The Economy Of Heaven

[Sleeper Cell]

Yes you could go home at tonight, and vote. In many states conviction on a felony count permanently removes the right to vote.

Any paycheck that doesn't support an above poverty lifestyle is effectively involuntary servitude.

Ps; http://www.newyorker...tors_picks=true

I wish I had known that at the time. Like an exploited fool, I lived below the poverty line, saved some money, went back to school, and eventually got a much better job. Curse that first employer for hiring me.

BTW, it is interesting that the standard is no longer “sufficient for one’s needs.” but “sufficient for a desired lifestyle.”

[pmccombs1]

So translate please.

People tend to think of economy in terms of "who gets what" and "how." In today's lexicon, it's a system of serving the abstract means that determine this formula. This power (or means) is pure token, or money, a.k.a, "mammon." Does today's understanding of economy apply to Heaven? Is it reasonable to ask, "What is the Method Heaven Employs to Serve Mammon?"

Some look at our engineered systems of economy and single out the one that provides the most negative liberty, or the most social justice, or the most efficiency, or what-have-you; and for them, that comes to stand in for God's Economy. "it's not perfect," they say, "but it's the closest thing."

Keep in mind, with what I'm going to say, that "liberty" and "justice" are facets of equity. That which is unfettered and fair is equitable.

Of our modern, earthly economies, Thomas Storck once wrote that "Property... has no meaning except its cash value, so the only questions about ownership are questions of so-called efficiency: how to get the most wealth or equity out of it, how to prevent poverty or redistribute wealth. Capitalists and communists differ about which system best produces efficiency and equity, but they agree that these are the only relevant questions."

We view even our charity in terms of this recent reinterpretation of economy, which is why we often see it reduced to statistics: x number of goods distributed, y% of gross means diverted, n number of people assisted. Where efficiency and equity are maximized, that must be where God's hand is revealed, or so it is thought.

The management of the household is what economy literally means. Would you like fairness in your house? Efficiency? Yes, I think those would be nice. Is this all that matters? Let's say that fairness and efficiency are for people, and not the other way around. Sometimes there has to be the experience of trial and suffering in order to serve people. In some aspects of my household, for instance, I allow my children to try, and occasionally to fail, so that they can learn and increase in capability. This policy is not good for efficiency and not always fair for everyone else. But we aren't serving ideals, we are trying to make them serve us by expanding our own ability to practice them. That is wisdom, or so I hope.

And what is order? It is that responsibilities and dependencies cannot be ignored. Actually, there isn't a lot of "negative liberty" at all; we don't allow the household to run unfettered and hope for the benevolence of the Invisible Hand to do the rest, for that is not the proper order of things. We all have something to answer for; positive liberty replaces negative liberty, and we operate with the freedom to express one's relationship and responsibility to the rest, so long as it is expressed and fulfilled. My sons and daughters are not sons and daughters in the exact same way, and that which is required of the spouse is not what is required of the toddler.

I can have an influence on, but not dictate, how love or loyalty must be shown, what interests are developed, or how we perceive and understand each other. But I expect my sons and daughters to be sons and daughters and my wife to be a wife, and I am expected to be a father and a husband. These are direct relationships that cannot be satisfied by some other intermediate. We have a mutual responsibility to each other. That is quite a departure from the egalitarian leveling of the "free market" economy presently worshiped in many quarters.

What I want, and what I mean to say, is just what E. F. Schumacher wrote: Economy as if people mattered. We are all part of God's household. How is He managing us?

I don't know if that counts for a translation.

Edited July 8, 2013 by pmccombs1

[Stone holm]

People tend to think of economy in terms of "who gets what" and "how." In today's lexicon, it's a system of serving the abstract means that determine this formula. This power (or means) is pure token, or money, a.k.a, "mammon." Does today's understanding of economy apply to Heaven? Is it reasonable to ask, "What is the Method Heaven Employs to Serve Mammon?"

Some look at our engineered systems of economy and single out the one that provides the most negative liberty, or the most social justice, or the most efficiency, or what-have-you; and for them, that comes to stand in for God's Economy. "it's not perfect," they say, "but it's the closest thing."

Keep in mind, with what I'm going to say, that "liberty" and "justice" are facets of equity. That which is unfettered and fair is equitable.

Of our modern, earthly economies, Thomas Storck once wrote that "Property... has no meaning except its cash value, so the only questions about ownership are questions of so-called efficiency: how to get the most wealth or equity out of it, how to prevent poverty or redistribute wealth. Capitalists and communists differ about which system best produces efficiency and equity, but they agree that these are the only relevant questions."

We view even our charity in terms of this recent reinterpretation of economy, which is why we often see it reduced to statistics: x number of goods distributed, y% of gross means diverted, n number of people assisted. Where efficiency and equity are maximized, that must be where God's hand is revealed, or so it is thought.

