tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post3500664528919918708..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: There are no ‘reasons’ for your Rights – stop trying to justify them!Van Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-83798190803384711272013-01-15T21:21:43.056-06:002013-01-15T21:21:43.056-06:00-cont -
Second, those who do deliberate evil to o...-cont -<br /><br />Second, those who do deliberate evil to others - murder, rape, child molestation, etc - should, after thorough review, be either put to death or shut away from the world (while earning their keep and then some) for the rest of their lives.<br />Related, those who would falsely accuse a person of such crimes, should be dealt with just as harshly - to attempt to use society's system of justice, to unjustly deprive a person of their life in fact or effect, forfeits their rights for the same reason the actual criminal would.<br /><br />I had some notions many moons ago, that I haven't had a chance to give much further thought to, that Police dept's should operate 'for profit' establishments in the neighborhoods they serve, such as pubs, employment services (informally helping to put those who need jobs done together with those needing work, etc), useful inspections, etc, , bringing them into the community not ònly as a mode of interaction, and of becoming more informed themselves, but as actual sources of production, socializing, etc... but that's speculation on my part.<br /><br />First and foremost, not just the prisons, but the system it serves, must have a purpose that is none other than seeing that justice is served for those who have had injustice done to them. Any judicial system that does not have that as its primary focus in all areas, cannot render justice - not to victims, not to society, and certainly not to those it imprisons.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-19696081840255925922013-01-15T21:21:26.392-06:002013-01-15T21:21:26.392-06:00Lance said "So, what are prisons supposed to ...Lance said "So, what are prisons supposed to be then? Is there a purpose? Do they need to have a purpose?"<br /><br />Well, not to be flip, but, don't you think that that should be the first question that they answer, rather than the last?<br /><br />The chief problem with our criminal justice system, IMHO, is that its fundamental purpose is not seen to be rendering Justice, which is not surprising given the fundamentals it was developed from. And that is one of the big, big, big problems with any philosophical system that is based upon utility, rather than on what is right and true. Of utility... to who? To what?<br /><br />The first problems that are presented by a system that takes as its starting point the denial of free will, truth and principles, is that it can see nothing as anything like an integrated whole, it is stuck instead with seeing issues that are little better than incidentally associated pursuits for... no particular purpose other than what happens to have caught some enthusiasts fancy.<br /><br />The result is, in regards to our criminal justice system, is that we have a judicial system that is devoted not to rendering justice, not to seeing to it that the wrongs unjustly done to people are made right (insofar as they can be), or that the Laws are designed to uphold rights and serve justice... but instead our justice system is rooted in 'fixing' the criminal, serving the interests of the criminal (supposedly to benefit society... pshaw), to those devoted to righting him, and to the workings of the justice system itself - what is and must be neglected in such a system is Justice and those who have had injustices done to them. <br /><br />Prisons, if they have a purpose, must serve the purpose of Justice first and foremost, and if they don't, should be 86'd.<br /><br />I do think they are necessary, but not in the form they are today. It'd take some thinking and an extended blogpost to even begin dealing with, but off the top of my head, I'd say that:<br /><br />First the laws need to be reworked so as to put the victim first, and to setting the criminal to making their wrongs put right. <br /><br />In the case of theft, malicious injury or damage to property, that'd mean monetary penalties upon the criminal, as well as (meaning that having wealth couldn't be used as a means to escaping paying your debt, so to speak) some form of penal workhouse system (whether under guard (the default) or not would depend upon the nature of the crime and the criminal) to truly work off their debt to their victims. That would require careful consideration, as there are many ways such a system could go wrong, from within and without, but it shouldn't be too difficult to make a 1,000% improvement over our current system.<br /><br /><br />-break -Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-54594691589195846842013-01-15T18:57:46.468-06:002013-01-15T18:57:46.468-06:00So, what are prisons supposed to be then? Is there...So, what are prisons supposed to be then? Is there a purpose? Do they need to have a purpose? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-6652387451228469932013-01-15T12:24:13.788-06:002013-01-15T12:24:13.788-06:00Lance said "There are times, at my most cynic...Lance said "There are times, at my most cynical that it feels like the correction system in America is colossally flawed and corrupt and there is no way it can be fixed. "<br /><br />Ooh... you might be mistaking cynicism for budding rays of realism! If you take a look into the history of prison reform, you'll find that that Utilitarian patron saint of 'Individual Rights', Jeremy Bentham (who called them 'nonsense on stilts', linked to in the post above), was one of their founding, and most driving, forces. <br /><br />What Bentham 'realized', was that since there is no such thing as Free Will (and Rights <i>would</i> be nonsense without it), then all human actions are in one way or another determined by their environment. Given that, then a perfected society requires only that people be 'nudged' by those who know best, into 'proper' (?!) behavior. And of course those who turn out wrong (factory defects), just need to be re-nudged, but under more direct control.<br /><br />Bentham essentially designed the modern penal system. His ideas took fire on this side of the pond, and became the fervent cause of those who would become the forerunners of our proRegressives, and they pursued it with an enthusiasm second only to their/his/Hume's/Rousseau's ideas on Education - which had the very same foundations.<br /><br />If you aren't feeling depressed enough, have a look at Bentham's ideas for his <a href="http://www.utilitarianism.com/panopticon.html" rel="nofollow">'Panopticon'</a> – portrayed on a larger scale by Orwell in 1984.<br /><br />Worst of all, the ideas behind our prisons, are the very same ideas that are behind our modern ideas of 'Education' and Law, though with a kinder, gentler, happy face spin.<br /><br />Think a moment, if you believe that numeric calculations of the 'greater good' should (ah!!!) determine all things, rather than nebulous notions of Rights and Right & Wrong, what would possibly stop you from transforming society into something like 1984 (though perhaps with nicer TV's & fashion sense)? What could possibly justify NOT doing so?<br /><br />As Hume put it in my <a href="http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2008/03/liberal-fascism-getting-to-root-of.html" rel="nofollow">post that we first met (here) on</a>,<br /><br /><i>"...When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles[meaning skepticism], what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion..."</i><br /><br />A world where ideas of divinity, metaphysics and abstract reasoning not driven by quantity, is <i>exactly</i> the world we are living in today.<br /><br />Nice, eh?<br />Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-24021436280441816632013-01-15T10:21:40.991-06:002013-01-15T10:21:40.991-06:00Well as far as prisons go. They just don't see...Well as far as prisons go. They just don't seem to work. So it makes me wonder, what can you do when a person just refuses to follow the laws. But that also, what are prisons for, if it is just to keep those people off of the streets then I guess they are successful. But, if they are supposed to rehabilitate then that doesn't seem to be working. There are times, at my most cynical that it feels like the correction system in America is colossally flawed and corrupt and there is no way it can be fixed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-1559772912197407862013-01-15T10:10:37.935-06:002013-01-15T10:10:37.935-06:00Nope, I didn't, not a problem Lance.
