NationStates Jolt Archive

or rather, crusade against those damn criminals with such gems as:

"Jail isn't really punishment if they get a flat screen TV and three hot meals a day. Poor people just use it as an excuse to get better comforts."

That statement is so fundementally wrong it isn't funny.

Source (http://www.3news.co.nz/Pint-sized-crime-crusader-demands-tougher-jail-conditions/tabid/209/articleID/89133/cat/525/Default.aspx)

Oh, and some background, Garth McVicar who is quoted further down the article is who the NZ media has on speed dial to give an ass-backwards view of crime.

or rather, crusade against those damn criminals with such gems as:

"Jail isn't really punishment if they get a flat screen TV and three hot meals a day. Poor people just use it as an excuse to get better comforts."

That statement is so fundementally wrong it isn't funny.

Source (http://www.3news.co.nz/Pint-sized-crime-crusader-demands-tougher-jail-conditions/tabid/209/articleID/89133/cat/525/Default.aspx)

Oh, and some background, Garth McVicar who is quoted further down the article is who the NZ media has on speed dial to give an ass-backwards view of crime.

wow.

I'm not surprised. The slogan for the International Committee to Make People Ignorant has always been "Get 'em young".

So, what does she want, Hardtack and Swill and chain-gangs?

Like most people her age, she hasn't really thought about what she's saying.

I'd hit it.

With a tire iron.

"Jail isn't really punishment if they get a flat screen TV and three hot meals a day. Poor people just use it as an excuse to get better comforts."

Well, the first sentence of her statement is true enough. The second sentence does veer into the retarded though. She's thirteen, though, give her a break, at least she's thinking about something other than her hair.

I'm not surprised. The slogan for the International Committee to Make People Ignorant has always been "Get 'em young".

Ah, yes, the infamous ICoMaPIg... :tongue:

Ah, yes, the infamous ICoMaPIg... :tongue:

I'm glad someone got that.

Well, the first sentence of her statement is true enough. The second sentence does veer into the retarded though. She's thirteen, though, give her a break, at least she's thinking about something other than her hair.

If she's going on national tv to espouse her fucked-up retarded opinions, she deserves it.

In the original thing her mother said "it's not what I expected her to do in the holidays, I expected her to hang out at the mall." Pretty much says it all.

If she's going on national tv to espouse her fucked-up retarded opinions, she deserves it.

Deserves...what, exactly? To be made fun of on the Internet? Does anybody really lose sleep over that frightening prospect? Besides, people go on TV every day and say retarded things and generally blather on like a bunch of Gumps, what makes this particularly abominable?

In the original thing her mother said "it's not what I expected her to do in the holidays, I expected her to hang out at the mall." Pretty much says it all.

It does? What all does it say? Yeah, her mother expected her daughter to behave like a normal teenager, and instead she's going out her way for a friend. I don't know, I would think that kind of behavior should be encouraged. Modified a little, maybe(trust me, nobody goes to jail for the comforts, no matter how poor you are) but encouraged.

Deserves...what, exactly? To be made fun of on the Internet? Does anybody really lose sleep over that frightening prospect? Besides, people go on TV every day and say retarded things and generally blather on like a bunch of Gumps, what makes this particularly abominable?

Naw, my fist to her face the next time I'm up in Christchurch.



It does? What all does it say? Yeah, her mother expected her daughter to behave like a normal teenager, and instead she's going out her way for a friend. I don't know, I would think that kind of behavior should be encouraged. Modified a little, maybe(trust me, nobody goes to jail for the comforts, no matter how poor you are) but encouraged.

It just shows how vapid she is, and rather than going out of her way for a friend, she appears to be loving the lime light. Encourage? Lack of thought, calling poor people criminals because they want the creature comforts that prison provides?

Encouraged? Whoring herself for attention? If you like.

Naw, my fist to her face the next time I'm up in Christchurch.

Yeah, yeah :rolleyes: If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that from some Billy Bad-ass... Funny thing is, there always seems to be some qualifier as to why they're not doing it now but you just wait, they're going to...