The management of the household is what economy literally means. Would you like fairness in your house? Efficiency? Yes, I think those would be nice. Is this all that matters? Let's say that fairness and efficiency are for people, and not the other way around. Sometimes there has to be the experience of trial and suffering in order to serve people. In some aspects of my household, for instance, I allow my children to try, and occasionally to fail, so that they can learn and increase in capability. This policy is not good for efficiency and not always fair for everyone else. But we aren't serving ideals, we are trying to make them serve us by expanding our own ability to practice them. That is wisdom, or so I hope.

And what is order? It is that responsibilities and dependencies cannot be ignored. Actually, there isn't a lot of "negative liberty" at all; we don't allow the household to run unfettered and hope for the benevolence of the Invisible Hand to do the rest, for that is not the proper order of things. We all have something to answer for; positive liberty replaces negative liberty, and we operate with the freedom to express one's relationship and responsibility to the rest, so long as it is expressed and fulfilled. My sons and daughters are not sons and daughters in the exact same way, and that which is required of the spouse is not what is required of the toddler.

I can have an influence on, but not dictate, how love or loyalty must be shown, what interests are developed, or how we perceive and understand each other. But I expect my sons and daughters to be sons and daughters and my wife to be a wife, and I am expected to be a father and a husband. These are direct relationships that cannot be satisfied by some other intermediate. We have a mutual responsibility to each other. That is quite a departure from the egalitarian leveling of the "free market" economy presently worshiped in many quarters.

What I want, and what I mean to say, is just what E. F. Schumacher wrote: Economy as if people mattered. We are all part of God's household. How is He managing us?

I don't know if that counts for a translation.

It counts very well that is why I asked. Interesting comment about property seen strictly as cash value. I think that is an important point because that is a more modern concept and I think one of the failings of modern culture. Property need not be commodified, but when it is it tends to do ugly things to a culture, so I would expect that is not the way the gods view property. The Shakers had some differing views, which I suspect is why their simple furniture is so sought after. America unfortunately as a gr Uncle once told me keeps score in terms of wealth accumulation and we find it difficult to play a different game although my generation flirted with a paradigm change before being coopted by the system once the threat of the Vietnam War dissipated.

[Bikeemikey]

People tend to think of economy in terms of "who gets what" and "how." In today's lexicon, it's a system of serving the abstract means that determine this formula. This power (or means) is pure token, or money, a.k.a, "mammon." Does today's understanding of economy apply to Heaven? Is it reasonable to ask, "What is the Method Heaven Employs to Serve Mammon?"

Some look at our engineered systems of economy and single out the one that provides the most negative liberty, or the most social justice, or the most efficiency, or what-have-you; and for them, that comes to stand in for God's Economy. "it's not perfect," they say, "but it's the closest thing."

Keep in mind, with what I'm going to say, that "liberty" and "justice" are facets of equity. That which is unfettered and fair is equitable.

Of our modern, earthly economies, Thomas Storck once wrote that "Property... has no meaning except its cash value, so the only questions about ownership are questions of so-called efficiency: how to get the most wealth or equity out of it, how to prevent poverty or redistribute wealth. Capitalists and communists differ about which system best produces efficiency and equity, but they agree that these are the only relevant questions."

We view even our charity in terms of this recent reinterpretation of economy, which is why we often see it reduced to statistics: x number of goods distributed, y% of gross means diverted, n number of people assisted. Where efficiency and equity are maximized, that must be where God's hand is revealed, or so it is thought.

The management of the household is what economy literally means. Would you like fairness in your house? Efficiency? Yes, I think those would be nice. Is this all that matters? Let's say that fairness and efficiency are for people, and not the other way around. Sometimes there has to be the experience of trial and suffering in order to serve people. In some aspects of my household, for instance, I allow my children to try, and occasionally to fail, so that they can learn and increase in capability. This policy is not good for efficiency and not always fair for everyone else. But we aren't serving ideals, we are trying to make them serve us by expanding our own ability to practice them. That is wisdom, or so I hope.

And what is order? It is that responsibilities and dependencies cannot be ignored. Actually, there isn't a lot of "negative liberty" at all; we don't allow the household to run unfettered and hope for the benevolence of the Invisible Hand to do the rest, for that is not the proper order of things. We all have something to answer for; positive liberty replaces negative liberty, and we operate with the freedom to express one's relationship and responsibility to the rest, so long as it is expressed and fulfilled. My sons and daughters are not sons and daughters in the exact same way, and that which is required of the spouse is not what is required of the toddler.

I can have an influence on, but not dictate, how love or loyalty must be shown, what interests are developed, or how we perceive and understand each other. But I expect my sons and daughters to be sons and daughters and my wife to be a wife, and I am expected to be a father and a husband. These are direct relationships that cannot be satisfied by some other intermediate. We have a mutual responsibility to each other. That is quite a departure from the egalitarian leveling of the "free market" economy presently worshiped in many quarters.

