“I’d be shocked,†he said, “if a correction guard was involved in this.†he said of an incident were a couple of female guard now faces the music for enabling the escape of a couple of prisoners that they had been having sex with.
This is an example of “not getting the joke†“or generational loss of hypocrisyâ€
One generation pretends, and the next generation actually believes. When I was young everyone politely pretended women were not like this, but everyone knew women were like this. Back in those days no one would ever allow female guards contact with male prisoners for glaringly obvious reasons.
This is a general problem with pretending to believe stuff so as not to hurt people’s feelings. After a while, people start actually believing it. Expect aids infested blood to be back in the blood supply real soon now.
[Edit]
A commenter points out that one of the guards to which Governor Cuomo refers to was male. The male guard claims that the female guard hid the hacksaw blades inside frozen meat, and he unwittingly took the frozen meat to the prisoners not knowing what was in it. The male guard appears to have been bribed to do what he thought were minor favors. The female correctional officer, however, was doing major favors.
This is so true. While discussing this story with my co-workers all of the older women knew what was going on. The younger women denied that the prison worker was sleeping with the inmates and vehemently protested when I said that “Girls Love Bad Boys.” (This in spite of the fact that we had two incidents in the last year in our office alone where a worker and a relative of a worker ran off with skeevy men who abused them.)
I’m a woman but I get a lot of hate and suspicion from my fellow women for “betraying the sisterhood” and refusing to knee-jerk support women on every issue. It’s just not something a woman is supposed to do. “Truth be damned, we women gotta stick together and fight the Patriarchy!” No thanks. The real world sucks but it’s ultimately better to live in it than deny it exists….
Gene Palmer (officer #2) is a man.
I stand corrected:
He claims to have been conned by Mitchel, the woman, who was doing it for sex:
Sweet Christ, she looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Smith from the mid 80s!
Most inmates should be released or executed.
Ditto. Prolonged incarceration is bad for the inmate and bad for society, because seriously damaged people eventually get released.
We need:
1) Execution for vicious unprovoked assaults on strangers.
2) Physical punishments for most crimes (whipping, stocks, etc)
3) Isolation for sociopaths whose crimes don’t meet the threshold for death (Devil’s Island).
Whipping should be punishment for most misdemeanors, and some crimes.
In some cases, like adultery of wives, public.
“Alpha thugs” that are humiliated by public whipping, might also get knocked down in women opinion down to level of omegas. (Unlike serving prison-time, which is turn-on) So its another plus.
Rich won’t care for fines.
Homeless poor won’t care for imprisonment.
Everyone’s back will hurt.
> “Alpha thugs†that are humiliated by public whipping, might also get knocked down in women opinion down to level of omegas. (Unlike serving prison-time, which is turn-on) So its another plus.
Hahah, you people are daft.
If being public whipping will do that why wouldn’t prison time lower your status in the eyes of women? Given prison time lowers your status in many people too.
Prison is not violence. Doing violence raises your status in the eyes of women, being subjected to violence lowers your status in the eyes of women.
Although women can read emotions better than men, their perceptions of status are extraordinarily crude and simple, appropriate to a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters. The subtle interactions that mark relative status between males go right over their heads.
Can I smoke pot and drop acid or is that gonna get me a whippin?
At present we theoretically have the same drug and alcohol laws for all races, even though it is obvious native Americans cannot handle alcohol, blacks cannot handle cough syrup, and blacks on grass frequently become violent while whites on grass invariably become non violent. This results in de-facto application of different laws differently to different races – grass is de facto legal for whites, de facto illegal for blacks. Similarly, Native American access to alcohol is furtively restricted.
In a reactionary society, such corrupt practices would become formal and explicit, would cease to be corrupt and furtive. So blacks would be whipped for smoking grass and whites would not. Cough syrup would be over-the-counter for whites, prescription only for blacks.
This way we would still get drug wars.
And there would be a problem, “what we do when someones race is ambiguous?”? Can he buy grass or alcohol, or not?
Easiest solution, would be making no legal distinction whether someones commits crimes under influence.
Black or white, high or not, same punishment.
Some whites get violent from alcohol (I get sad-drunk, for example), do we sell beer only to people with license?
As of now now, since if whites high on grass are not aggressive, they are less likely to be stopped by police than blacks who are violent, and then have blood tested, and busted on drugs charges.
Policeman doing so might be fully committed to idea of racial equality, but if is doing his job, will still arrest disproportionate number of blacks on drug charges.
To the chagrin of SJW.
In practice, certain races drinking alcohol is an intolerable problem even in the most politically correct of societies. Thus, for example Australians have an elaborate system where alcohol is banned in certain areas, theoretically for everyone, though in practice the areas are almost invariably substantially Australian aboriginal, plus they have selectively enforced laws about public drunkeness, public drinking, etc. Even though Australians feel really guilty about stealing Australia from the natives, and even though they have a theoretical commitment to treating all races equally, the consequences of native drinking are just so intolerably bad, and so obviously bad, that something just has to be done.
