Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

What is your plan to address those individuals who perform non-consensual non-defensive violence upon others?

I'm not sure what you mean by my plan. Can you clarify and/or rephrase the question?

Actions speak louder than words; I have to deal with those people all the time. Many of them wear badges and work for a government. Most are law-abiders. I deal with them the way I deal with them. My actions speak for themselves on that. How I deal with the rapists and murders and such varies greatly based on whether they are committing the rape and murder legally or illegally in the place I encounter them doing it, both in terms of any formal written laws and in terms of de facto law (e.g. a mafia mobster who is 'made man' and considered an 'untouchable' by the mafia for which he works, meaning the mob boss has issued a law that he cannot be touched under penalty of death). That's for the same reason that in a one-on-one encounter I treat wild bears and wild squirrels differently even when they are both equally willing to viciously attack me, or some other nearby will-be victim of theirs.

In any case, even though I'm not sure what you are asking exactly, most likely I already covered it and answered it in the Original Post (OP).

[Belindi]

I am not what is usually understood as a pacifist, but I don't mind.

Fair enough, but my point wasn't that you yourself are not a pacifist. I wasn't thinking you were one.

Rather, my point was and still is that what you are proposing entails violently putting pacifists in prison, which is itself an act of expensive non-defensive violence.

I am not a full-blown pacifist (since I am willing to use defensive force as needed against those engaging in non-defensive violence such as rape, murder, robbery, and slavery). Nonetheless, I am a firm peace-lover in that I adamantly oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery, etc.) as explained in this tweet of mine.

The society you want requires prisons, so that you can put peaceful people including pacifists in prison, as a way to coerce money out of them at least.

In contrast, nothing I want done requires prisons.

a heavyweight prison system can be avoided by a fully functioning welfare state [...]

If by "welfare state" you mean violently forcing pacifists to pay money (i.e. taxes) to allegedly charitable causes and/or the expensive imprisonment of other pacifists, by threatening the pacifists with forced imprisonment if they refuse to pay for your violence, then prisons would indeed be necessary in such a society, to fund the expensive aggressively violent big government statism you are proposing.

In contrast, since I would propose no such thing, and instead I oppose all non-defensive violence, and I oppose imprisonment of pacifists, prisons are NOT necessary for anything I would want done.

if tax money is needed to combat causes of crime then it's worth paying extra taxes to do so.

If you personally want to donate your own money to non-violent charitable causes, that's great. If you voluntarily choose to donate your own money to non-violent charities, that's great. But if it's a voluntary donation, then I believe that would typically be called a 'donation' not a 'tax'.

The question is what happens to people (namely pacifists) who refuse to pay the money to fund your proposed "welfare state", [...]

In any case, if you proposal entails forcing people (including pacifists) to pay taxes to your "welfare state" to fund the "welfare" by threatening those people (including pacifists) with imprisonment if they refuse to pay that money (i.e. taxes), then absolutely 100% definitely your proposal requires prisons and entails violently imprisoning pacifists, which itself costs more money, which requires more aggressive non-defensive violence, which requires even more money, which requires even more aggressive non-defensive violence.

Welfare of citizens can't be met as a voluntary charity for two reasons.
[...] if [the selfish and greedy] are to help other people they have to be made to do so [via non-defensive violence or the threat of non-defensive violence].

Then, indeed, I think we can easily agree, as I said in my previous post, absolutely 100% definitely your proposal requires prisons and entails violently imprisoning pacifists.

The violent expensive big government statism you are proposing and endorsing would require prisons and would require paying people to violently hunt down and shove peaceful people into those prisons.

So, to answer the titular question about whether society needs prisons: The kind of violent big government society that you, Belindi, want to exist would need prisons. In your society, there would be many peaceful people in prison including pacifists.

In contrast, nothing I want done requires prisons.

I do not support committing non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery) against peaceful people.


Thank you,
Scott

What I understand is you endorse the freedom of individuals to pay taxes or not, and that the state should not have the right to force people to pay taxes. If this is what you believe, then your opinion of human nature is unrealistically optimistic.
I am sufficiently pessimistic to believe most people will not pay taxes unless there is a deterrent for non-payment.

[Pattern-chaser]

Though since some of the crimes will be of the murder, rape and kidnapping variety, I am open to non prison alternatives you consider superior.