What I want, and what I mean to say, is just what E. F. Schumacher wrote: Economy as if people mattered. We are all part of God's household. How is He managing us?

I don't know if that counts for a translation.

I think it might be possible that I have a major crush on you brain :-)

[Sleeper Cell]

The primary reason that Christianity went ape over Communism was Marx's approach in the Manifesto put it at odds with religion. You saw no comparable outrage at say Israel which at one point was heavily communistic and still has communistic communes. The industrialists helped fuel this outrage up until they figured out how to devise a truce with communism whereby they could mine its labor. After that the venom turned on Western Socialist countries because they have civil liberties and protected labor so it is more difficult to mine. We are starting to see a disturbing trend in America with the certain prison reforms where prisoners are released during the daytime to work for minimum wage and then returned to the prison at night. Given our broken drug enforcement system we have a huge and growing segment of the population incarcerated in either private or public owned prisons, as a result we may find ourselves with a fairly large semi slave population on our hands relatively soon.

Any paycheck that doesn't support an above poverty lifestyle is effectively involuntary servitude.

Ps; http://www.newyorker...tors_picks=true

Perhaps we should stop sentencing offenders to community service. Give them jail or prison time instead. If work release is involuntary servitude or “semi-slavery” because the paycheck is so low, wouldn’t being sentenced to community service (for which you get no paycheck whatsoever) be an even worse form of involuntary servitude or semi slavery?

[Stroopwafel]

...

Very good translation!

...

Are you familiar with a certain Roberto Mangabeira Unger? If not, I'm sure you would appreciate to make his acquaintance.

[Stone holm]

Perhaps we should stop sentencing offenders to community service. Give them jail or prison time instead. If work release is involuntary servitude or “semi-slavery” because the paycheck is so low, wouldn’t being sentenced to community service (for which you get no paycheck whatsoever) be an even worse form of involuntary servitude or semi slavery?

The probation and parole system is not working. I think we need to start setting reasonable prison sentences which correspond with the magnitude of the crime and then work on programs within the prison environment to make sure that the ex-con has a chance at success when released. Right now we have heaped so much stigma on the ex-cons that it is extremely difficult, unless their name is Martha Stewart, for them to stay straight when they get out. Part of the problem is our broken drug policies as they are not coming out of prison clean, which is the principal reason for the revolving door. Am not as concerned about the fact that day release prisoners are being paid next to nothing, as I am about the fact that it is drawing certain industries to the towns which have a concentration of these workers -- at least that is what is happening in our State. So our response to underpaid Communist Chinese labor to a certain extent is to provide prison labor.

[thesometimesaint]

Perhaps we should stop sentencing offenders to community service. Give them jail or prison time instead. If work release is involuntary servitude or “semi-slavery” because the paycheck is so low, wouldn’t being sentenced to community service (for which you get no paycheck whatsoever) be an even worse form of involuntary servitude or semi slavery?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017130270

[Sleeper Cell]

The probation and parole system is not working. I think we need to start setting reasonable prison sentences which correspond with the magnitude of the crime and then work on programs within the prison environment to make sure that the ex-con has a chance at success when released. Right now we have heaped so much stigma on the ex-cons that it is extremely difficult, unless their name is Martha Stewart, for them to stay straight when they get out. Part of the problem is our broken drug policies as they are not coming out of prison clean, which is the principal reason for the revolving door. Am not as concerned about the fact that day release prisoners are being paid next to nothing, as I am about the fact that it is drawing certain industries to the towns which have a concentration of these workers -- at least that is what is happening in our State. So our response to underpaid Communist Chinese labor to a certain extent is to provide prison labor.

Actually, I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. One of my strongest criticisms of the present prison system is the lack of adequate safeguards to protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners. Every cop I have ever talked to about the subject told me that if you go to prison, you will either become a predator or a victim. It is tempting to say that if the bad guys kill each other off, so what? But regardless of what they have done, once they are in prison, we are absolutely responsible for their safety. There is no excuse for a system that cannot or will not protect those who are completely in its power from violence. Programs in prison have limited value for those who are terrified of being murdered or raped by their fellow prisoners or for those who become predators in order to avoid becoming victims.

Another reform (which, at first glance, may seem to contradict my first paragraph) is that we need a meaningful death penalty. The most common cause of death on death row should be “execution,” not “old age.” As a modest first step, if those serving time for first degree murder commit another first degree murder while in prison, the death penalty should be mandatory and swift (barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances).

A well designed work release program is one of the best ways to combat the stigma against ex cons (and give them some hope they can overcome the stigma, when released). In the one with which I was (inadvertently) associated, a group of cons had the opportunity to work on a mixed labor crew. In my limited experience, I found that sharing hard labor can cut across the usual social boundaries. To my shock, I actually grew to like and respect some of the cons I was working with (to the extent that one of them occasionally felt it necessary to caution me that there was a reason why the word “con” became a verb). And I am a right wing, law and order nut who constantly belittles “those bleeding heart, left wing social workers.”

