What Is Your Leaning and Stances?

[Ethereal]

I'm suprised by how many people are pro-death penalty. My objection to it isn't based on rights or cuelty; the maxim, "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man to death" perfectly explains my objection to it.

Our criminal justice system is imperfect therefore it is irrational to sanction death based upon an imperfect methodology. Furthermore, the death penalty is an inneffective deterrent of crime and utterly wasteful. It costs more money to put a man to death than it does to imprison them for life when one takes into consideration the amount of appeals that the death penalty can incur.

And thats why every other developed nation on earth with universal healthcare has lower infant mortality rates than we do, almost all of them have higher lifespans than we enjoy, and our healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world in performance by the World Health Organization.

This is an oversimplified comparison between healthcare systems. The demography of the United States is unique in that it has a larger urban population than any industrialized nation on Earth. This uneducated, impoverished, and crime-ridden demographic must be taken into account when one considers the reason for the aforementioned statistics.

- FOR free trade, immigration, and globalization. Our economy is the most vibrant in the world because of our openness to competition and trade. We will lose our place in the world if we close our borders and pretend that the rest of the world does not exist.

No one is saying we should close our borders, only that it is necessary to stop people from entering our country illegally. Just because it becomes more difficult to enter the United States doesn't mean immigrants won't try to get in through legal avenues given illegal ones are no longer feasible. It will allow us to control and direct the flow of immigration in a pragmatic and economically sensible manner while maintaing security. If anything this would have a discernably positive effect on our economy.

 

[1069]

On the healthcare thing, it would be wonderful if everyone could have healthcare

Everybody can.
Isn't that wonderful?

 

[Southern Belle]

Everybody can.
Isn't that wonderful?

Yes, I think so, just not at the expense of people's lives as they wait for life-saving surgery they could have paid for. I really do hope either way is an option. If they do allow you to support yourself if you feel like it, it would take your issues out of the government's stuff they have to pay for, and that would mean less waiting for people who couldn't pay as well.

 

[Zyphlin]

Political leaning - Conservative, slight libertarian leans.
Political affiliation - None

Small central government/states rights.
Pro-life but against out right banishment of any type of abortion.
Against massive gun restrictions, though not against a small few.
For extreme shrinkin of the welfare state, but not utter removal of all forms.
Anti-affirmative action.
Minimal government regulation of private business.
Anti-minimum wage.
Anti-subsidy. Pro limited tax break incentives.
Still deciding on globalizatoin.
Non-interventionist foreign policy.
Still deciding on free trade.
Decriminalize and regulate drugs.
Anti-death penalty, unless we begin to fix the litigation issues with it that raise the cost far to high.
Pro-harsher prisons.
Balanced budgets.
Freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion
Strong, yet defensive military posture.
Effective and frequent diplomacy.
Pro-fair tax
Pro-wall and stronger boarder enforcement
Anti-amnesty, pro-deportation
Pro-immigration reform
Pro-nuclear power, pro-state side drilling,
Anti-global warming mandates on private citizens
Anti-smoking bans

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Political leaning - Somewhat Liberal
Political affiliation - None.

Strong central government. States rights are always secondary. This is a country, not a confederation.

Limited Pro-choice.

Don't really care about the second amendment...I have no intention of owning a gun, but if others want one, it's OK with me. Limited regulations.

Limited pro-welfare. Time-limited free handouts except to the chronically/permanently disabled. Work assistance and job training are better and foster future independence.

Anti-affirmative action.

Moderate government regulation of private business. Without regulations, some business will harm the environment and people with no regard for anything but profit.

Pro-minimum wage.

Anti-globalization.

Minimally interventionist foreign policy.

Decriminalize and regulate drugs. Take all the money on the failed war on drugs and create government subsidized treatment facilities for those who need it. Educate, educate, educate.

Pro-death penalty. Also, prisons are a consequence and should be unpleasant.

Strict separation of Church and State. All religions acceptable to be practiced, though in no governmental context.

No tax breaks.

Anti-amnesty for illegals.

Pro-Gay marriage.

Pro-universal healthcare. Not necessarily nationalized, but the elimination of the current health insurance industry and the formation of one that places healthcare and provider interventions first.

Interesting. Some liberal positions, some conservative ones.

I'm sure there are more issues, but this is what I could think of.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I'm suprised by how many people are pro-death penalty. My objection to it isn't based on rights or cuelty; the maxim, "it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to put one innocent man to death" perfectly explains my objection to it.

See, I support the death penalty because I don't necessarily agree with your maxim-- or that the error rate of capital convictions is 10%. Keeping in mind that at least a sizable proportion of acquitted murderers will commit murder again, exactly how many are you willing to let loose in order to prevent one innocent man from being executed?