That *I* consider superior? I am aware of the suggestions of others, brighter and better-informed than I am, who say that there are alternatives to prison that result in less re-offending, etc. I believe that these alternatives exist, and that they work a little better, as claimed. So I think we should at least try them. But I offer no judgement of my own.

[LuckyR]

What is your plan to address those individuals who perform non-consensual non-defensive violence upon others?

I'm not sure what you mean by my plan. Can you clarify and/or rephrase the question?

Actions speak louder than words; I have to deal with those people all the time. Many of them wear badges and work for a government. Most are law-abiders. I deal with them the way I deal with them. My actions speak for themselves on that. How I deal with the rapists and murders and such varies greatly based on whether they are committing the rape and murder legally or illegally in the place I encounter them doing it, both in terms of any formal written laws and in terms of de facto law (e.g. a mafia mobster who is 'made man' and considered an 'untouchable' by the mafia for which he works, meaning the mob boss has issued a law that he cannot be touched under penalty of death). That's for the same reason that in a one-on-one encounter I treat wild bears and wild squirrels differently even when they are both equally willing to viciously attack me, or some other nearby will-be victim of theirs.

In any case, even though I'm not sure what you are asking exactly, most likely I already covered it and answered it in the Original Post (OP).

Okay. How about rapists and murderers who have already completed the deed illegally? Prison, yes or no?

Your OP dealt with 1) nonviolent criminals, 2) those forced into a life of crime due to extreme situations (such as poverty) and 3) the "mentally ill". Are career criminals in one of those groups?

[LuckyR]

Though since some of the crimes will be of the murder, rape and kidnapping variety, I am open to non prison alternatives you consider superior.

That *I* consider superior? I am aware of the suggestions of others, brighter and better-informed than I am, who say that there are alternatives to prison that result in less re-offending, etc. I believe that these alternatives exist, and that they work a little better, as claimed. So I think we should at least try them. But I offer no judgement of my own.

Dude, I'm just asking you to describe what these alternatives look like (regardless of their source).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Okay. How about rapists and murderers who have already completed the deed illegally? Prison, yes or no?

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you are asking me. Can you clarify and/or rephrase the question?

To be clear, I have never put a person in prison in my life.

I've never built a prison. I've never worked at prison. I've never driven someone to a prison. I've never visited a prison. I don't own a prison.

I wouldn't bet on the truth of any of the above sentences changing in the future (e.g. I wouldn't bet on me becoming a prison guard or such in the future).

I've been an inmate in jail several times, and that's the closest I've even come to being at or near a prison, let alone putting someone else there.

Your OP dealt with 1) nonviolent criminals, 2) those forced into a life of crime due to extreme situations (such as poverty) and 3) the "mentally ill". Are career criminals in one of those groups?

Statistically, in the USA, I would assume most "career criminals" fall into category #1.

Granted, it might depend on what you mean by "career criminal" exactly. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Was he a career criminal as you use the term?

Assuming I ever decide to buy weed in places its illegal or buy a Cuban cigar, would the hypothetical ( ) people from whom I might buy weed or Cuban cigars be "career criminals"?

Is a prostitute a "career criminal"?

What about a porn star in a country where porn is illegal? Is a porn start in a country where porn is illegal a "career criminal"?

These are not rhetorical questions. The answers would enable me to understand what is meant by the phrase "career criminal" exactly, so that I can understand and thus answer questions that involve that term.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

Welfare of citizens can't be met as a voluntary charity for two reasons.
[...] if [the selfish and greedy] are to help other people they have to be made to do so [via non-defensive violence or the threat of non-defensive violence].

Then, indeed, I think we can easily agree, as I said in my previous post, absolutely 100% definitely your proposal requires prisons and entails violently imprisoning pacifists.

The violent expensive big government statism you are proposing and endorsing would require prisons and would require paying people to violently hunt down and shove peaceful people into those prisons.

So, to answer the titular question about whether society needs prisons: The kind of violent big government society that you, Belindi, want to exist would need prisons. In your society, there would be many peaceful people in prison including pacifists.

In contrast, nothing I want done requires prisons.

I do not support committing non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery) against peaceful people.


