Political Idealogy

Secondly, a company would only pay for the insurance for dependents of a worker until the dependent reaches the age of 18

But this still leaves many people uncovered especially in the 18-35 year old range where despite, entering the workforce, have yet to establish a firm footing in it. For example say I get a full time job at 18 years old and work for one year, but then quit to go to school. Now this company has to give me health insurance for the rest of my life? Jeez that hurts, and especially companies that have a high turnover rate due to low wages or low prestige eg McDonalds. In actuality I think you’d see skyrocketing wages to deter job switching, and in turn this causes massive inflation. More important in those industries where jobs are currently being outsourced you would see this trend increase dramatically as the cost of lifetime health insurance far outweighs the benefits of keeping those jobs here.

The government has to pay to keep someone in jail. Cost for a 2 bullets and a blank, a black hanky, and a last meal (supposing you can just use standard police force rifles) = $30. As apposed to 6 dollars per day times 20 years. That comes out to 43,800. Also, I estimated it on the low side. It is probably any where from 50,000-70,000. Just think of all the money saved!

This is highly debatable considering the enormous costs of court proceeding costs which becomes inevitable with capital punishment. In fact most pseudo-intellectual arguments for capital punishment focus on the morality as it is pretty much granted it isn’t cost effective. Anyway now you are trying to argue utility as a means to justify a pro-life/pro capital punishment stand, yet previously you claimed it was okay as there was nothing ‘wrong’ with it which is a moral justification.

Furhter, if cost efficiency is going to be the model for which we base our justice system upon why not reduce the harsh drug laws which punish users as harsh as dealers. You’d figure it would be cheaper to not incarcerate mere addicts. Also, if cost is again the main criteria why not go after corporate malfeasence more than drugs because it costs gov’t more in dollars and cents than drugs do.

How about a good moral argument against capital punishment though, and here goes. Why is it not considered that it is wrong to kill a convict because utimately it is difficult to determine guilt or innocence and capital punishment is irreversable. In fact in recent years there has been an alarming number of inmates found to be innocent through DNA evidence. If it is wrong to kill a baby that has done nothing wrong via abortion then what about killing a person who was convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. I’d say you have to give him his full due process in order to prevent this, and because of that it is best to not kill him.

3/4’s vote currently its an absoulte vote I believe. Herein lies the problem with your conclusion, while you lower the standards we set for justice in society you also don’t account for the reality that the current system is flawed in that it does allow too many innocent people to be convicted wrongly. Now this being the case it invalidates the death penalty because the purpose of rule of law is to perpetuate justice not exact vengence.

I am morally ok with someone being killed for their crimes and I am just showing how economical it is.

Yes but there is a flaw in your moral justification for the death penalty in that you argue death is never just for the unborn as they are pure, but then turn around and accept that at least some innocent people will be put to death by capital punishment. How can you justify the potential killing of innocents on the one hand, but disregard it in another situation. Keep in mind that eventhough a courts decision is conclusive it is not considered infallable and therefore ought to be reverseable which the death penalty isn’t.

Also, the death penalty isn’t cost effective in that it costs the gov’t money via the legal process to implement it. Further, even if the figures you listed were correct it should be pointed out that you wouldn’t save 5 million a year, but rather 5 million pro rated over the span of 20-30 years. So in actuality its really only 150K a year. Is this really a big savings?

Communism is for sure the perfect gov’t, and if it was not for the human desires of power and wealth, we would see communism as a desiding factor in the ways of the world. If someone could put their wants behind them communism would still exist in many world superpowers.

clearly rushhour, you are an idiot. if it were the PERFECT govt, then there would be no ifs ands or buts. you cant say “it is the perfect govt. if it werent for x then it would work”
thats one of the stupidest things ive heard lately

I got 3,000 per guy per year. This at a rate of 1 hundred new criminals each year comes out to about 20,000 criminals at any one time. That comes to $60,000,000 per year.

Now you’re just pulling figures out of your ass. Assuming 100 executions a year, and 3000 dollars a year to house an inmate the net result is only a 200-300K a year difference. Disperse this over 50 states and the average gain for each state is only 6K a year. So the question becomes is 300K a year to high a price for justice. Consider that if the state executed the wrong man and a court awarded damages into the millions this would evaporate the economic benefits of a decade. This of course begs the question can the gov’t be trusted to make a mistake less than once a decade, and based on your previous posts you don’t think so.