I would also point out that "innocent men" wrongfully executed are typically only innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for. They are quite frequently guilty of numerous other crimes-- often including other murders--
because it is typically on the basis of prior convictions and public character that people are falsely convicted.

The solution to this is not to abolish the death penalty because our legal system is imperfect-- but to acknowledge that our legal system is imperfect and work toward improving it, so that both fewer guilty men go free and fewer innocent men are punished.

 

[Navy Pride]

See, I support the death penalty because I don't necessarily agree with your maxim-- or that the error rate of capital convictions is 10%. Keeping in mind that at least a sizable proportion of acquitted murderers will commit murder again, exactly how many are you willing to let loose in order to prevent one innocent man from being executed?

I would also point out that "innocent men" wrongfully executed are typically only innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for. They are quite frequently guilty of numerous other crimes-- often including other murders--
because it is typically on the basis of prior convictions and public character that people are falsely convicted.

The solution to this is not to abolish the death penalty because our legal system is imperfect-- but to acknowledge that our legal system is imperfect and work toward improving it, so that both fewer guilty men go free and fewer innocent men are punished.

I actually believe the error rate is less then 1% when it comes to innocent people being executed and I agree that the people wrongly executed probably committed another capital crime to warrant the death penalty.......

The people that get their sentence commuted is not because they were innocent of the crime........Its because maybe they had a bad lawyer or some other technicality and they are not going free but having their sentence commuted to life in prison with or without parole.......

 

[Ethereal]

See, I support the death penalty because I don't necessarily agree with your maxim-- or that the error rate of capital convictions is 10%. Keeping in mind that at least a sizable proportion of acquitted murderers will commit murder again, exactly how many are you willing to let loose in order to prevent one innocent man from being executed?

Well, the maxim isn't meant to be statistically accurate, it's simply meant to convey a principle - that the murder of an innocent man at the hands of the state is utterly, utterly unnacceptable. I suppose a more accurate maxim would be, "it's better to let ten guilty men spend the rest of their lives in prison, than it is to sentence one innocent man to death." Simply abolishing the death penalty wouldn't actually result in the release of guilty men, it would simple commute their sentences to life imprisonment whilst giving the innocent an opportunity to prove their status as such.

I would also point out that "innocent men" wrongfully executed are typically only innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for. They are quite frequently guilty of numerous other crimes-- often including other murders--
because it is typically on the basis of prior convictions and public character that people are falsely convicted.

"Typically" being the operative word. I cannot accept the death of even one purely innocent man as a price worth paying. Life imprisonment accomplishes the same goal (isolates violent criminals from society) and actually costs less to implement, so I see no logical reason, other than revenge, for the death penalty.

The solution to this is not to abolish the death penalty because our legal system is imperfect-- but to acknowledge that our legal system is imperfect and work toward improving it, so that both fewer guilty men go free and fewer innocent men are punished.

This begs the philosophical question - are you comfortable enough with the death penalty to actually implement it yourself? Would you, so to speak, be willing to play executioner?

 

[Cephus]

Political leaning: Secular conservative
Political affiliation: Registered Republican, but recognize they don't represent me.

Small government period, state is no better than federal.
Pro-Choice.
Pro-rational-reading-of-the-Second-amendment.
Pro-social-safety-net-with-lots-of-limitations.
Anti-Affirmative-Action.
Anti-subsidy/Pro-research
Pro-minimum-wage/Anti-"Living Wage" (good one, SouthernDemocrat)
Anti-"We are the world's policemen"
Pro-Globalization-within-reason.
Pro-Death-Penalty.
Anti-drugs.
Absolute separation of church and state.
Demand the government lives within it's means.
Anti-Union.
Pro-education and universal standards for *EVERYONE* including testing to maintain equality.
Against Bush's personal campaign in Iraq.
Pro-gay-marriage. (go California!)
Pro-rational-military-spending, which we are not doing today by any means.
Anti-illegal-immigration.

 

[Scucca]

Pro-minimum-wage/Anti-"Living Wage" (good one, SouthernDemocrat)

This is much about nothing. The theory actually does not make any difference between "minimum wage" and "living wage", given we're merely appreciating the macroeconomic needs (i.e. maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce) for microeconomic models (i.e. that physical efficiency impacts on productivity and therefore maximum possible wage)

 

[Cephus]

This is much about nothing. The theory actually does not make any difference between "minimum wage" and "living wage", given we're merely appreciating the macroeconomic needs (i.e. maintaining the physical efficiency of the workforce) for microeconomic models (i.e. that physical efficiency impacts on productivity and therefore maximum possible wage)

It's not nothing, it's a very reasonable and critical differentiation between the two. There are a lot of liberal whiners who think everyone who bothers to show up for work in the morning deserves to get paid a lot (ie. a "living wage") when they have not earned it. A minimum wage job is intended for those who are just starting out, with minimal education, experience and skills. Ideally, they are for those who are still living at home and are being supported by their parents and don't need the high wages or insurance, they just need work experience in order to move on to better paying jobs after they finish their education.