I suppose that it all depends on how the work release program is designed, the type of industry, and who runs the companies that employ work release prisoners. .

　

My co-workers repeatedly told me that they would much rather do hard outside labor than spend the day sitting around in prison. During a particularly hard day, one told me that it was "helping him sweat the meanness out of his system." (Good to hear, but what if we started having a few easy days?)

I suppose one could argue that giving them a choice of hard outside labor or spending their day in prison is exploitive. But if one agrees that it is just to send violent felons to prison, it is hardly exploitive to give them an alternative which they, themselves, prefer.

IOW, before we accuse an employer of exploiting a work release prisoner, (or compare our work release programs to the Chinese prison labor system) we might take the opinion of the “exploited work release prisoner” into account.

BTW, sometimes I think that it would be cheaper in the long run if we simply give non violent drug offenders the choice to either do rehab or agree to be confined to one state where they will be provided with the necessities of life (plus a few comforts) and be given the drugs of their choice free of charge. Since this would be a radically progressive program, the state chosen should be one whose residents are open to progressive thinking. A blue state. Your state comes to mind.

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. One of my strongest criticisms of the present prison system is the lack of adequate safeguards to protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners. Every cop I have ever talked to about the subject told me that if you go to prison, you will either become a predator or a victim. It is tempting to say that if the bad guys kill each other off, so what? But regardless of what they have done, once they are in prison, we are absolutely responsible for their safety. There is no excuse for a system that cannot or will not protect those who are completely in its power from violence. Programs in prison have limited value for those who are terrified of being murdered or raped by their fellow prisoners or for those who become predators in order to avoid becoming victims.

Another reform (which, at first glance, may seem to contradict my first paragraph) is that we need a meaningful death penalty. The most common cause of death on death row should be “execution,” not “old age.” As a modest first step, if those serving time for first degree murder commit another first degree murder while in prison, the death penalty should be mandatory and swift (barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances).

A well designed work release program is one of the best ways to combat the stigma against ex cons (and give them some hope they can overcome the stigma, when released). In the one with which I was (inadvertently) associated, a group of cons had the opportunity to work on a mixed labor crew. In my limited experience, I found that sharing hard labor can cut across the usual social boundaries. To my shock, I actually grew to like and respect some of the cons I was working with (to the extent that one of them occasionally felt it necessary to caution me that there was a reason why the word “con” became a verb). And I am a right wing, law and order nut who constantly belittles “those bleeding heart, left wing social workers.”

I suppose that it all depends on how the work release program is designed, the type of industry, and who runs the companies that employ work release prisoners. .

　

My co-workers repeatedly told me that they would much rather do hard outside labor than spend the day sitting around in prison. During a particularly hard day, one told me that it was "helping him sweat the meanness out of his system." (Good to hear, but what if we started having a few easy days?)

I suppose one could argue that giving them a choice of hard outside labor or spending their day in prison is exploitive. But if one agrees that it is just to send violent felons to prison, it is hardly exploitive to give them an alternative which they, themselves, prefer.

IOW, before we accuse an employer of exploiting a work release prisoner, (or compare our work release programs to the Chinese prison labor system) we might take the opinion of the “exploited work release prisoner” into account.

BTW, sometimes I think that it would be cheaper in the long run if we simply give non violent drug offenders the choice to either do rehab or agree to be confined to one state where they will be provided with the necessities of life (plus a few comforts) and be given the drugs of their choice free of charge. Since this would be a radically progressive program, the state chosen should be one whose residents are open to progressive thinking. A blue state. Your state comes to mind.

I could release 2/3 to 3/4 of all prisoners today and not have any measurable effect on public safety. By simply decriminalizing marijuana possession. Offer low cost to free drug rehab, and I'll reduce prison size even further. I would love to see it in my Blue state.

BTW Even murder is usually a one off crime, a crime of passion, and is unlikely to be repeated. I'm not excusing it, but spending $1,000,000 per year per death row inmate is nonsensical.

[Stone holm]

Actually, I tend to agree with most of what you are saying. One of my strongest criticisms of the present prison system is the lack of adequate safeguards to protect prisoners from violence committed by other prisoners. Every cop I have ever talked to about the subject told me that if you go to prison, you will either become a predator or a victim. It is tempting to say that if the bad guys kill each other off, so what? But regardless of what they have done, once they are in prison, we are absolutely responsible for their safety. There is no excuse for a system that cannot or will not protect those who are completely in its power from violence. Programs in prison have limited value for those who are terrified of being murdered or raped by their fellow prisoners or for those who become predators in order to avoid becoming victims.