Thank you,
Scott

What I understand is you endorse the freedom of individuals to pay taxes or not, and that the state should not have the right to force people to pay taxes.

[Emphasis added.]

No, that is not what I believe. Namely, there are no 'shoulds' in my philosophy. For more on that, please see these other topics of mine:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace


However, for most complete, convincing, and concise argument and explanation, you will want to read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All. I spent over 5 years working on the book, and worked with many professional editors, beta readers, and proofreaders to ensure it was as concise, clear, and accurate as possible. It would take 20 years of full-time one-on-one conversation with a single person to give that one person what they can get in a single day simply by reading the book.

If this is what you believe, then your opinion of human nature is unrealistically optimistic.
I am sufficiently pessimistic to believe most people will not pay [...]

The opposite is the case. I am extremely cynical. I am a loving all-forgiving cynic, but I am a realistic cynic nonetheless.

I don't care how much the aggressively violent person claims to be a well-intentioned utilitarian or benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a multi-person benevolent dictator)... I don't care how much they claim they are acting "for the greater good" or such or claim their allegedly glorious ends would 'justify' their aggressively violent means (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)... I don't trust any human to wield the power of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), not individually, and even moreso not in mobs or groups. It's precisely because I'm realistically cynical that I don't buy it into the dangerous violent pipe dream. I explain that in more detail in the following topic of mine:

Man is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government...


To a degree, I understand the impulse you may have to go put a gun to someone's head and order him to donate to a charity you like. To a degree, I understand the impulse you might have to go commit a violent robbery at a bank so that you can then donate the profits to a particular charity you like. If it was me, I'd probably donate the violently robbed money to a charity that feeds starving children in the third-world, except--and this is a big except--I would never ever use such non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) as the means to that end, to any end. And, shall I find myself in that bank where the charity-loving bank robbers takes his gun and starts threatening to murder people, I would if needed use defensive lethal force to kill the violent murderous bank robber and protect his would-be victims from the murderous non-defensive violence that he uses to fund charities he loves.



Thank you,
Scott

[Pattern-chaser]

Though since some of the crimes will be of the murder, rape and kidnapping variety, I am open to non prison alternatives you consider superior.

I am aware of the suggestions of others, brighter and better-informed than I am, who say that there are alternatives to prison that result in less re-offending, etc. I believe that these alternatives exist, and that they work a little better, as claimed. So I think we should at least try them.

Dude, I'm just asking you to describe what these alternatives look like (regardless of their source).

OK , these are other people's ideas, not mine, but they seem to make some sense, at least enough to give them a try, and see if they work better than prison.

Despite being seen as the ultimate “stick” to ensure social order, prison is not a deterrent for most forms of offending. Crime is largely impulsive or driven by complex external factors on decision-making – the notion that offenders are “rational agents” weighing up the cost and benefits of offending has been largely debunked.

• Alternatives can take the form of fines, restorative justice, transformative justice or no punishment at all.
• Victim-centred alternatives to standard prison sentences can provide empowerment for victims of crime. Restorative justice is a system of criminal justice that focuses on the rehabilitation of offenders through reconciliation with victims and the community at large.
• There are different non-custodial sentences that a court might give to adults who have offended, including:
  • fine
  • probation order
  • community service order
  • a combination of probation and community service orders
  • conditional or absolute discharge
  Non-custodial sentences for young people who offend include:
  • attendance centre order
  • community responsibility order
  • reparation order
  • youth conference order
• Not all forms of offending can be traced to underlying mental health issues, but for those offenders who do require treatment, it is the single most effective way to reduce reoffending.
• Public naming and shaming, hefty fines and bans on certain forms of professional practice are more likely to deter white-collar offending than prison.
• There appears to be no reasonable justification why victimless crimes, from drug possession and use to sex work to “public order” crimes such as homelessness and public drunkenness, remain on the books. The potential for these offences to result in imprisonment is only going to result in a negative result for society, as we turn harmless individuals into repeat-offenders.

I'm sure this list is far from complete, but these seem to be useful and practical suggestions that could work better, for all of society (victim, accused, and the rest of us too) than prison.

[Belindi]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

Welfare of citizens can't be met as a voluntary charity for two reasons.
[...] if [the selfish and greedy] are to help other people they have to be made to do so [via non-defensive violence or the threat of non-defensive violence].