People who are trying to live and support a family on these kinds of jobs are idiots.

 

[Skip]

It's not nothing, it's a very reasonable and critical differentiation between the two. There are a lot of liberal whiners who think everyone who bothers to show up for work in the morning deserves to get paid a lot (ie. a "living wage") when they have not earned it. A minimum wage job is intended for those who are just starting out, with minimal education, experience and skills. Ideally, they are for those who are still living at home and are being supported by their parents and don't need the high wages or insurance, they just need work experience in order to move on to better paying jobs after they finish their education.

People who are trying to live and support a family on these kinds of jobs are idiots.

And one way or another, you're going to support them. The government-mandated living wage should be for all employees working forty hours each week or more, who have to support themselves, and who maintain a clean criminal record and subject themselves to mandatory drug testing. If they stay clean, they're able to earn a living with a full time job this way.

If they aren't making a living wage, they're still going to live, and they're going to make up the difference with your tax money anyways.

 

[Scucca]

There are a lot of liberal whiners who think everyone who bothers to show up for work in the morning deserves to get paid a lot (ie. a "living wage") when they have not earned it.

I'm not interested in the standard party political whine.

A minimum wage job is intended for those who are just starting out, with minimal education, experience and skills.

No, a minimum wage is intended to reduce market failure and to reduce underpayment. The concept of the "living wage" appreciates that underpayment will have to refer to the specific nature of labour (i.e. if you do not pay enough then physical efficiency cannot be maintained)

People who are trying to live and support a family on these kinds of jobs are idiots.

Its a shame that you're so contemptuous of your fellow American. It does grieve me that the biggest anti-American is normally American. We johnny foreigners kinda feel useless!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Well, the maxim isn't meant to be statistically accurate, it's simply meant to convey a principle - that the murder of an innocent man at the hands of the state is utterly, utterly unnacceptable.

I don't draw very much distinction between locking a man in a cage for ten years and then putting a bullet into his head than I do locking him in a cage for forty years until he dies of systemic organ failure. End result is the same, and it makes no difference to the innocent man subject to either punishment.

"Typically" being the operative word. I cannot accept the death of even one purely innocent man as a price worth paying.

People die. Innocent people are no exception. I would argue that the best thing we can accomplish is design a system that enforces order as efficiently as possible-- both in terms of the resources expended upon it, and in terms of minimizing the damage and waste of potential that it causes.

Yes, the death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment, largely as a result of the safeguards we've built to prevent executing the innocent. But I believe that it can be properly implemented within a more efficient system-- that does both expend fewer resources than the current system, and maintains better order.

Life imprisonment accomplishes the same goal (isolates violent criminals from society) and actually costs less to implement, so I see no logical reason, other than revenge, for the death penalty.

It may isolate them from society at large, but it does not isolate them from non-violent criminals, or even those violent criminals for whom we still hold some hope of rehabilitation. This allows them to continue inflicting damage upon society.

This begs the philosophical question - are you comfortable enough with the death penalty to actually implement it yourself? Would you, so to speak, be willing to play executioner?

Yes. It would be cowardly and hypocritical to support the death penalty otherwise. Executioner is not a job I would want, but it is one I would be content to carry out if duty requires.

 

[Cephus]

Its a shame that you're so contemptuous of your fellow American. It does grieve me that the biggest anti-American is normally American. We johnny foreigners kinda feel useless!

No, I'm contemptuous of those who are irresponsible, you, on the other hand, seem to find them heroic. Whereas I think that when you make your bed, you should have to lie in it, you think that screwing up your life means you should be rewarded.

Go figure. :roll:

 

[Scucca]

No, I'm contemptuous of those who are irresponsible, you, on the other hand, seem to find them heroic.

I simply acknowledge that one cannot simply sneer at the individual. Given the US's low pay problem, we have to focus on more macroeconomic considerations. Hatred of your fellow American citizen really isn't going to cut the mustard.

 

[Cephus]

I simply acknowledge that one cannot simply sneer at the individual. Given the US's low pay problem, we have to focus on more macroeconomic considerations. Hatred of your fellow American citizen really isn't going to cut the mustard.

It isn't a low-pay problem, it's a low education and low personal responsibility problem. People are being irresponsible and expect everyone else to pay their way because they're too stupid or lazy to do it on their own.

And you think that's a good idea?

 

[Happy Days]

I simply acknowledge that one cannot simply sneer at the individual. Given the US's low pay problem, we have to focus on more macroeconomic considerations. Hatred of your fellow American citizen really isn't going to cut the mustard.