But... &...Nope, I didn't, not a problem Lance.<br /><br />But... 'the prison issue'? What issue is that?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-64486202342810934832013-01-15T00:47:04.540-06:002013-01-15T00:47:04.540-06:00Thanks Van, I hope you realize that I wasn't t...Thanks Van, I hope you realize that I wasn't trying to be flip. I was just trying to understand what kind of response you were talking about. The gun issue, much like the prison issue is for me a hard conversation to have. Because there does not seem to be an answer.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-41879854369428982952013-01-14T20:17:47.124-06:002013-01-14T20:17:47.124-06:00Ghostsniper said "My rights are not dependent...Ghostsniper said "My rights are not dependent upon your acceptance, so grow up."<br /><br />Oh, well sure, if you want to avoid the wordvalance and go with the whole brevity thing, fine, go ahead, see if I care.<br /><br />;-)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-66999322603791079002013-01-14T20:12:15.010-06:002013-01-14T20:12:15.010-06:00landrewc said...
So, what is your response suppose...landrewc said...<br />So, what is your response supposed to be?<br />================<br /><br />My rights are not dependent upon your acceptance, so grow up.ghostsniperhttp://www.deadcenter.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-55696840588338576782013-01-14T19:59:15.319-06:002013-01-14T19:59:15.319-06:00Lance said "So, what is your response suppose...Lance said "So, what is your response supposed to be? "Because I want to and I can."<br /><br />Lance, do you really see a difference between the "What reasons could you possibly have...!" and "Because I want to and I can."?<br /><br />They both deliberately avoid the question of "What Ought a person do in___ situation?"<br /><br />And there's good reason for that, because they've been told when faced with any question of what <i>Should</i> you do, having been led to believe, as all the modernista thinksta's do, that 'should's and 'oughts's are invalid concepts, that instead you should (<i>Ah! I said it!</i>) simply tally up the numbers of pro's and con's and greater goods, and then having reached a (hopefuly) 'decisive' sum, you should (<i>Ah! I said it again! Ni!</i>) then just go with the bigger quantity.<br /><br />One problem with that, is that you, and they, are then left having not only no Rights, but absolutely no true identity apart from what the largest number of your fellow quantifiers decide you should (<i>Ah! I said it again! Ni! Ni! Ni!</i>) be.<br /><br />But as I said in the post,<br />"<i>... Don't try to give them any reasons - they don't want your reasons, what they want is for you to give up your ability to actually Reason with them, and if you answer that question, that is what you will do."<br /><br />The Answer?<br /><br />"The simple fact is, in regards to the 2nd Amendment, or any other of our Rights, defended by the constitution or not, that my Right to defend my life, loved ones and property, does not depend upon my proving its value to you! And my Rights do not require that I put you at ease about the tools - arms - that I choose to defend them with. There are no valid reasons, no matter how beneficial they purport to be, that justify your seeking to interfere with my right to make that decision myself.<br /><br /><b>My Rights are inherent in my nature as a reasoning human being, and they are not subject to your, or congress's or any majority's approval</b>. The 2nd amendment does not grant me the 'right' to keep and bear arms, it only defends it from the foolish and the powerful who feel threatened by it.""</i>"<br /><br />If they balk at that, you might want to ask them... why? Why is it that they think you should (<i>Ahhh! Ni! Ni! Ni!...</i>) consider their ability to count, to be more important than your shared nature as reasoning humans? Why? Based upon what?<br /><br />And if they say something like "Because it's what every decent person should do!", again, ask them Why? And perhaps <i>how</i> it is they came to that conclusion? What, it's like a self evident truth or something?<br /><br />Now <i>that</i> would be an opening for an interesting conversation.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-91803235309239534132013-01-14T14:18:47.836-06:002013-01-14T14:18:47.836-06:00So, what is your response supposed to be? "Be...So, what is your response supposed to be? "Because I want to and I can." Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04973448750714819716noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-30109218842156275942013-01-14T06:58:42.687-06:002013-01-14T06:58:42.687-06:00That's it in a nutshell.That's it in a nutshell. <br /><br />Jesshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15969361446367636746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-61172987518975523762013-01-13T22:57:07.845-06:002013-01-13T22:57:07.845-06:00Great post!Great post!Ex-Dissidenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03837109472357860889noreply@blogger.com