Another reform (which, at first glance, may seem to contradict my first paragraph) is that we need a meaningful death penalty. The most common cause of death on death row should be “execution,” not “old age.” As a modest first step, if those serving time for first degree murder commit another first degree murder while in prison, the death penalty should be mandatory and swift (barring extraordinary extenuating circumstances).

A well designed work release program is one of the best ways to combat the stigma against ex cons (and give them some hope they can overcome the stigma, when released). In the one with which I was (inadvertently) associated, a group of cons had the opportunity to work on a mixed labor crew. In my limited experience, I found that sharing hard labor can cut across the usual social boundaries. To my shock, I actually grew to like and respect some of the cons I was working with (to the extent that one of them occasionally felt it necessary to caution me that there was a reason why the word “con” became a verb). And I am a right wing, law and order nut who constantly belittles “those bleeding heart, left wing social workers.”

I suppose that it all depends on how the work release program is designed, the type of industry, and who runs the companies that employ work release prisoners. .

　

My co-workers repeatedly told me that they would much rather do hard outside labor than spend the day sitting around in prison. During a particularly hard day, one told me that it was "helping him sweat the meanness out of his system." (Good to hear, but what if we started having a few easy days?)

I suppose one could argue that giving them a choice of hard outside labor or spending their day in prison is exploitive. But if one agrees that it is just to send violent felons to prison, it is hardly exploitive to give them an alternative which they, themselves, prefer.

IOW, before we accuse an employer of exploiting a work release prisoner, (or compare our work release programs to the Chinese prison labor system) we might take the opinion of the “exploited work release prisoner” into account.

BTW, sometimes I think that it would be cheaper in the long run if we simply give non violent drug offenders the choice to either do rehab or agree to be confined to one state where they will be provided with the necessities of life (plus a few comforts) and be given the drugs of their choice free of charge. Since this would be a radically progressive program, the state chosen should be one whose residents are open to progressive thinking. A blue state. Your state comes to mind.

I used to be a "blood atonement" believer, but moved away from that stance and am a fencesitter on the death penalty. It does not appear to be a deterrent and the States have pretty much determined that it is more costly to execute someone than incarcerate them for life. In addition, there is the steady stream of condemned that have been determined to be innocent before they were executed, which makes me wonder exactly how many innocent people Texas has executed since it has a seeming assembly line approach. But I could go either way on the death penalty. I am in favor of completely legalizing marijuana and believe it would already be legalized but for the not for profits who are raking in revenue streams preaching against it. Other than realizing that the War on Drugs is a complete and very expensive bust, I am not sure what the solution is to the problem. I suspect as some European countries have discovered it would be cheaper to simply provide free rehabilitation and in some cases free fixes than incarcerate.

[Sleeper Cell]

I could release 2/3 to 3/4 of all prisoners today and not have any measurable effect on public safety. By simply decriminalizing marijuana possession. Offer low cost to free drug rehab, and I'll reduce prison size even further. I would love to see it in my Blue state.

BTW Even murder is usually a one off crime, a crime of passion, and is unlikely to be repeated. I'm not excusing it, but spending $1,000,000 per year per death row inmate is nonsensical.

Are you saying that 2/3 to ¾ of all prisoners are serving hard time exclusively for non violent drug related crimes? If so, I would appreciate a reference, (not a formal CFR).

Drug rehab doesn’t exactly have a sterling track record either. Nevertheless, I would offer free drug rehab to anyone who could not afford it. What do you think of my even more “radically progressive” proposal to provide free drugs of their choice plus living expenses to those who cannot or will not be rehabilitated, on condition that they are confined to one blue state? (Since, IIRC, the spelling of the name of your blue state is uncomfortably similar to the spelling of the name of mine, I would suggest another state be used as our “laboratory”).

I am quite aware that murder tends to have one of the lowest recidivism rates.. Of course, this statistic includes murders of all types. IIRC, most murders are 2^nd degree; hence, never subject to the death penalty.. For some reason, nobody ever cites the recidivism rates for first degree murder, nor breaks the murder recidivism rate down by motive. One of my work release co-workers was a convicted murderer. We got along very well.

Would you agree with my proposal for a meaningful death penalty for convicted first degree murderers who commit another first degree murder in prison while serving time for the first murder?

spending $1,000,000 per year per death row inmate is nonsensical.

What is the value of an innocent human life? Or even the value of the life of one of these convicted felons who are murdered in prison, yet are guilty only of stealing a loaf of bread (or was it for selling pot?) I am reminded of the old saying about understanding the cost of everything and the value of nothing. What is the cost of depriving the families of murder victims a sense that justice has been done? Why do death penalty opponents always cite the costs to the state but seldom mention the costs to the families of the victims?