Lack of thought, calling poor people criminals because they want the creature comforts that prison provides?

Both you and her seem united in ignorance on this point, at least. There are no 'creature comforts' in prison, for anybody. As I said earlier, nobody with any sense wants to go to jail, for any reason.

Yeah, yeah :rolleyes: If I had a nickel for every time I've heard that from some Billy Bad-ass... Funny thing is, there always seems to be some qualifier as to why they're not doing it now but you just wait, they're going to...

This is true.

Also, I wish my name was Billy Bad-ass.

Both you and her seem united in ignorance on this point, at least. There are no 'creature comforts' in prison, for anybody. As I said earlier, nobody with any sense wants to go to jail, for any reason.

I was being facetious.

"Jail isn't really punishment if they get a flat screen TV and three hot meals a day. Poor people just use it as an excuse to get better comforts."Meh. Just put her up behind bars until she changes her mind. If she hasn't changed her mind after say half a year, then perhaps she has a point.

I hear in jail you can get all the buttsex you want too. They have it so easy.

As I said earlier, nobody with any sense wants to go to jail, for any reason.

Sure they do, if it's for some reality soap or similar crap and can get ya Big Bucks!

Edit: oh, wait, you included "with any sense"... forget I said anything... :tongue:

Throw her ass in jail, see how she enjoys her flat screen TV and three hot meals a day.

The TV thing I sorta get, but is she really saying that jail is too easy because they feed you?

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?

The TV thing I sorta get, but is she really saying that jail is too easy because they feed you?

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?
Meh, they get TV. It's cheaper in the long run buying an LCD set than getting an old CRT set that takes three times the electricty. Deal with it.

Knowing the sort of people that think like this, no. They advocate eating prisoners as to cut down on the population. Victimless criminals first.

I hear in jail you can get all the buttsex you want too. They have it so easy.
Yup. That's why you see such high levels of crime among gays. They just want to get in there and join the orgy.
What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?
It counts as a meal and an exercise period!

The TV thing I sorta get, but is she really saying that jail is too easy because they feed you?

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?
they get HOT meals

they should be getting COLD meals like the hard working middle class eats.



are jails particularly cushy in nz?

they get HOT meals

they should be getting COLD meals like the hard working middle class eats.
Ice cream sundaes and tiramisu!
are jails particularly cushy in nz?
Jails are always too cushy for knuckle-dragging, conservative morons. I'm sure there are people in Syria complaining about how some prisoners aren't being punished enough because shoplifters are allowed to keep a majority of their limbs.

Ice cream sundaes and tiramisu!

Jails are always too cushy for knuckle-dragging, conservative morons. I'm sure there are people in Syria complaining about how some prisoners aren't being punished enough because shoplifters are allowed to keep a majority of their limbs.

Not in the video I saw.

Oh BTW, I don't recommend Live Leak at all.

No. This is stupid... (http://www.shootthestupid.com/2008/08/07/rainbow-conspiracy/)

Throw her ass in jail, see how she enjoys her flat screen TV and three hot meals a day.

She'll like it for all the male attention a 13 year old girl would get in prison.
:fluffle:

The TV thing I sorta get, but is she really saying that jail is too easy because they feed you?

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?

It'd make great TV too.

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?
After they learn how to make fire.

then the inmates have to compete in challenges to win immunity and each week someone gets voted to Death Row...

hmm... I think this could be the winning formula for a reality tv show...

After they learn how to make fire.

then the inmates have to compete in challenges to win immunity and each week someone gets voted to Death Row...

hmm... I think this could be the winning formula for a reality tv show...

Hosted by Jeff Probst, of course.

"Your cell-block has spoken..."

Hosted by Jeff Probst, of course.

"Your cell-block has spoken..."

and after the credits... the lights flicker... :eek:

or rather, crusade against those damn criminals with such gems as:

"Jail isn't really punishment if they get a flat screen TV and three hot meals a day. Poor people just use it as an excuse to get better comforts."

