically your ignoring the context of rape, and the fact that most women are raped by men. Is your suggestion that the male rapist is going to be raped by a women or another man?

    Should the government hire men to rape other (probably quite disgusting) men?

    You would certainly create a great society for any bisexual "switch" bdsm'er (people who enjoy violent sex both as the submissive and dominant part) - they can go rape whomever they want to satisfy half their desires, and then the government sentences them to get the other half aswell.

    Similarly for assault, murder, theft, etc.

    - The victim should ROB the people who robbed them?

    What makes you think the robbers would have much of value to begin with?

    Or that they would not hide it prior to the offense, since they know how these laws work?

    Who is to say that the beating was 1.8 times worse than a theft of value x, or 55% less bad than a rape?

    - You need to make a general line and work from it. Its the same as consent ages, it applies to everyone no matter how mature they may be.

  17. Another reason why a person who thinks for himself in all areas might crash and burn would be the opposition of other people. Those who think for themselves quickly become annoying to the conventional, who seek their downfall as a result. This last point should need no argument for an Objectivist audience, and it is a reason to consider restricting the areas to which one applies one's mind.

    - Why would such a person be considered annoying by anyone "conventional"?

    Certainly thats possible if you constantly berate people for being irrational, or consistently feel the urge to include philosophy in any conversation.

    "Yeah man, I'd love a beer. Speaking of beer, you are aware that the current rate of beer representing the totalitarian tendencies of society also represented by .... Oh you do know? I mentioned it several times earlier tonight? You sure you have to go? All right man. I'll see you. Not? Ok then. Take care".

    And frankly I used to do this alot when I was younger, but try not to push reason on people as frequently any more.

    If someone asks what you think you should certainly explain, but being an Objectivists imposes no duty upon you to educate the masses of reality.

    And if you do that to frequently, you will find that most people who may be great people but not very intellectual will find you annoying, and rightly so.

  18. I have also taken stuff from jobs over the years when in a pinch - things like toilet paper and soap. I know it is wrong, but I figure I'm way underpaid anyway, so this is the least they owe me. I think if I made a decent salary, I wouldn't bother stealing insignificant things.

    - Are toilet paper and soap very expensive where you come from?

    If you think your salary is to low, thats not their fault - your not obliged to work for them, and one should presume you found the wager fair by entering in for employment in the first place.

    And it seems pretty silly to make yourself a thief over such insignificant sums, does it not? :)

  19. Okay; and it is also in your interest to have a society which values and practices the virtue of justice. ("one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit"). Now we have two rational values, and we have to balance them.The implication is that the injustice that would arise from excessive punishment is a lesser disvalue than a society which we conjecture would have slightly more violations of rights.

    - Would it not appear that you are making the assumption that we are merely speaking of a minor decrease in crime?

    I would think it could decrease crime by 70-80% with little difficulty, that is not a minor factor to keep in mind.

    When it comes to justice as a virtue, surely that can be handled contextually - and in this particular context (crime) it would not appear a virtue, as its upholding would lead to greater injustice to the innocent (basically a larger amount of crime).

    D'kian makes a good point about risks of getting caught, which obviously also has to be included.

    However it seems somewhat naive in the perception that you would ever get an 80% rate of success in investigating criminal cases.

    However, the extention of punishment is no difficult task - its merely a matter of new legislation.

    If crime-prevention is of such importance that it must trump justice, then life imprisonment combined with lifelong torture would need to be the penalty for all violations of the law.

    - One could obviously use a principal of non-proprtionate punishment to advocate it, but I dont think it would be very practical.

    First of it would be tremendously expensive, secondly there would be a point where deterriation stops being relevant to whether you do something and not, and I think you find it much earlier then at this point.

    if we are to put crime-prevention above justice, we are denying that it is possible to judge the extent of a wrong. But clearly, we can distinguish between bar-brawling and serial murdering.

    - But there would still be a distinction. Lets say we double all punishments, that way they are disproportionate relative to the offense - but still proportionate in relation to eachother.

    But if we expand the function of government to crime prevention, then the government has a necessary interest in all sorts of things that are not part of proper government, such as psychology, philosophy and culture.

    - But this would not be practical, and considering that it would demand some sort of extensive taxation to finance it would no longer be in my interest. Im merely proposing disproportionate punishments to the extent it would seem selfish.

    To get back to your initial point, about your interest in living in a society with the fewest crimes, it is also in your interest to live in a society with fabulous wealth, flying cars, 1,000 Mbs wireless connections and good, cheap shoes, but it is not the proper function of government to bring about that society.

    - I actually disagree, if it had been possible for the government to create a society where everyone lives in fabulous wealth off course I would advocate that, and any advocation of a free society would be silly, if we presume a free society would be a much worse place for humans to coexists.