Yeah, like British teachers are paid soooo well! Pot, Kettle!

 

[Skip]

It isn't a low-pay problem, it's a low education and low personal responsibility problem. People are being irresponsible and expect everyone else to pay their way because they're too stupid or lazy to do it on their own.

And you think that's a good idea?

You really have three choices here:

"Fish for yourself and screw everybody": You can willfully choose to ignore the problem and watch as our ghettos grow further and further until they burst at the seams, while our status as the world's leader plummets as an unprecedented level of our population lives in poverty and no one does a damn thing to stop it

"Give a man a fish... every day, for the rest of his life": You can acknowledge the problem, but refuse to provide a link for the impoverished to help themselves, instead deciding to allow them to live off of government funding for their support for the rest of their lives. (This scenario is similar to our current state.)

"Teach a man to fish and watch him become productive": You can acknowledge the problem and recognize that many who are willing to work are unable to help themselves. You can provide benchmarks for them to be able to help themselves, and allow their business at which they put in an honest day's work provide for them, instead of your tax dollars and the federal government. Your help can even be contingent on certain legal restrictions, such as illegal drugs and criminal records. You can watch these people gradually progress from the ghetto into people that contribute to society and DON'T leech off of it anymore, which saves all of us money in the long run.

Your choice.

 

[Cephus]

That's sort of why I said we mandate education and job training for those on welfare so they *CAN* help themselves. However, we can't simply pretend people are pathetic, stupid losers who can never do anything themselves and therefore, the government has to pay them for the rest of their lives so they can sit back and watch Oprah all day.

You set standards, you proscribe a path to success, you set people on the path and you expect them to be responsible enough to stay there, or pay for it if they don't.

 

[Scucca]

It isn't a low-pay problem, it's a low education and low personal responsibility problem. People are being irresponsible and expect everyone else to pay their way because they're too stupid or lazy to do it on their own.

In your urge to criticise your fellow American you're assuming that low pay is the result of supply-side limitations. I know that is not the case. I know that the problem is demand-side and therefore it is about macroeconomic limitation. That limitation is actually encouraged by labour market flexibility, as this increases the profit from low skilled/low productivity labour. Note that the UK also has a low wage problem. Note that it also has adopted neo-liberal folly

 

[Bodi]

You really have three choices here:

"Fish for yourself and screw everybody": You can willfully choose to ignore the problem and watch as our ghettos grow further and further until they burst at the seams, while our status as the world's leader plummets as an unprecedented level of our population lives in poverty and no one does a damn thing to stop it

"Give a man a fish... every day, for the rest of his life": You can acknowledge the problem, but refuse to provide a link for the impoverished to help themselves, instead deciding to allow them to live off of government funding for their support for the rest of their lives. (This scenario is similar to our current state.)

"Teach a man to fish and watch him become productive": You can acknowledge the problem and recognize that many who are willing to work are unable to help themselves. You can provide benchmarks for them to be able to help themselves, and allow their business at which they put in an honest day's work provide for them, instead of your tax dollars and the federal government. Your help can even be contingent on certain legal restrictions, such as illegal drugs and criminal records. You can watch these people gradually progress from the ghetto into people that contribute to society and DON'T leech off of it anymore, which saves all of us money in the long run.

Your choice.

That reminds me of Confucius...

Tell me and I will Forget...
Show me and I will Remember...
Include me and I will Understand...



Good stuff, I like your thinking!

 

[Bodi]

In your urge to criticise your fellow American you're assuming that low pay is the result of supply-side limitations. I know that is not the case. I know that the problem is demand-side and therefore it is about macroeconomic limitation. That limitation is actually encouraged by labour market flexibility, as this increases the profit from low skilled/low productivity labour. Note that the UK also has a low wage problem. Note that it also has adopted neo-liberal folly

Not that I disagree with you, but simply out of curiousity...

Do you include Economic Thinking into all of your thought processes?
Almost every one of your posts includes Economic Framework...

Just interested in how other people think, that is all. :2razz:

 

[Scucca]

Do you include Economic Thinking into all of your thought processes?
Almost every one of your posts includes Economic Framework...

Political economy dominates. I'm a victim of socialism!

 

[Skip]

You set standards, you proscribe a path to success, you set people on the path and you expect them to be responsible enough to stay there, or pay for it if they don't.

I agree. You set the standards of working 40 hours each week, passing random drug tests, and keeping a clean criminal record.

You proscribe a path to success by helping with the candidate's job search and mandating that a living wage be paid to them for their full-time work.

By doing this, you are setting people on the path and expecting them to be responsible enough to stay there.

If they choose not to, you kick them out of the program. I favor a three strikes rule. One offense means you're out of the program for three months minimum. The second offense will keep you out for an additional six months. After the third offense, you're permanently barred from government assistance.