That statement is so fundementally wrong it isn't funny.

Source (http://www.3news.co.nz/Pint-sized-crime-crusader-demands-tougher-jail-conditions/tabid/209/articleID/89133/cat/525/Default.aspx)

Oh, and some background, Garth McVicar who is quoted further down the article is who the NZ media has on speed dial to give an ass-backwards view of crime.

Oh my. Stupidity at its best.

are jails particularly cushy in nz?

Yes they are. For the overseas people who are commenting, I'll give you a little bit of background.

In spite of the government statistics suggesting otherwise, crime in New Zealand has increased - people have just stopped reporting crime because the police are refusing to investigate (there was a case in Auckland where someone reported a crime three-weeks ago, gave the police all the details they needed for a quick arrest, and they did nothing).

There have been a particularly bad spate of crimes recently; we had the shooting of the Afghan taxi driver in Christchurch last month; the person who stole a motor vehicle, drove down the NW Motorway and attempted to shoot various people; a hit and run in the Bay of Plenty and many others.

In my view, the TV should be taken out completely and the prisoners should eat cold, sparse meals akin to what you found in a Workhouse. Prison should be a place of punishment, and giving people TV, underfloor heating and three hot meals isn't punishment.

In my view, the TV should be taken out completely and the prisoners should eat cold, sparse meals akin to what you found in a Workhouse. Prison should be a place of punishment, and giving people TV, underfloor heating and three hot meals isn't punishment.

In my view punishment should not be a focus of the Justice System, because I am not convinced that deterrents are effective, which leaves gratification at the thought of hurting someone (however detestable) as the sole apparent purpose.

However, I do think its a bad idea to give needless luxuries to prisoners, simply because in the current economic climate any needless government expenses should be cut.

All our actions are results of our genetics combined with experience. As such Jail should be about deterrence and rehabilitation. I don't think that harsher jail sentences (or worse food) would deter murder, if you'd be willing to spend how ever many years in prison I don't think cold food would work as a deterrent, nor do I think that someone would not commit a crime for fear of missing American Idol, therefore I don't think that those are things that should be changed.

No. This is stupid... (http://www.shootthestupid.com/2008/08/07/rainbow-conspiracy/)

Meh, her comments prove her point there MUST be *something* in the water ... Only instead of *making rainbows* it makes her forget what they are.

Yes they are. For the overseas people who are commenting, I'll give you a little bit of background.

In spite of the government statistics suggesting otherwise, crime in New Zealand has increased - people have just stopped reporting crime because the police are refusing to investigate (there was a case in Auckland where someone reported a crime three-weeks ago, gave the police all the details they needed for a quick arrest, and they did nothing).

There have been a particularly bad spate of crimes recently; we had the shooting of the Afghan taxi driver in Christchurch last month; the person who stole a motor vehicle, drove down the NW Motorway and attempted to shoot various people; a hit and run in the Bay of Plenty and many others.

In my view, the TV should be taken out completely and the prisoners should eat cold, sparse meals akin to what you found in a Workhouse. Prison should be a place of punishment, and giving people TV, underfloor heating and three hot meals isn't punishment.

What, is Kiwiblog your sole source of information?

Looking at the NZ Police website (http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/2008/fiscal/index.html) Solving of violent crimes have gone up, which is what I assume you're concentrating on. Offenses overall are going down,
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/2008/calendar/images/graph1.gif

and the number of crimes being solved are going up.
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/statistics/2008/calendar/images/graph2.gif

According to the PDF "National Statistics for fiscal year ending 30 June 2008" violent crime IS going up, but there is a connection with the anti-family violence campaign, though I have no idea of the amounts being reported.

