This is where our hard earned money goes.

thethe said:
This is what ultimately has to be done. The human race has gotten to this point by the principals of Darwinism. Time to go back to that.
Click to expand...

Yea, progress is stupid! We – as a society, as a species – should cease aspiring to better natures and instead simply milk the teat what got us here!

First step: legalize everything. The will of the stronger is the only law.
 
sturg33 said:
Remove the safety net.
Click to expand...

How about we remove the carceral net:

"The U.S. locks up children at more than six times the rate of all other developed nations. The over 60,000 average daily juvenile lockups, a figure estimated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation (AECF), are also disproportionately young people of color. With an average cost of $80,000 per year to lock up a child, the U.S. spends more than $5 billion annually on youth detention.

On top of the cost, in its recent report No Place for Kids, the AECF presents evidence to show that youth incarceration does not reduce recidivism rates, does not benefit public safety and exposes those imprisoned to further abuse and violence."
Click to expand...

This – juvenile and adult – is where our hard-earned money goes.
 
jpx7 said:
Yea, progress is stupid! We – as a society, as a species – should cease aspiring to better natures and instead simply milk the teat what got us here!

First step: legalize everything. The will of the stronger is the only law.
Click to expand...

What is progressing in this instance? Subsidizing poor people?
 
I wonder how many of you actually come from humble beginnings. Not saying in had the worst of it and was lucky in comparison to lots of people but everyone can reach some level of success.
 
This is a break off from the George Bernard Shaw thread, where we were discussing eugenics and social Darwinism.

I myself am an eugenicist, I feel that certain unproductive or useless members of society should not be allowed to reproduce or, in extreme cases, to exist. I feel the efficiency and the strength of a society should be the determining factor in its internal policies. With this, eugenics is a logical consequence.

I describe myself as a social Darwinist in that I believe humans are driven, like all organisms, based on Darwinian principles. This, I feel, is not compatible with capitalism or the stereotypical Darwinian "robber baron". Within a society, individuals are driven towards excellence through struggle and strife, the end result being a superior being. Humans are not individual beings but social ones and as such, our primary goal is not the advancement of the self but of our collective selves. In a fascist state this is obviously the nation. When, for instance, someone works for the collective betterment of the nation, he is displaying an innately Darwinian trait. When society, via eugenics, removes the weak and prevents them from impeding its evolution, it is practicing Darwinism. Our body kills and destorys living cells within itself that it views as threats to its continual progression. So too, should a society view its individual cells, i .e. its populace.. I believe in survival of the fittest by means of eugenics for the betterment of the collective state.
Click to expand...

How much do you agree with the above statement, thethe? It's from a facist forum I found when searching social darwinism.
 
jpx7 said:
How about we remove the carceral net:

This – juvenile and adult – is where our hard-earned money goes.
Click to expand...

No argument from me. I think it's disgusting that we lock up so many people and then parade around the world as the land of the free.

As you know, i'm all in favor of abolishing criminal punishment of non-violent behavior.
 
sturg33 said:
No argument from me. I think it's disgusting that we lock up so many people and then parade around the world as the land of the free.

As you know, i'm all in favor of abolishing criminal punishment of non-violent behavior.
Click to expand...

What should the punishment be for someone who breaks into your home and steals all your stuff?
 
Also, where your money goes, The F22 program that is a complete failure: Program cost $66.7 billion and each plane costs $150 million
 
ESP47 said:
What should the punishment be for someone who breaks into your home and steals all your stuff?
Click to expand...

You think Sturg locks his front door at night? I mean if non-violent crimes shouldn't be punished why prevent them? What's a little breaking and entering charge? It is a non-violent crime after all. If Sturg owned a retail store you think he would prosecute shoplifters? If not, word spreads and people will steal from the store everyday and eventually he may go out of business due to theft.

The majority of persons in prisons have committed crime after crime. People don't wake up one day and start doing hard drugs or committing violent crimes. They start with small drugs and small non-violent crimes and after awhile they add on bigger crimes and harder drugs. A person is a ****ing idiot if they don't think small crimes should be punishable. If you make people realize that step 1 is wrong and if they commit the crime they have to do time you will have less people on step 2 but if you don't punish entry level offenders you'll have more offenders committing more heinous crimes.

If you really wanted to save spending in prisons you make the punishments more severe and less people will commit crimes down the road due to the punishments and eventually you'll have less people incarcerated.
 
Non violent drug offenders shouldn't be crowding our prisons. I think that's what sturg meant, or that's what I thought he meant.

Krgrecw said:
If you really wanted to save spending in prisons you make the punishments more severe and less people will commit crimes down the road due to the punishments and eventually you'll have less people incarcerated.
Click to expand...

Also, I don't think this will work.
 
Krgrecw said:
You think Sturg locks his front door at night? I mean if non-violent crimes shouldn't be punished why prevent them? What's a little breaking and entering charge? It is a non-violent crime after all. If Sturg owned a retail store you think he would prosecute shoplifters? If not, word spreads and people will steal from the store everyday and eventually he may go out of business due to theft.

The majority of persons in prisons have committed crime after crime. People don't wake up one day and start doing hard drugs or committing violent crimes. They start with small drugs and small non-violent crimes and after awhile they add on bigger crimes and harder drugs. A person is a ****ing idiot if they don't think small crimes should be punishable. If you make people realize that step 1 is wrong and if they commit the crime they have to do time you will have less people on step 2 but if you don't punish entry level offenders you'll have more offenders committing more heinous crimes.

If you really wanted to save spending in prisons you make the punishments more severe and less people will commit crimes down the road due to the punishments and eventually you'll have less people incarcerated.
Click to expand...

I can't believe people still say out loud the "Gateway drug" bs

but i guess i shouldn't be

we have people that run for president that are proud to say they don't believe in evolution
 
thethe said:
I wonder how many of you actually come from humble beginnings. Not saying in had the worst of it and was lucky in comparison to lots of people but everyone can reach some level of success.
Click to expand...
I come from humble beginnings and my family has slowly walked up thr the ladder. We're all pretty liberal on fiscal stuff sans my oldest sister who used to be extremely liberal then is now a tea party backer.
 
Usually when your only argument against the OP is... oh but there's another shiny thing over there that sux, so go look over there... then maybe the OP is onto something.
 
thethe said:
Why not? Everyone has the power to better themselves.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is necessarily true. "Better" is a relative term when used in conjunction with "necessary." In other words, you can get "better" and still fall short of what you "need," hence the need for some kind of safety net.

That kind of goes off-base from your initial post because I agree we have to do something to shore up family structure and responsibility for children (and not just among the poor).

PS--Our taxes are low internationally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top