The death penalty is bad when wielded by bad people for bad reasons, and good when wielded by good people for good reasons. Materialism ain’t that complicated, Dakota.
Disagre, there’s no such thing as a good death penalty presided over by good people, it’s too risky, too high a chance for a mistake even in the best system
Unless it’s a billionaire, then there can’t be a mistake
Any action that results in taking a life is a tragedy. That it is necessary for people to be killed during a war in order to prevent the slaughter of innocent people is ludicrously stupid in an age where there are enough resources to support the world’s population. Executions during an ongoing revolution fall into a gray area that may qualify as self defense, as letting the person live may result in the deaths of more people.
Generally agree when it’s in peace time. But defrauding workers like this? Very few countries in this world ever punish these people, and even in the socialist ones, the rich enjoy immense privilege. The death penalty may not deter an average guy from committing heinous crimes because he has no expectation of decency from his society. But it does put the fear of god into the people who think they’re untouchable. Now, for Vietnam to weed out its corruption from the top so shit like this needs to happen less.
It’s not ideal, but it would take a great deal of effort to restrain a billionaire’s influence (merely stripping their assets and imprisoning them isn’t enough), and while I would prefer a society that spends that great deal of effort to save people, there are still homeless and starving people whose lives could be saved with less effort.
billionaires are kinda like monarchists, they could “abdicate” and peacefully live out the rest of their life as a dirt farmer or work in a factory they used to own but most of them would rather die than be a normal person.
imo it is a minor form of liberalism to believe that there exists any amount of punishment and recuperative effort that would meaningfully remove the very power and influence that got said billionaire to this point in the first place
I’m against the death penalty because the person thus penalized may not be guilty, and could be rehabilitate. Post revolution I’d say the death penalty should flat out not exist, but for now, there’s no way to be wrong about billionaires
They either are or are not billionaires. And if they ARE, they get it in the neck
Did you think it was all a bit and we didn’t actually want the billionaires to die?
I thought there was a little more pushback on the death penalty. I don’t doubt that people want to see the end of billionaires.
The death penalty is bad when wielded by bad people for bad reasons, and good when wielded by good people for good reasons. Materialism ain’t that complicated, Dakota.
Disagre, there’s no such thing as a good death penalty presided over by good people, it’s too risky, too high a chance for a mistake even in the best system
Unless it’s a billionaire, then there can’t be a mistake
My personal belief is that it is always bad.
My personal favorite Che quotation
Well Che was leading an armed revolution. This is a trial in an established state.
So there are situations in which it’s not bad, but necessary?
Any action that results in taking a life is a tragedy. That it is necessary for people to be killed during a war in order to prevent the slaughter of innocent people is ludicrously stupid in an age where there are enough resources to support the world’s population. Executions during an ongoing revolution fall into a gray area that may qualify as self defense, as letting the person live may result in the deaths of more people.
Letting any billionaire live inevitably results in more death and misery. When does the state of war/revolution end?
Generally agree when it’s in peace time. But defrauding workers like this? Very few countries in this world ever punish these people, and even in the socialist ones, the rich enjoy immense privilege. The death penalty may not deter an average guy from committing heinous crimes because he has no expectation of decency from his society. But it does put the fear of god into the people who think they’re untouchable. Now, for Vietnam to weed out its corruption from the top so shit like this needs to happen less.
It’s not ideal, but it would take a great deal of effort to restrain a billionaire’s influence (merely stripping their assets and imprisoning them isn’t enough), and while I would prefer a society that spends that great deal of effort to save people, there are still homeless and starving people whose lives could be saved with less effort.
billionaires are kinda like monarchists, they could “abdicate” and peacefully live out the rest of their life as a dirt farmer or work in a factory they used to own but most of them would rather die than be a normal person.
imo it is a minor form of liberalism to believe that there exists any amount of punishment and recuperative effort that would meaningfully remove the very power and influence that got said billionaire to this point in the first place
No half measures, Walter
I’m against the death penalty because the person thus penalized may not be guilty, and could be rehabilitate. Post revolution I’d say the death penalty should flat out not exist, but for now, there’s no way to be wrong about billionaires
They either are or are not billionaires. And if they ARE, they get it in the neck