The whole story was shitty. I hate the way they approvingly quote the 13 year old (who is obviously an authority on criminal jurisprudence). She sounds like most of the 13 year olds I've taught....Hang 'em high I say! That'll fix 'em!"
The teenagers who killed that cabbie for "kicks" and spare change would not have possibly thought of the consequences of their actions.
The problem was that noone had intervened when the kids were young and were already showing aggressive and anti-social tendencies. I'll bet they had really crappy home backgrounds with really bad parental issues.
But the media doesn't want to go there because that raises too many difficult questions about who should intervene, when and where.
Nah! Better to hit the "Quick fix" button and grab some more headline space.

The TV thing I sorta get, but is she really saying that jail is too easy because they feed you?

What does she want, for the warden, once a week, to release a wild boar into the prison, whoever catches and kills it gets to eat it?

Honestly, there's a point in there somewhere.

Shouldn't any country where criminals are guaranteed comforts or protections that the poor aren't be embarrassed?

Why is it cruel for the government to not provide food to criminals, but socialism to feed hungry children? Why is that criminals deserve access to information, television and education without cost, but socialism to provide the same to poor? Criminals are even given jobs so they can have comforts beyond that.

I know there are downsides to being prisons (particularly in the rougher prisons), but the fact is that we should be embarrassed.

Honestly, there's a point in there somewhere.

Shouldn't any country where criminals are guaranteed comforts or protections that the poor aren't be embarrassed?

Why is it cruel for the government to not provide food to criminals, but socialism to feed hungry children? Why is that criminals deserve access to information, television and education without cost, but socialism to provide the same to poor? Criminals are even given jobs so they can have comforts beyond that.

I know there are downsides to being prisons (particularly in the rougher prisons), but the fact is that we should be embarrassed.

Yes, but we should be embarrassed about how badly are poor are treated, not so much on our prison system.

Yes, but we should be embarrassed about how badly are poor are treated, not so much on our prison system.

Well, can you blame a 13-year-old that actually buys into the bullshit that our country feeds her everyday about how people should survive or fail on their own? She's told the poor deserve what they get. Is it surprising that she thinks that criminals deserve the same?

That said, she does hit the important point. The reaction people are giving pretty much demonstrates how sickening our treatment of the poor is.

Well, can you blame a 13-year-old that actually buys into the bullshit that our country feeds her everyday about how people should survive or fail on their own? She's told the poor deserve what they get. Is it surprising that she thinks that criminals deserve the same?
Considering I was pro-life at that age? Yeah, I can forgive her. If she's interested in politics/social issues now she'll problem have sophisticated opinions in the future. But can't I be exasperated until then?

That said, she does hit the important point. The reaction people are giving pretty much demonstrates how sickening our treatment of the poor is.

Very true.

Why is it cruel for the government to not provide food to criminals
Because that is called death penalty, and this time in a fairly cruel way.

Not as cruel as death rows (which are in themselves slow executions, many aren't as lucky as to be freed by the chair), but nonetheless.


Why is that criminals deserve access to information, television and education without cost, but socialism to provide the same to poor?
Because free people have the means to get that on their own.

Not everyone, and not even 1% of people in the prisons are some brutal mass murderers. A lot spend life there for two counts of petty shoplifting and resisting arrest.

Because that is called death penalty, and this time in a fairly cruel way.

Not as cruel as death rows (which are in themselves slow executions, many aren't as lucky as to be freed by the chair), but nonetheless.



Because free people have the means to get that on their own.

Not everyone, and not even 1% of people in the prisons are some brutal mass murderers. A lot spend life there for two counts of petty shoplifting and resisting arrest.

Do they? Couldn't we give the same level of access to criminals by permitting them to hold jobs (provided those jobs could be worked within a prison)?

I agree that the majority of people in prisons are "brutal mass murderers". I think you're more than a little missing the point. The point isn't that they deserve to die. The point is that they've forfeited their rights while the poor have not. Shouldn't we be more concerned about the poor?

Do they? Couldn't we give the same level of access to criminals by permitting them to hold jobs (provided those jobs could be worked within a prison)?
They do get to work within the prisons.

However, near-slave labor doesn't pay off much.