Racial differences in drug use and the effect of drugs is just glaringly obvious, and everywhere, despite pretense, people are forced to do something about it, because certain races on certain drugs are just intolerable, even in such centers of progressive piety as the people’s republic of San Francisco. The only question is, shall we do something about it and lie, or shall we do something about it and tell the truth about what we are doing.
You haven’t answered my two key questions.
>>what we do when someones race is ambiguous?
Do we follow one blood-drop rule?
One black drop makes you black, no matter how white your skin?
One black drop makes you white, no matter how black your skin?
Do we set up a committee, that decides on individual basis, and is prone to corruption, bribery, personal likes or dislikes of person applying for “whiteness race-card”, etc?
>>This way we would still get drug wars.
Wouldn’t keeping to fight drug war be more expensive and destructive, than just letting everyone buy stuff they want, and punish them if they get high on it?
Right now almost nobody is legally allowed to buy marijuana, but everyone can get their hands on it, why it will be different in patriarchy that forbids only black from buying it?
Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely believe you when you say certain substances work different on different races, and that is severe problem, I am asking if “cure” won’t make everything worse.
We openly and formally do what we furtively and corruptly do today, which is pretty much to use Bayesian reasoning about the likelihood that someone is going to be trouble.
South Africa had a rather elaborate classification system with umpteen categories. Rhodesia had a simpler system – “equal rights for all civilized men”. Both systems worked pretty well, and pretty much corresponded to openly and formally doing what the San Francisco Police Department furtively and corruptly does today.
In practice, even the politically correct do not want alcohol sold where there are large numbers of native Australians. Obviously they can, and regularly do, get it illegally, but allowing them to freely purchase it creates problems that even the politically correct find unendurable.
Prohibition proved a really bad idea when they prohibited the sale of alcohol to whites. Prohibiting the sale of alcohol to native Australians is such an obviously good idea that the politically correct turn whatever mental somersaults they need to turn to rationalize it. If progressives found treating native Australians the same as whites unendurable, I doubt that we would be able to endure it.
>>South Africa had a rather elaborate classification system with umpteen categories.
I take it means “expensive committee or bureaucratic body prone to corruption decides”. It also had honorary whites, so it did recognize some non-whites were civilized, fair enough.
>>Rhodesia had a simpler system – “equal rights for all civilized menâ€.
I guess it means under equal rights high proportion of blacks, along with low proportion of whites, was declared uncivilized, not on accord of their skin, but them being unemployed or illiterate? Fair enough.
But that leaves different problem.
>>Obviously they can, and regularly do, get it illegally, but allowing them to freely purchase it creates problems that even the politically correct find unendurable.
You keep giving example of aborigine Australians (there isn’t even million of them), but ignore US drug war.
There isn’t an Australian booze-war, because aborigine who wants a drink can make a trip to area where they sell it legally (rather than spend $50+ on illegal booze), so not enough profit motive to have Australian version of us-drug cartels.
If you outright ban them from buying booze, you introduce profit motive for formation of Australian booze-cartels.
Under changes you propose, colored races can illegally buy drugs/booze that gets them violent, you get an expensive drug war, and thats better than them buying legal drugs/booze?
Okay….
>>allowing them to freely purchase it creates problems
What problems that aren’t already present when they purchase it illegally?
That is a big improvement on our system where a cop decides what he is forbidden to decide, and everyone, especially progressives, piously pretends he did not.
It is easy for someone whose only experience of people on drugs is college students to make this argument. Those who have to deal with the underclass have found a different solution necessary.
By and large, if someone is on drugs, you have to threaten to kill them, and sometimes actually kill them, to stop them from doing bad things. Stupid people need to be controlled, and are not particularly good at evading those controls.
The better sort of people can handle freedom, and trying to prevent them from exercising freedom is going to fail. Inferior people cannot handle freedom, and like cattle, are relatively easy to control.
Good Lord, man.
You keep saying that colored people taking drugs and being violent is serious problem.
YES!!!
I agree with you!
I was agreeing with you for some time!
I kept asking, why you think your solution would work?!
You just keep saying “we must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it”!
I gave you example on how your proposal would introduce new problems, not present in current system where Australian authorities make it harder, but not completely illegal for aborigines to get booze. And you ignored it.
You didn’t point out pros to your proposal that would outweigh cons I provided, neither you rebuked my cons.
>>By and large, if someone is on drugs, you have to threaten to kill them, and sometimes actually kill them, to stop them from doing bad things.
Sometimes we must kill sober people to stop them from doing bad things. How is that a problem? I am not progressive, I have no moral problem with killing dangerous people or dangerous animals.
Inferior people just cannot handle freedom. This is a personal observation, and it is also the problem that our drug laws are (furtively) created to deal with. Making alcohol hard to obtain definitely makes the problem of Australian aboriginals and North American Indians a lot less serious. Does work, at least compared to the alternative. With alarming frequency, police wind up killing native Australians. If liquor was easier to obtain, would have to kill a lot more of them.
The simpler way to imagine it is an externalize.
Each drunk native American in your area increases the chance you will be murdered, robbed, et cetera. Same type of problem as air pollution increasing cancer rates.