Then, indeed, I think we can easily agree, as I said in my previous post, absolutely 100% definitely your proposal requires prisons and entails violently imprisoning pacifists.

The violent expensive big government statism you are proposing and endorsing would require prisons and would require paying people to violently hunt down and shove peaceful people into those prisons.

So, to answer the titular question about whether society needs prisons: The kind of violent big government society that you, Belindi, want to exist would need prisons. In your society, there would be many peaceful people in prison including pacifists.

In contrast, nothing I want done requires prisons.

I do not support committing non-defensive violence (e.g. rape, murder, slavery) against peaceful people.


Thank you,
Scott

What I understand is you endorse the freedom of individuals to pay taxes or not, and that the state should not have the right to force people to pay taxes.

[Emphasis added.]

No, that is not what I believe. Namely, there are no 'shoulds' in my philosophy. For more on that, please see these other topics of mine:


- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- What the word "evil" means to me, and why I believe evil (as I use the term) does not exist.

- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace


However, for most complete, convincing, and concise argument and explanation, you will want to read my book, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All. I spent over 5 years working on the book, and worked with many professional editors, beta readers, and proofreaders to ensure it was as concise, clear, and accurate as possible. It would take 20 years of full-time one-on-one conversation with a single person to give that one person what they can get in a single day simply by reading the book.

If this is what you believe, then your opinion of human nature is unrealistically optimistic.
I am sufficiently pessimistic to believe most people will not pay [...]

The opposite is the case. I am extremely cynical. I am a loving all-forgiving cynic, but I am a realistic cynic nonetheless.

I don't care how much the aggressively violent person claims to be a well-intentioned utilitarian or benevolent dictator (or worse a mob of humans acting together as a multi-person benevolent dictator)... I don't care how much they claim they are acting "for the greater good" or such or claim their allegedly glorious ends would 'justify' their aggressively violent means (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.)... I don't trust any human to wield the power of non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery), not individually, and even moreso not in mobs or groups. It's precisely because I'm realistically cynical that I don't buy it into the dangerous violent pipe dream. I explain that in more detail in the following topic of mine:

Man is Not Fit to Govern Man: My Philosophy of Non-Violence, Self-Government...


To a degree, I understand the impulse you may have to go put a gun to someone's head and order him to donate to a charity you like. To a degree, I understand the impulse you might have to go commit a violent robbery at a bank so that you can then donate the profits to a particular charity you like. If it was me, I'd probably donate the violently robbed money to a charity that feeds starving children in the third-world, except--and this is a big except--I would never ever use such non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery) as the means to that end, to any end. And, shall I find myself in that bank where the charity-loving bank robbers takes his gun and starts threatening to murder people, I would if needed use defensive lethal force to kill the violent murderous bank robber and protect his would-be victims from the murderous non-defensive violence that he uses to fund charities he loves.



Thank you,
Scott

Would your system of nobody going to prison include ,not only prostitutes, civil liberties fighters, and people who use recreational drugs, (which I support) but also extremely rich people who refuse to pay taxes into the public purse of the nation that feeds and shelters them?
Would the society exert any sort of quid pro quo for not contributing to the public purse? For instance, if a very rich non-criminal man became a pauper and was starving, would the nation feed him only if he had been a tax payer or contributed to national insurance?

[LuckyR]

Okay. How about rapists and murderers who have already completed the deed illegally? Prison, yes or no?

I'm sorry; I don't understand what you are asking me. Can you clarify and/or rephrase the question?

To be clear, I have never put a person in prison in my life.

I've never built a prison. I've never worked at prison. I've never driven someone to a prison. I've never visited a prison. I don't own a prison.

I wouldn't bet on the truth of any of the above sentences changing in the future (e.g. I wouldn't bet on me becoming a prison guard or such in the future).

I've been an inmate in jail several times, and that's the closest I've even come to being at or near a prison, let alone putting someone else there.

Your OP dealt with 1) nonviolent criminals, 2) those forced into a life of crime due to extreme situations (such as poverty) and 3) the "mentally ill". Are career criminals in one of those groups?

Statistically, in the USA, I would assume most "career criminals" fall into category #1.