The point isn't that they deserve to die. The point is that they've forfeited their rights while the poor have not.
Not all have. A vast number of people there are falsely imprisoned. A large number of people are also there for strict liability offenses that require no ill intent on their part - they've just been unlucky.

They do get to work within the prisons.

However, near-slave labor doesn't pay off much.



Not all have. A vast number of people there are falsely imprisoned. A large number of people are also there for strict liability offenses that require no ill intent on their part - they've just been unlucky.

Wow, you really can't see the point at all, can you?

The point of the protections of prisoners isn't to protect the falsely imprisoned.

You're throwing in all kinds of nonsense to that doesn't speak to the point, so I'll help.

I think they should never imprison people falsely.

I don't think the death penalty works. I think it should never be included in a system where innocent people can be convicted at even a modest rate.

I think people imprisoned for drug offenses should be set free.

I don't think criminals are evil.

I don't think criminals should be treated worse.

I think the poor should be treated better.

Does that help? Several other people seemed to get that just by having a simple knowledge of English and context, but if that's what you need, I'm happy I could help.

Oh my. Stupidity at its best.

She's a member of the clandestine organization ICoMaPIG.

The point of the protections of prisoners isn't to protect the falsely imprisoned.
It is, in part. If the justice system was perfect, we could just summarily execute offenders that would get 16 or more years in prison.

In other part it is to protect people whose offenses weren't as severe as to require particularly bad conditions.


I think people imprisoned for drug offenses should be set free.
They, and a lot of the overbloated US prison population could do with alternative penalties, mostly fines. Means exist today to even enforce home arrest.


I don't think criminals should be treated worse.
I think the poor should be treated better.
Well, let me put forth my position.

I think the criminals should be made to work.

I don't think they should be denied food and the most basic of comforts if they can't or absolutely refuse to work, however.

-snip-

They, and a lot of the overbloated US prison population could do with alternative penalties, mostly fines. Means exist today to even enforce home arrest.

-snip-

Fines for what? Smoking some pot? People don't seem to understand the "done nothing wrong" thing.

Fines for what? Smoking some pot? People don't seem to understand the "done nothing wrong" thing.Sure, some laws need to change, but they haven't changed yet. Just because they've "done nothing wrong" doesn't stop them from getting thrown into already overcrowded jails.

So, what does she want, Hardtack and Swill and chain-gangs?

Like most people her age, she hasn't really thought about what she's saying.

maybe she wants to send them to a penal colony?

Oh, for fuck's sake... She's thirteen!

Most of you were just learning how to shoot your rocks off at that age!

Fines for what?
80%-90% of things that get one in jail in US now.

maybe she wants to send them to a penal colony?
I'm thinking Britain would make a good one.

I hear in jail you can get all the buttsex you want too. They have it so easy.Get? Don't you mean "give" (something-something) you "don't have a choice" too?

Most of you were just learning how to shoot your rocks off at that age!Not me.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2667/do-unborn-babies-urinate-defecate-in-the-womb
What else are they doing in there for nine months without cable? Let's put it this way: fetuses manage to entertain themselves. For instance, in 1996 two doctors reported on their ultrasonic observation of a female fetus masturbating over a period of 20 minutes. Twenty minutes?

It is, in part. If the justice system was perfect, we could just summarily execute offenders that would get 16 or more years in prison.

In other part it is to protect people whose offenses weren't as severe as to require particularly bad conditions.



They, and a lot of the overbloated US prison population could do with alternative penalties, mostly fines. Means exist today to even enforce home arrest.



Well, let me put forth my position.

I think the criminals should be made to work.

I don't think they should be denied food and the most basic of comforts if they can't or absolutely refuse to work, however.

Seriously, the mind boggles at how you could look at the post and still miss the point. I strongly suspect you're not actually reading.

Oh, for fuck's sake... She's thirteen!

Most of you were just learning how to shoot your rocks off at that age!

