Re: Apple IIe seen in Discovery Channel documentary "2057: The Body"

[mdj <mdj.mdj@gmail.com>]

On May 15, 3:50 pm, Charlie Springer <R...@regnirps.com> wrote:

> > So the ability to move away from capital punishment as a state
> > policy means being able to convince most people that it is an
> > inappropriate policy.
>
> Wouldn't you say this all depends more on resources than morals? In a village
> with 15 productive adults, can you afford to devote four of them to securely
> guard, care for, and feed a member bent on killing? Obviously not.

Well, the latest figures I've found put the homicide rate in the US at
5.9 per 100,000. Can you afford to devote 0.024%  of your productivity
to create a society consistent with your morals? Economy of scale is a
wonderful thing.

> Likewise, by what right do you claim a portion of my productivity to maintain
> the life of a person convicted of murder?

By what right do you condemn me to death, if as a shareholder in a
public company I kill and steal back from a corrupt executive the
funds they've siphoned off for their own purposes? Why is it OK that
such a person be punished through years of incarceration and I still
don't see any of my money back?

Surely you can see the folly in making killing acceptable for
financial reasons.

> There are choices. If personally fear false conviction, there is Australia,
> New Zealand, etc. If on the other hand, you fear in the abstract that someone
> else may be falsely convicted, start a defense fund.

You can't just take up residence in a foreign country because you
don't like the laws of your own. You'd first need a sponsored work
visa which would give you only temporary residency, assuming you can
fill a workforce demand that can't be already met. You could apply for
political asylum I suppose, but I'd avoid Australia, since we just
signed up to a refugee exchange program with the US ;-)

> I find the risks in the current social contract acceptable, with the
> exception of the surplus of hungry lawyers and folks who don't understand the
> balance of power in the Second Amendment.

I agree the personal risks are quite low, assuming you're far enough
up the ladder. The sociological risks?

> BTW, someone mention some Star Trek/Commie philosophy of the needs of the
> many outweighing the needs of the few. The U.S is founded on individual
> rights, not groups. The political battle against the tyranny of the majority
> has been waged ever since.

Come now Charlie, any rights granted to individuals must also be
granted to groups, since groups are composed of individuals. Any
individual right denied the group would deny the individuals their
rights. This elevation of rights from the one to the many is a
foundation of democracy, and rejecting it a foundation of anarchy. I
understand why this contradiction exists in the context of US history,
but I don't understand why it's perpetuated. Consider someone like Ted
(Unabomber), who for reasons I also don't understand was not executed
by your legal system.

WRT the "Commie" philosophy, it's actually a tenet of Utilitarianism,
the father of which, John Stuart Mill, was certainly no communist.
It's an irony that negative liberty, another facet of Utilitarian
philosophy, is a cornerstone of the American way of life.

Matt