@Desertfox:

… Also, why punish an addict? It is a waste of time. Just get rid of the dealers. Problem solved.

lol. Just two words why it won’t work:
supply - demand.
you keep the demand existing, and cut the supply, hoping that noone will ever come to the idea that drug pushing with higher risk is an incentive for higher prices. True, the demand for high priced drugs will drop, but not to zero.

But then, as you think (or want):

The Jury must approve any capital punishment by 3/4 vote.

i don’t see too much use in arguing with you.

@F_alk:

@Desertfox:

… Also, why punish an addict? It is a waste of time. Just get rid of the dealers. Problem solved.

lol. Just two words why it won’t work:
supply - demand.
you keep the demand existing, and cut the supply, hoping that noone will ever come to the idea that drug pushing with higher risk is an incentive for higher prices. True, the demand for high priced drugs will drop, but not to zero.

Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things. To prove this you need look no further than Afganhistan…where local warlords are being paid off, and the US military explicity allows the opium trade to flourish.

Honestly it doesn’t matter where opium is grown since it can be grown almost anywhere warm whether its Mexico, Turkey, Afghanistan, SE Asia etc.

Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things.

I disagree substance abuse problems are at the heart of what’s wrong with America. Whether its drugs or natural resources Americans have a problem with consumption, and this needs to be addressed. By in large from what I’ve seen most Americans lack impulse control, and moderation, both of which lead to larger social problems.

Even if you don’t answer, you might still read this:
What about hacking off the hands of thieves, stoning of adulterers … what else…
we could force women not to show any skin, so that men have no incentive to rape them…

And of course, Hitler and Stalin took as many non criminals and handled them the same… while fair trials were totally unknown, especially on the ethnical side.

Last, i don’t see the futility in showing the inhumanity in your beliefs.

gee, i better watch it, im so conservative it borders fascism. :o

@Desertfox:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things. To prove this you need look no further than Afganhistan…where local warlords are being paid off, and the US military explicity allows the opium trade to flourish.

Is opium illegal in Afganistan? If it is not then the US should not try to stop it. US laws do not apply to non-US citizens living in a foreign country.

North Korea has deemed chemical/biological/nuclear weapons legitimate, and classified them as conventional tactics. Do we not try to stop this?

You’re wrong. It’s better to take the fight overseas rather than let it reach our homeland, regardless of the price we have to pay. This holds true for the war on terrorism as well. :-? Better to fight them over there, than over here…

I can understand what you’re trying to say, but unfortunately the world does not work in that pipedream. The reality exists that countries do what they have to do, in order to ensure the safety of their country. But I do agree with you on one important point…the fact that US laws do not apply to non-US citizens…

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Desertfox:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Well, I hate to break it to everyone, but the drug trade into this country takes a backseat to many other things. To prove this you need look no further than Afganhistan…where local warlords are being paid off, and the US military explicity allows the opium trade to flourish.

Is opium illegal in Afganistan? If it is not then the US should not try to stop it. US laws do not apply to non-US citizens living in a foreign country.

North Korea has deemed chemical/biological/nuclear weapons legitimate, and classified them as conventional tactics. Do we not try to stop this?

You’re wrong. It’s better to take the fight overseas rather than let it reach our homeland, regardless of the price we have to pay. This holds true for the war on terrorism as well. :-? Better to fight them over there, than over here…

I can understand what you’re trying to say, but unfortunately the world does not work in that pipedream. The reality exists that countries do what they have to do, in order to ensure the safety of their country. But I do agree with you on one important point…the fact that US laws do not apply to non-US citizens…

how many USies think like you do? If it is more than a few percent, then the reason for 9/11 becomes considerably clearer to me.

@Deviant:Scripter:

You’re wrong. It’s better to take the fight overseas rather than let it reach our homeland, regardless of the price we have to pay. This holds true for the war on terrorism as well. :-? Better to fight them over there, than over here…

How non economic.
If the price to fight here is less than to fight there … why would you bring the fight there?

The reality exists that countries do what they have to do, in order to ensure the safety of their country. But I do agree with you on one important point…the fact that US laws do not apply to non-US citizens…

“to ensure safety of their country” … the point is that europe has been through this, when nations tried to ensure “their safety” by thinking for what is best for them only, working uni- or bilaterally. Then still, there was the need for major conferences of all major powers. And still, exactly this thinking lead to WWI. Know your history, and learn.
For the “US laws don’t apply to non-US citizens” … have you even thought of the obvious?
Te terrorists attacks on New York were done by non-US citizens … YAY! there was nothing wrong with them then, no laws broken !
I should really come over and burn down your house … YAY! i did nothing illegal!!