[Sleeper Cell]

I used to be a "blood atonement" believer, but moved away from that stance and am a fencesitter on the death penalty. It does not appear to be a deterrent and the States have pretty much determined that it is more costly to execute someone than incarcerate them for life. In addition, there is the steady stream of condemned that have been determined to be innocent before they were executed, which makes me wonder exactly how many innocent people Texas has executed since it has a seeming assembly line approach. But I could go either way on the death penalty. I am in favor of completely legalizing marijuana and believe it would already be legalized but for the not for profits who are raking in revenue streams preaching against it. Other than realizing that the War on Drugs is a complete and very expensive bust, I am not sure what the solution is to the problem. I suspect as some European countries have discovered it would be cheaper to simply provide free rehabilitation and in some cases free fixes than incarcerate.

It does not seem to be a deterrent

It obviously deters executed murderers from committing additional murders. Life w/o parole does not seem to be a deterrent either. If anything, it creates a class of prisoners who have little left to lose by murdering other prisoners. As I pointed out before, I believe that the state is completely responsible for the safety of those whom it takes into custody, because it has placed them in an inherently dangerous environment (prison) while depriving them of the ability to protect themselves.

The opponents of capital punishment do everything possible to prevent the use of the death penalty (IIRC, the leading cause of death on death row is “old age”) and them complain that the existence of the death penalty does not seem to be a deterrent.

more costly

See my answer to TSS. What is the value of an innocent human life? The death penalty may be more costly to the state, but what about the people whom the state is supposed to be protecting from crime?

stream of innocent people condemned, [but later exonerated] … how many innocent people … [have been] executed.

By that argument, we should never send anyone to prison until we can guarantee that no innocent person will ever be convicted and later murdered in prison. IIRC, more prisoners are murdered in prison than are executed.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[thesometimesaint]

My mistake it isn't exclusively for simple possession of pot. But is a significant percentage around 50%.

http://www.famm.org/Repository/Files/FAQ%20Marijuana%20Cases%204.24.12.pdf

We can only infer motive. But the best evidence so far is that murder is nearly always a crime of passion, a one off event.

I am undecided on whether we should execute those rare cases of serial murder. Seems to me that better security for prisoners would be less costly, and involve less morality issues than Capital Punishment does.

All human life is infinitely valuable. But we do have to put some monetary value on it. Generally it is up to the value of their life insurance.

Nothing we can do will bring back the loved one. I am not too sure that vengeance is all that noble a cause. Using the state to extract that vengeance even less so.

[Stone holm]

It obviously deters executed murderers from committing additional murders. Life w/o parole does not seem to be a deterrent either. If anything, it creates a class of prisoners who have little left to lose by murdering other prisoners. As I pointed out before, I believe that the state is completely responsible for the safety of those whom it takes into custody, because it has placed them in an inherently dangerous environment (prison) while depriving them of the ability to protect themselves.

The opponents of capital punishment do everything possible to prevent the use of the death penalty (IIRC, the leading cause of death on death row is “old age”) and them complain that the existence of the death penalty does not seem to be a deterrent.

See my answer to TSS. What is the value of an innocent human life? The death penalty may be more costly to the state, but what about the people whom the state is supposed to be protecting from crime?

By that argument, we should never send anyone to prison until we can guarantee that no innocent person will ever be convicted and later murdered in prison. IIRC, more prisoners are murdered in prison than are executed.

Interesting argument that I have never heard before, execute the murderers in order to protect not society in general, but the other inmates. Well its a thought, I suppose the idea that the Chinese have about mobile execution vans so they can harvest fresh organs for their hospitals makes considerable sense as well.

[Sleeper Cell]

My mistake it isn't exclusively for simple possession of pot. But is a significant percentage around 50%.

http://www.famm.org/...ses 4.24.12.pdf

We can only infer motive. But the best evidence so far is that murder is nearly always a crime of passion, a one off event.

I am undecided on whether we should execute those rare cases of serial murder. Seems to me that better security for prisoners would be less costly, and involve less morality issues than Capital Punishment does.

All human life is infinitely valuable. But we do have to put some monetary value on it. Generally it is up to the value of their life insurance.

Nothing we can do will bring back the loved one. I am not too sure that vengeance is all that noble a cause. Using the state to extract that vengeance even less so.

I suspect that most “crime of passion” murders are “second degree;” hence never subject to the death penalty.

I do not believe that all first degree murderers should get the death penalty, so I appreciate your nuanced view re: serial murderers. To serial murders, I would add mass murders, terrorist murders, those previously convicted of first degree murder (not necessarily the same thing as serial murderers), contract killers, those who murder for profit or political reasons, those who murder witnesses or to otherwise cover up a crime (e.g., a rapist who murders his victim so she cannot identify him), those who torture their victims to death, those who commit “organized crime” murders, those who murder babies and small children, etc.

All human life is infinitely valuable. But we do have to put some monetary value on it. Generally it is up to the value of their life insurance.

And if I cannot afford life insurance, the monetary value of my life is zero?

