US voted against UN motion condemning gay death penalty

[Ron Mexico]

i am a fake libertarian then!

One of the few things we agree on.


In reality I think you are partially libertarian, very much an ingrained republican, and a little socialist. Some other stuff mixed in as well.

 

[DutchJazzer]

One of the few things we agree on.


In reality I think you are partially libertarian, very much an ingrained republican, and a little socialist. Some other stuff mixed in as well.

I was sarcastic you idiot!

 

[Gameface]

So not a real libertarian, gotcha. Capital punishment does not go well with libertarianism. As someone who is more libertarian than anything else I am opposed to it.

I personally don't trust the government to make life or death decisions. Our judicial system has to many problems to be given that type of power.

Agreed. Anyone that wants to limit government then give that government the authority to kill its citizens is not really being consistent. Our justice system is not perfected to the point that I am comfortable giving them the power to kill people. One innocent person being executed is too much for the death penalty to exist at all, in my opinion.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I was sarcastic you idiot!

I still agree with it.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Agreed. Anyone that wants to limit government then give that government the authority to kill its citizens is not really being consistent. Our justice system is not perfected to the point that I am comfortable giving them the power to kill people. One innocent person being executed is too much for the death penalty to exist at all, in my opinion.

if youa re openminded and care to listen where my consitency comes from!

it is consitent with the NAP!
according to wikipedia

The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression", for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude forceful self-defence. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism.[2][3][4][5]

my consitency comes from the initiation of force being wrong. but responding to the initiation of force with the right amount of force is ok!

let me put it this way, the government represents the people. what does representation mean:

the action of speaking or acting on behalf of someone or the state of being so represented.

so if someone in the government represents me, they can only do what i am legally allowed to do. am i allowed to go down to the bank look into your bank account and decide that 10% 20% or whatever percentage i damm well pleas ebelongs to me.NO so the govenrment does not have that right!

but do i have the right to shoot you down if you are in my house by breaking and entering and i fear for my live? You damm well please. because you started aggression against me and property by breaking in. so in a way.

am i allowed to retrieve my car if you steal it! YOU damn well right! because you used interfered with my property.so i can get either my property back, demand compensation and if you cannot pay it you are locked the **** up! for a fair amount of time. if it cost me 1 years worth of salary to replace the car. it is for exmaple ok if you get locked the **** up for 1 year or whatever!
of course if i am weaker than you or if i chose to handle it civl like. i might ask for representation. but it must also be fair towards you so that is where government comes in! one of the few task of governemnts. because the person stealing the car iniatiated the violence. so the govenrments acts in the name of the victim. now the government must treat you innocent until proven guilty. because i might be a liar! are you rpoven guilty the consequences for stealing car are yours(give it back, compensate me and get a lil punshiment to deter it from hapening again). am i a lair and you did not steal my car. i initaied violence against you then by sending the govenrment to come get you. so i need to be punished accordingly.

now if you someone ruin a child's live. traumatizing her beyond repair by repeatedly raping sodomizing and brutalizing her! you destroyed a live and deserved to be put down like the animal he is!

i hope i explained it good enough. of-course this is just a short version not explained as good as it is in my head. because of lack of my english. but you can search for this more. it is logical and moral and consitent

and as for ron mexico. i know to leftie punks like yourself terms are relative. men are women. women are men. scientific truth is turned on it;s head. so you can label me whatever you want.

but most libertarians agree that i am a libertarian. not a pacifist libertarian. but a NAP libertarian. and i could care less how you label me! because the truth set me free!

 

[DutchJazzer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle



and as for death penalty for other things except murder and extreme rape. i do not think it is justified!

here are some different formulations:

Locke gives the following version of the NAP: "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Jefferson describes the NAP in a letter to Francis Gilmer: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

Spencer formulates the NAP as: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

In his book On Liberty Mill states the NAP as follows: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"

In the second chapter of his book, Our Enemy, the State, Nock refers to an ancient formulation of the NAP by the legendary king Pausole, who stated it as two laws. The first law was "hurt no man" and the second was "then do as you please".