Granted, it might depend on what you mean by "career criminal" exactly. Martin Luther King was arrested 29 times. Was he a career criminal as you use the term?

Assuming I ever decide to buy weed in places its illegal or buy a Cuban cigar, would the hypothetical ( ) people from whom I might buy weed or Cuban cigars be "career criminals"?

Is a prostitute a "career criminal"?

What about a porn star in a country where porn is illegal? Is a porn start in a country where porn is illegal a "career criminal"?

These are not rhetorical questions. The answers would enable me to understand what is meant by the phrase "career criminal" exactly, so that I can understand and thus answer questions that involve that term.

Hhmmm, interesting... There is a status quo. Everyone on the thread feels comfortable critiquing the status quo, despite their inexperience in the area in question. Yet some excuse themselves from coming up with an alternative to the previously criticized status quo due to inexperience in said area. OK.

I'll try again: what in your opinion is a superior resolution to a case of a convicted rapist than prison?

[amorphos_ii]

perhaps if we lived in a society where everything was free [anarchism], then there would be no need to steel. or if everyone had enough to be satisfied ~ but don't we all want more even though compared to poorer nations we may already have enough? an old friend of mine, would probably sit upon a mountain of stuff and decalre that it is all his.

i think education [esp, about causality on the social level] is key, but that needs to include rudimentary philosophy, and wisdom. people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

[LuckyR]

perhaps if we lived in a society where everything was free [anarchism], then there would be no need to steel. or if everyone had enough to be satisfied ~ but don't we all want more even though compared to poorer nations we may already have enough? an old friend of mine, would probably sit upon a mountain of stuff and decalre that it is all his.

i think education [esp, about causality on the social level] is key, but that needs to include rudimentary philosophy, and wisdom. people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

Nice thought experiment, but the reality is there will always be resentment. Even if it's for the affection of the pretty girl at the pub. Thus everyone will not have access to something (or someone). Some will always try to "remedy" the situation through violent means. What do you want to do with those folks, if not prison? Simple question... yet observe the linguistic gymnastics to try to avoid answering the question.

[EricPH]

people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

Plain English is simple, don't kill, steal, or cheat. Easy to understand, what more do you need to say?

[EricPH]

What do you want to do with those folks, if not prison? Simple question...

I don't think there are any alternatives that could be enforced, or that would work, even though I don't fully agree with imprisonment. I come into contact with a number of homeless ex - offenders; who have served mostly short term sentences. Most of their previous connections with society have been compromised or destroyed. Family connections suffer, and they can no longer live with them. Any property rental has been ended, benefits have to be re applied for, and they can go a month or two with no money. finding a job becomes tough, especially if they are homeless. Bank accounts seem to get closed, and trying to get a new one is a real struggle. If they get paid any money, it is often into a friends account, and so called friends seem to put a price on this service. Partners rarely wait for them to come out of prison. Property gets lost, destroyed or stolen when they are homeless.

From all my connections with ex - offenders, their punishment carries on, long after they have left prison.

[Belindi]

perhaps if we lived in a society where everything was free [anarchism], then there would be no need to steel. or if everyone had enough to be satisfied ~ but don't we all want more even though compared to poorer nations we may already have enough? an old friend of mine, would probably sit upon a mountain of stuff and decalre that it is all his.

i think education [esp, about causality on the social level] is key, but that needs to include rudimentary philosophy, and wisdom. people need to be taught about disire and many of the things spoken of here, and in english - so to say, such that children can understand.

Nice thought experiment, but the reality is there will always be resentment. Even if it's for the affection of the pretty girl at the pub. Thus everyone will not have access to something (or someone). Some will always try to "remedy" the situation through violent means. What do you want to do with those folks, if not prison? Simple question... yet observe the linguistic gymnastics to try to avoid answering the question.

I take it that Lucky's objection generally is about power. Amorphos is right to the extent that education increases the range of choice as to how a person can obtain and exert power; more choice means fewer people choose violence as some will choose other maybe legal means of extortion, and others will have learned more mature strategies such as increase in knowledge or earnings. A political strategy of social mobility, which is facilitated by education, will remedy much of the frustration of not getting the prettiest girl in the room. The net result of education and social mobility is reduction in the need for preventive imprisonment.