Re: “vengeance:” Vengeance is not a noble cause. Justice is. The families of murder victims deserve a sense that justice has been done (this is not necessarily the same thing as “closure” ). So do the other law abiding citizens . I do not believe it is just that all murderers should, for all practical purposes, receive the same punishment as “habitual criminals” who have never killed anybody.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Sleeper Cell

[cinepro]

I find it difficult to locate doctrine that treats any of these as truly important virtues. Although one commentator has suggested that competition may extend to heavenly spheres there seems to be little support for the concept. When you bring up the United Order in Church any praise for the system is quickly followed by condemnation of socialism based on the idea that even democratic socialism violates agency. So. Is economics simply irrelevant from an eternal perspective or not?

Instead of looking at these economic systems on a country-by-country basis, why don't we instead look at the entire planet (and history of the planet) as a giant free-market experiment among different economic systems?

In other words, the economic history of our planet is one of entrepreneurship, where people come up with different governmental and economic ideas, try to implement them with varying degrees of success, and these ideas succeed or fail in the marketplace of humanity.

From that perspective, we can better judge these systems. Which have survived the longest? Which have brought the most prosperity to their people? Which have to build walls around their people or otherwise isolate them to keep them from leaving, and which have a problem with an unwanted insurgence of people who have chosen their "system" over another one?

Looking at it from this perspective, I have to say the the Law of Consecration and the United Order were terrible failures (as were most other communitarian experiments of the 18th and 19th centuries) They failed because people chose not to live them; they didn't want them. They failed in the marketplace of economies.

And from this perspective, free-market capitalism (with proper controls) really seems to work well. Extremely well. It's not perfect, but as someone once said: "Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others."

[Sleeper Cell]

Interesting argument that I have never heard before, execute the murderers in order to protect not society in general, but the other inmates. Well its a thought, I suppose the idea that the Chinese have about mobile execution vans so they can harvest fresh organs for their hospitals makes considerable sense as well.

Not quite sure what the Chinese have to do with it.

I was merely suggesting that it was inconsistent to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that one cannot guarantee that an innocent person will not be killed as a result; yet support imprisonment, when one cannot guarantee than an innocent person might not be killed, as a result. Especially since, IIRC, more prisoners are murdered in prison than are executed.

I also suggest that defendants in capital cases probably, on average, get a much better legal defense (and their cases certainly get more appellate court scrutiny) than other defendants. If, so, it might be argued that the chances of an innocent person going to prsion are probably greater than the chances of an innocent person going to death row.

[Sleeper Cell]

I have to say the the Law of Consecration and the United Order were terrible failures (as were most other communitarian experiments of the 18th and 19th centuries) They failed because people chose not to live them; they didn't want them. They failed in the marketplace of economies.

[emphasis added]

One of my direct ancestors was the leader of a short lived 19^th century communitarian experiment (non-LDS). Although, in later years, he and (as far as I have been able to determine) the other original participants looked back on their experience with nostalgia, they regretfully came to the same conclusion.

[thesometimesaint]

And if I cannot afford life insurance, the monetary value of my life is zero?

Re: “vengeance:” Vengeance is not a noble cause. Justice is. The families of murder victims deserve a sense that justice has been done (this is not necessarily the same thing as “closure” ). So do the other law abiding citizens . I do not believe it is just that all murderers should, for all practical purposes, receive the same punishment as “habitual criminals” who have never killed anybody.

That's why I said generally. I don't know how to equate human life to money. But we do it anyway. Do we write a unlimited check to those that lose a loved one? That would bankrupt us all pretty quickly, but to not do anything to help alleviate the financial lose seems cruel.

To do justice is to make whole. If I steal a persons cow I can be made to return the cow, or its monetary equivalent, plus any penalty the law requires. Where is the justice in killing a human being, even if they killed someone else? Will killing that person return the loved one? I'm not saying that some punishment shouldn't be required. I'm just not too sure killing is an appropriate punishment for killing. Sounds to me more like vengeance.

[Stone holm]

Instead of looking at these economic systems on a country-by-country basis, why don't we instead look at the entire planet (and history of the planet) as a giant free-market experiment among different economic systems?

In other words, the economic history of our planet is one of entrepreneurship, where people come up with different governmental and economic ideas, try to implement them with varying degrees of success, and these ideas succeed or fail in the marketplace of humanity.

From that perspective, we can better judge these systems. Which have survived the longest? Which have brought the most prosperity to their people? Which have to build walls around their people or otherwise isolate them to keep them from leaving, and which have a problem with an unwanted insurgence of people who have chosen their "system" over another one?

Looking at it from this perspective, I have to say the the Law of Consecration and the United Order were terrible failures (as were most other communitarian experiments of the 18th and 19th centuries) They failed because people chose not to live them; they didn't want them. They failed in the marketplace of economies.

And from this perspective, free-market capitalism (with proper controls) really seems to work well. Extremely well. It's not perfect, but as someone once said: "Capitalism is the worst economic system ever devised by man, except for all the others."