Hell, if she can construct a sentence and chew gum while walking, she's a full head and shoulders over most of the 13-year-olds in the US. Hell, she's got some of the full-grown adults surpassed.

Hell, if she can construct a sentence and chew gum while walking, she's a full head and shoulders over most of the 13-year-olds in the US. Hell, she's got some of the full-grown adults surpassed.

Like, what? OMG i txt u bk!

Seriously, the mind boggles at how you could look at the post and still miss the point. I strongly suspect you're not actually reading.
Don't presume that if I don't reply to your point, I don't see it.


I've said it, the free and poor can provide for themselves. The imprisoned can't. That's why the latter have certain things guaranteed and the former don't.

A kleptomaniac surgeon is more value to the society than a well-behaving shopping clerk.

Don't presume that if I don't reply to your point, I don't see it.


I've said it, the free and poor can provide for themselves. The imprisoned can't. That's why the latter have certain things guaranteed and the former don't.

A kleptomaniac surgeon is more value to the society than a well-behaving shopping clerk.

Oh, bullshit. First, it's pretty clear you're avoiding the point, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to argue that prisoners shouldn't be starved to death. Logic suggests you wouldn't argue against a point no one believes.

As far as the kleptomaniac surgeon, bullshit to that too. I don't assign certain jobs more value than others like some kind of sociopath. We protect those who respect the rights of others, not the other way around.

First, it's pretty clear you're avoiding the point, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to argue that prisoners shouldn't be starved to death.
Oh well.
If "poor people should be guaranteed at least the same comforts as prisoners" wasn't your point, then I was wrong.

Just spit it out, what's your point, in plain text?



As far as the kleptomaniac surgeon, bullshit to that too. I don't assign certain jobs more value than others like some kind of sociopath. We protect those who respect the rights of others, not the other way around.
People don't have to behave perfectly to be valuable members of society. Every law and penalty should be based on a cost-benefit analysis, first and foremost.
High-value personnel should be allowed more leeway in their behavior than burger flippers. It may hurt the feelings of the latter, but ultimately result in greater good for the society.

There are limits - dangerous violent crimes certainly should be punished with sentence or exile - but, in general, for lesser crimes and misdemeanors, prevention and rehabilitiation are better than scare tactics.

Oh well.
If "poor people should be guaranteed at least the same comforts as prisoners" wasn't your point, then I was wrong.

Just spit it out, what's your point, in plain text?

My point is in plain text. The problem is that you wrote half a dozen posts arguing like I was saying we should reduce the rights of prisoners. I also gave my reasons, and you addressed none of them. Instead you suggested we cannot starve prisoners (which no suggested) and equated it to the death penalty.

Similarly if in the '50s I said that women should have the same rights as men, I'm not suggesting we should strip men of rights.

People don't have to behave perfectly to be valuable members of society. Every law and penalty should be based on a cost-benefit analysis, first and foremost.
High-value personnel should be allowed more leeway in their behavior than burger flippers. It may hurt the feelings of the latter, but ultimately result in greater good for the society.

There are limits - dangerous violent crimes certainly should be punished with sentence or exile - but, in general, for lesser crimes and misdemeanors, prevention and rehabilitiation are better than scare tactics.

You didn't say surgeons were valuable. You said they were more valuable.

The law doesn't recognize that some people have more value than others, mostly because the idea is fucked up. I'm glad that we don't have a legal hierarchy that suggests that because you support surgeons instead of being a surgeon, you're less valueable to society. We have a market hierarchy that rewards people appropriately. From a rights platform, you don't have more rights because you're talented. If that's true, they aren't rights at all.

Laws aren't scare tactics. They're punative. I'm sure you're aware of that.

My point is in plain text. The problem is that you wrote half a dozen posts arguing like I was saying we should reduce the rights of prisoners.
Shouldn't any country where criminals are guaranteed comforts or protections that the poor aren't be embarrassed?
Well, you said this...

From this, should I presume your point is that the poor should be given same guarantees?
If not, type it plainly in a few words.