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." Cited from "War, Peace, and the State" (1963) which appeared in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays

the last one and the mos tperfect forumualted one. and my favorite one by ayn rand:

In an essay called "Man's Rights" in the book The Virtue of Selfishness she formulated "The precondition of a civilized society is the barring of physical force from social relationships. ... In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use."

 

[Gameface]

Dutch I have read 100s of hours of stuff on Objectivist forums, I'm very familiar with the non-initiation of force concept, and of basic libertarian concepts.

 

[Gameface]

In order to carry out an execution you have to have the condemned person completely at your mercy. Meaning, they pose no threat, they are completely under your control. Then you have to take this defenseless individual and have another person or persons take actions that will result in the condemned person's death.

I don't oppose the death penalty out of sympathy or concern for murderers. I don't necessarily care what happens to them. I oppose the death penalty because I fear the person who wants to be an executioner just as much as I fear the murderer. I fear a system and facilities dedicated to the killing of defenseless, subdued people. I fear the society that seeks that sort of retribution and revels in it.

In short I oppose the death penalty because I am not a killer and all executions performed by our justice system are carried out on behalf of the people, on my behalf. I do not give my consent to such action. My government killing someone for me is an initiation of force against me that I reject.

 

[DutchJazzer]

In order to carry out an execution you have to have the condemned person completely at your mercy. Meaning, they pose no threat, they are completely under your control. Then you have to take this defenseless individual and have another person or persons take actions that will result in the condemned person's death.

I don't oppose the death penalty out of sympathy or concern for murderers. I don't necessarily care what happens to them. I oppose the death penalty because I fear the person who wants to be an executioner just as much as I fear the murderer. I fear a system and facilities dedicated to the killing of defenseless, subdued people. I fear the society that seeks that sort of retribution and revels in it.

In short I oppose the death penalty because I am not a killer and all executions performed by our justice system are carried out on behalf of the people, on my behalf. I do not give my consent to such action. My government killing someone for me is an initiation of force against me that I reject.

and we agree to disagree. just like as libertarians disagree on abortion!

and you might be right. the government should not have a lot of power. the power of taking a live might be too much.

but if someone come home, and sees a man just got done murdering his whole family. and the murderer is crying on the ground begging for mercy and forgiveness totally defenseless. he will has every right to enact death penalty on him hisself. cary out the execution. even though he is completely defenseless! i support and understand that. that is why in those extreme situations i am for the death penalty.

just as i have heard stories of sexual victims who have been truamatized. not the omg he touched my but victims or regret sex victim. but of a girl who has been repeatedly raped and sodomized by a family member. and i think after what he did to her. even if he is now 20-30 years older in a wheelchair and totally defenseless. she has every right to walk up to him and snuff him out! and if those individuals have that right the government can represent them in enacting that right.


that is where my consistency comes from! we can argue that someone who has been sodomized and raped for years has the right to take the preps live or not. because in essence he took away the persons live. such a victim has no change of a normal live anymore!
if you tell me they don't have the right to take those lives. then the government does not.

as the just government derives it power from the people!


but surely for 2 consensual adults doing with their bodies as they please do not deserve death whatsoever!


or maybe i am just emotional and out for revenge, and i get your viewpoint on this!

 

[fishonjazz]

In order to carry out an execution you have to have the condemned person completely at your mercy. Meaning, they pose no threat, they are completely under your control. Then you have to take this defenseless individual and have another person or persons take actions that will result in the condemned person's death.

I don't oppose the death penalty out of sympathy or concern for murderers. I don't necessarily care what happens to them. I oppose the death penalty because I fear the person who wants to be an executioner just as much as I fear the murderer. I fear a system and facilities dedicated to the killing of defenseless, subdued people. I fear the society that seeks that sort of retribution and revels in it.

In short I oppose the death penalty because I am not a killer and all executions performed by our justice system are carried out on behalf of the people, on my behalf. I do not give my consent to such action. My government killing someone for me is an initiation of force against me that I reject.

I still support the death penalty, but this is a helluva good post. Well put. Makes sense.