I have been reading a bit lately on the subject. Normally, the Law of Consecration and the United Order are defended in comparison to government run programs as being voluntary, and then the argument is made that they failed because of the unrighteousness of the Saints. I am finding that both propositions seem to be not unqualifiedly true -- it looks like in some instances if you were called to be in the Church program you either did it or you not only got bounced from the Church, but condemned to hell and that some United Order communities were in fact very successful but had to be abandoned because of the threats posed by the Federal anti-polygamy laws which threatened title to the stewardships. So if you consider being threatened with excommunication and banishment to hell, as not being coercive....well I guess you don't believe they are particularly important.

[Calm]

I was merely suggesting that it was inconsistent to oppose the death penalty on the grounds that one cannot guarantee that an innocent person will not be killed as a result; yet support imprisonment, when one cannot guarantee than an innocent person might not be killed, as a result. Especially since, IIRC, more prisoners are murdered in prison than are executed.

I have never understood the logic of the mixing of prisoners there for different crimes and extremely different lengths of stay in prison, especially the violent with nonviolent. Even if states needed to work together to share facilities so that those who are there only for a short time on relatively minor causes were housed in several facilities while murderers of passion, likely the one timer murders in another one, the multiple murders in another one and several other facilities for various degrees seems to me that it would be a much more efficient usage of resources. You might have the problem with family and friends being able to visit if one was located far from one's home, but the level of safety would seem to me to balance out that drawback especially since technology now allows face to face communication even if not in person.

IOW, make all prisons except those holding prisoners for court federal prisons and divide resources as needed since there will be less guards needed to guard a nonviolent prisoner than a violent one. One could also provide appropriate rehabilitation and education and work programs more effectively.

[Calm]

One of my direct ancestors was the leader of a short lived 19^th century communitarian experiment (non-LDS). Although, in later years, he and (as far as I have been able to determine) the other original participants looked back on their experience with nostalgia, they regretfully came to the same conclusion.

I was taught---whether accurately or not---that it was the youth who had been brought up in the community in relative comfort as opposed to having had to struggle to establish them in the Utah version that brought about the downfall of the communities, specifically their desire to have fashionable clothing (my memory says it was the new jeans at least for the guys, but this could have been from a joke of the teacher) or at least storebought goods from back east.

Can anyone confirm or contradict this? It seems a rather simplistic version, but it wouldn't surprise me to find the children not having the same commitment as the parents since they wouldn't have known the reality of what living outside the Order meant in terms of security, etc.

[Stone holm]

I have never understood the logic of the mixing of prisoners there for different crimes and extremely different lengths of stay in prison, especially the violent with nonviolent. Even if states needed to work together to share facilities so that those who are there only for a short time on relatively minor causes were housed in several facilities while murderers of passion, likely the one timer murders in another one, the multiple murders in another one and several other facilities for various degrees seems to me that it would be a much more efficient usage of resources. You might have the problem with family and friends being able to visit if one was located far from one's home, but the level of safety would seem to me to balance out that drawback especially since technology now allows face to face communication even if not in person.

IOW, make all prisons except those holding prisoners for court federal prisons and divide resources as needed since there will be less guards needed to guard a nonviolent prisoner than a violent one. One could also provide appropriate rehabilitation and education and work programs more effectively.

Unfortunately, the route that many took was to privatise prisons which has a whole other set of problems.

[Calm]

To do justice is to make whole. If I steal a persons cow I can be made to return the cow, or its monetary equivalent, plus any penalty the law requires. Where is the justice in killing a human being, even if they killed someone else? Will killing that person return the loved one? I'm not saying that some punishment shouldn't be required. I'm just not too sure killing is an appropriate punishment for killing. Sounds to me more like vengeance.

A certain amount of money of the killer should be set aside to provide for the spouse if needed to receive training to get a self supporting job as well as child support for his or her children based on a set level not of what they are accustomed to, but actual need (IOW everyone gets up to the same amount even if this means the family has to move into much, much cheaper living area). The rest of his possessions should be liquidated and the money given to the family of the victim up to a certain amount, the rest goes into a victims fund for those who are victims of individuals who don't possess much, if anything of value.

Murderers should then be placed in a very limited in comfort prison where they can choose to either rot in jail (individual ones to cut down on violence) or work where (starting out) 3/4 of their pay goes to the victim's family or the fund and 1/4 can go to increase of comfort (and they get paid at least min. wage which would mean more to them since they wouldn't have to worry about the necessities of life, all their salary that they get can go to luxuries). They would have to get at least some money to be motivated to work, otherwise I would say take it all. They can increase the rate of the amount that get of their wages based on their behavior, 'perfect' prisoners getting up to a half of their wages, prisoners causing disturbances getting cut in pay as well as any savings being pulled and having to start from scratch.