You didn't say surgeons were valuable. You said they were more valuable.
The law doesn't recognize that some people have more value than others, mostly because the idea is fucked up.
Of course, more valuable. We can always import more burger flippers from Mexico if we need them, not so much with people we've selected out of our best and spent massive amounts of money to educate.

The common law does recognize that people with money are more important than people without.
For instance, take the concept of bail. If you're rich, it's pocket change to you. If you're middle class, you can afford the bail bond. If you're working class, the bail bond is a disaster to your finances, even if you prove innocent. And if you're poor, you can't even afford that much.

This is a fairly ridiculous and utterly unnecessary discrimination. The only reason for it is the American 'hard-on-crime' crowd getting a hard-on on handcuffs and bars.

Not even mentioning that hiring a good lawyer isn't cheap, but can be a great advantage.



I'm glad that we don't have a legal hierarchy that suggests that because you support surgeons instead of being a surgeon, you're less valueable to society.
Of course you are more valuable to the society if you're a doctor rather than if you're a nobody.

There are the pillars of the community, the scientists, the engineers, the doctors, the entrepreneurs. They are scarce, hard to train, not always possible to replace, have strong influence on the nation, each individual one of them matters, many of them leave their names in the history, and it's them who ultimately determine what a nation is worth.

There are the beams and floors: the technicians, the craftsmen, the driver-operators, the managers. They can be trained from nearly anyone, but are heavily tied to the society, and form its framework.

Then there are the walls: the skilled laborers. Anyone non-disabled can become one with time, and they can be replaced, but they are specialized resources, required for the society's infrastructure, supporting its framework and being supported by it.

And finally, there are the burger flippers, the secretaries, the pen-pushers. They are needed, but non-specifically, you just need 8-10 burger-flippers here, 10-15 pen-pushers there... oh wait, tomorrow you need 12 of each, and the next day it's a holiday so you need 15-20 burger-flippers and 3 or 4 pen-pushers. They don't play any particular role, each of them can be replaced by any other at no loss, they just fill the holes. They have no names, nor they need any, they have reached equality (between themselves).

And they are... liquid. Hire, fire, import, export. I think time will come when they'll be traded on the futures markets, just entering the quantity and clicking "buy" or "sell" to have them work for you starting tomorrow or go elsewhere, on a fixed pay. It will be better both for them and the employers: the employers will cut on bureaucracy, and they will get fixed contracts and stable income.



We have a market hierarchy that rewards people appropriately. Laws aren't scare tactics. They're punative. I'm sure you're aware of that.
And, then, we just need to tie in laws into that market hierarchy on a legislative, official level. Not through bails and ultracomplex laws that only a lawyer can understand, but thorough direct market mechanisms.

One of such mechanisms is fines. Replace jail sentences for non-violent crimes and quasi-violent ones (like "assault" of pushing someone in a bar) with fines.

Another is home or home-work arrest. If there's belief that the offender isn't in a position that he has nothing to lose, i.e. has a family, a home, etc, just implant them with a GPS transceiver and restrict to a certain route, so they can still work and rest at home.

Imprisonment should be restricted to the the most severe offenses only, those that can't be adequately deterred with exile. Even then, there's no reason to give the same sentence to a career criminal and a normal citizen who happened to make a mistake. Let the people go to work, then back to penal holding, assign a price to the sentence, let them work it off. You'll find many of them working for 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, what they wouldn't do normally, and you'll know these are the people you can let out way sooner than those who did nothing but crime in their entire life.

It's much better than what we have now.

My point is in plain text. The problem is that you wrote half a dozen posts arguing like I was saying we should reduce the rights of prisoners. I also gave my reasons, and you addressed none of them. Instead you suggested we cannot starve prisoners (which no suggested) and equated it to the death penalty.

Similarly if in the '50s I said that women should have the same rights as men, I'm not suggesting we should strip men of rights.

Of course you're suggesting that, because there's naturally a Conservation Law of rights. To give women rights, you have to take them away from men. Just like to give blacks rights, we have to screw over whites, right? It just makes sense.