    Obviously thats not the case, and a laissez-faire state gives the individual the best possible chances of leading a happy wealthy life - but since your argument was based on some fictional alternative, I found it proper to point out that such a fictional society certainly would be preferable.

  20. That is where I was confused. I wasn't sure if it would be moral or not to assosciate with non-objectivists. I mean, reasonably, there are not very many O'ist in the world so you would be pretty lonely if that were the case.

    - And there would probably not come any more along, if they where socially boycotted to begin with ;)

  21. Now, I was able to explain that friends are most likely made based on values and virtues that people hold, much like the way one falls in love with somebody. But, what differentiates a friend from someone you love? Would it be immoral to have friends that don't hold values that are similar to yours?

    - It would not be immoral to have friends that don't hold values similar to yourself, it would be impossible.

    Basically friends are people you chose to socialise with - as opposed to colleagues and classmates, that your just stuck with.

    There is always a shared interest or sense of life that started your friendship to begin with, and consequently why you keep hanging out with that person.

    It does not have to be philosophical or political agreement - most of my friends are non-objectivists, but we have other hobbies in common, aswell as a common style, interests, and so on.

    The purpose of friends for an Objectivist would be the same as most people - to improve your life and make your days more enjoyable.

  22. One problem with extreme punishments is that less informant-based help would become available.

    - But is not informant based information something that rarely play a role in murder charges/rape/etc?

    Seems that would be relevant primarily in mafia cases, considering how there would be very little, if any, organised crime under laissez-faire im not certain it would make that big of a difference?

    Criminal types don't think of time very precisely. Years behind bars is years behind bars.

    - I doubt that is true in general, obviously the risk one is running vs the possible profit is going to effect a decitionmaking process prior to doing anything illegal.

    If someone offerede me a million dollars to smuggle drugs, and the potential punishment was a hundred dollar fine, the odds of me doing so would surely increase.

    Likewise im certain that the kids who view it a part of their destructive culture to vandalise/etc would be less likely to do so if risiking several years in prison.

    Some people will take larger risks then others, and some will not care at all - obviously criminals fall in a category of people with less moral and a general willingness to take higher risks - but at some point punishment would certainly function as a deterrant.

    Im quite certain shoplifting is more frequent in the west then it is in Iran, for example.

    Also, perps would struggle more extremely not to get caught, possibly leading to more police-shootings, and injury to by-standers, hostage-taking, etc.

    - This is a decent point. But this is also true to a degree with fair punishment. The relevant factor as far as I can tell would be whether the number of such instances would increase to a degree that makes the extention in punishments irrational. And im not sure thats the case.

    It is unconstitutional, on the grounds that it is "cruel and unusual punishment," by its own standards.

    - Yes, but the fact that it is unconstitutional does not seem that important or relevant as far as I can tell.

    Constitutions are not correct by virtue of being constitutions as such.

    How would you argue for consistency in sentencing, if penalties are arbitrary anyway?

    - It would not be arbitrary, in a given case that previously the punishment objectivly was 5 years - it is now twenty years.

    Everyone previously getting five years will now get twenty instead. Its an issue of multiplication, not subjectivity.

    I think this is a thoroughly pragmatic proposal, sure to back-fire at the practical level

    - Maybe. But I dont see that the downsides overcome the upsides - atleast not so far.

    I'll start with a terminological note -- I believe you're using "civil law" to refer to "non-military law", whereas over here, "civil law" refers to private law.

    - Thats accurate. I remember when I was like fourteen and everyone was impressed by my English - it would appear that one should continue developing this knowledge, as my skills have not changed much and are no longer particularly contextually impressive :P

    I'm not flatly rejecting the idea of using the law to prevent criminal conduct, I'm pointing out that this is the root of the problem that you're pointing to. Why should legal punishments serve the purpose of persuading people to not violate rights when they would "ordinarily" do so?

    - Right, and the answer there is clearly that it would be in my interest to have a society where the fewest possible criminal acts occour.

    And that the optimal way to achieve such a state is not to punish people fairly, but excessivly.

    Or is there something im missing here?

    Basically something being "barbaric" does not make it inproper by definition.

    Being unfair does not seem to be reason enough either, as it would not be unfair to me.

    Off course, that kind of additude opens another door to various general discriminatory laws that simply would not apply to me (to take an absurd example, a general tax to finance the minimumstate forced upon everyone shorter then me would not be to my disadvantage, and the only reason to oppose such legislation would be the fact that its unfair to everyone else and violates individual rights..)

    so im not really sure where I stand on this issue. Which is a fealing I have not had for quite a few years, making it somewhat interesting..

×
×
  • Create New...