Same reason gay marriage should be illegal and unthinkable. If two guys are able to have a marriage, mine has to become less valuable. It just follows.

Much like you saying that those who are surgeons should not be held as more valuable as people than those who support surgeons is the same as drawing a polar distincition between "a doctor and a nobody."

You don't make any sense, sometimes, Jocabia.

Also, we found the one massage parlor in Tijuana that DOESN'T give a happy ending, per your request. Its in between the farmacia and the shitty souvenir store. No, I don't know which farmacia.

Of course you're suggesting that, because there's naturally a Conservation Law of rights. To give women rights, you have to take them away from men. Just like to give blacks rights, we have to screw over whites, right? It just makes sense.

Same reason gay marriage should be illegal and unthinkable. If two guys are able to have a marriage, mine has to become less valuable. It just follows.

Much like you saying that those who are surgeons should not be held as more valuable as people than those who support surgeons is the same as drawing a polar distincition between "a doctor and a nobody."

You don't make any sense, sometimes, Jocabia.

Also, we found the one massage parlor in Tijuana that DOESN'T give a happy ending, per your request. Its in between the farmacia and the shitty souvenir store. No, I don't know which farmacia.

I found the source of the new Ayn Rand cliché going around NSG!!!

Well, you said this...

From this, should I presume your point is that the poor should be given same guarantees?
If not, type it plainly in a few words.

It is my point. I've said so repeatedly. You've said so repeatedly. But then you continue to argue as if I'm saying that prisoners don't deserve those rights. Thus my assertion you've missed the point.

As far as the rest of your nonsense, I can't see what damage I can do to your post that isn't inherent.

Of course you're suggesting that, because there's naturally a Conservation Law of rights. To give women rights, you have to take them away from men. Just like to give blacks rights, we have to screw over whites, right? It just makes sense.

Same reason gay marriage should be illegal and unthinkable. If two guys are able to have a marriage, mine has to become less valuable. It just follows.

Much like you saying that those who are surgeons should not be held as more valuable as people than those who support surgeons is the same as drawing a polar distincition between "a doctor and a nobody."

You don't make any sense, sometimes, Jocabia.

Also, we found the one massage parlor in Tijuana that DOESN'T give a happy ending, per your request. Its in between the farmacia and the shitty souvenir store. No, I don't know which farmacia.

Well, I have to say that in my searches, I've learned to stop using credit cards. Due to a misunderstanding in California, I'll most certainly never be President. And I was so close, too.

Well, I have to say that in my searches, I've learned to stop using credit cards. Due to a misunderstanding in California, I'll most certainly never be President. And I was so close, too.

You won't be president because you're a Kenyan Muslim, not because you got a legitimate massage in a rub and tug joint.

We already know you're the kind of fucking boy scout that when he pulls over and asks for directions, actually wanted directions instead of narcotics and/or a half-and-half with reverse cowgirl.

That's why taking you to Tijuana is like taking Ned Flanders to Pahrump. You go with home with beef jerky and a nice pair of boots, but no fewer gametes than you came in with.

I'd call you a moron, but I've been warned for flaming.

You won't be president because you're a Kenyan Muslim, not because you got a legitimate massage in a rub and tug joint.

We already know you're the kind of fucking boy scout that when he pulls over and asks for directions, actually wanted directions instead of narcotics and/or a half-and-half with reverse cowgirl.

That's why taking you to Tijuana is like taking Ned Flanders to Pahrump. You go with home with beef jerky and a nice pair of boots, but no fewer gametes than you came in with.

I'd call you a moron, but I've been warned for flaming.

/sarcasm

(Just in case)

/sarcasm

(Just in case)

One time, I got a week ban as a fundamentalist christian who believed that potty training was wrong because every minute spent teaching a child about toilets is one less minute with the bible.

It was even cited (I later discovered) on the website "Fundies Say the Darndest Things" because somebody thought I was serious.