The Traditional solution to this was to simply execute all felons. Let native Americans drink all they want, and any of them which can’t handle their liquor, get hanged. Execute natives for assault, theft of more than $500, et cetera.
Drug/alcohol prohibition is the police protecting people from themselves.
*externality
>Let native Americans drink all they want, and any of them which can’t handle their liquor, get hanged.
This.
If people are responsible, fine, let them be. If they are violent, punish them.
Progressives have tried a lot of stuff along these lines, and it just has not worked for them. No way is it going to work for us, short of wholesale genociding problem groups. Maybe if we put a bounty on Australian native scalps, that might work.
>wholesale genociding problem groups
Not really.
A rational country will not observe equality under the law. A middle-income person is generating tax revenue, so the government will not immediately get rid of him, even if he displays violent/criminal behavior.
A low-income or no-income person will be dealt with harshly. Once he displays violent behavior, the government will consider him a liability, and want to get rid of him.
For Australia, the likely policy is to prohibit alcohol, without much enforcement. Aboriginals who display any significant criminal/violent behavior are exiled. Aboriginals who commit major crimes (i.e. murder, assault) are executed.
Aboriginals who can hold a middle-income job are not punished harshly, but are treated much more like the White/Oriental citizens.
Exiled Aboriginals can go live in Mali or Chad. I think it has a similar climate.
Torah doesn’t have a provision for jails. They are a phenomenally stupid idea, in general. If a criminal doesn’t deserve the death penalty, he needs to return some multiple on what he stole/the damage he caused. If he doesn’t have the wherewithal, he gets sold into slavery. If what he did was against the law but there was no quantifiable damage, he gets lashes.
This was a sound system. It gets people whose inability to make good decisions for themselves leads to them causing problems for other people under the coercive supervision that they need.
Gaelic Brehon law was based on restitution also. The English common law system is quite different in its application of “justice”.
Jails weren’t practical prior to the modern era.
In the modern era, jails aren’t practical either.
Putting all the worst people in your society into what is essentially a gladiator training school, most of them for a couple of years at a time, on the dime of the people upon whom they prey, is a phenomenally idiotic idea.
I mean, what is the upside?
Better trained criminals (who are unemployable at a livable wage when they get out, ensuring them either poverty or petty crime)?
More taxes on the lawabiding?
Taking people away from productive employment so that they can spend their lives as prison guards?
If someone is too dangerous to let loose, you should kill him. If he stole from someone or damaged their property or hurt them physically, he should pay them back severalfold, along with restitution for their humiliation, medical expenses, lost labor, etc. If he can’t pay them back, he needs to be put in the charge of somebody else who can manage him in an economically productive way. Probably picking cotton is not feasible, but even idiots can more than earn their keep as janitors and shelf stockers, and over six years, the profits add up to about what you’d get for five times almost anything an idiot could steal or destroy. I don’t mean an actual idiot-they are exempt from legal responsibility-but the typical idiot committing property crimes and assault in the US today.
My favorite Torah legal institution is the Cities of Refuge, for negligent homicides.
Not what I meant. How do you prevent escape prior to modern technology? How do you hand-cuff them? The Torah didn’t use prisons, possibly for the reasons you outline, or possibly because it was not practical c. 800 BC.
>essentially a gladiator training school
Not really. They are around very violent people, but they are also rigorously trained to obey prison authority. Obedience to authority is precisely the habit you want if you are trying to rehabilitate a criminal.
>If someone is too dangerous to let loose, you should kill him.
What if he’s like your average black teenager? Most rich countries don’t want him around, because of his tendency toward crime, and low rate of contribution to society.
Prisons are practical for certain types of rehabilitation. There are a significant number of men who do dumb stuff in their 20s, and later quit.
In general, a society will try to rehabilitate members who can be productive citizens, and not rehabilitate members who can’t be productive citizens. So they will generally rehabilitate wealthy, high-IQ and white kids, and exile poor, low-IQ and black kids.
How do you prevent escape without modern tech? Well, the Romans did ok, between the latifundia, the mines and the gladiator schools.
Your typical black teenager acts the way he does precisely because of the same state that puts him in prison for it. They are raised by bitches (who are paid by the state) so they act like bitches. Black men, who were raised by men with a system of moral values, are capable of being decent and productive. Of course, when women are incentivized to have the children of mating drones and live off welfare, and when most of the men are in prison, you get the typical black teenaper and his moral values system.
The idea that prisons rehabilitate wealthy white kids is ludicrous. Very few non-sociopathic wealthy white kids end up in prison, and how would they be rehabilitated by something that leaves them unemployable except for at menial labor?
>Well, the Romans did ok, between the latifundia, the mines and the gladiator schools.
We’re talking about prison, not slavery. Holding people captive in ancient Rome, or ancient Israel was expensive. Probably required at least a soldier for each two prisoners.
Slavery was different, because you actually made money off them. So you can afford to hire a soldier or two.
>Your typical black teenager acts the way he does precisely because of the same state that puts him in prison for it.
Even 100 years ago, nobody wanted black teenagers around. The government didn’t like them, because they didn’t generate tax revenue. Citizens didn’t like them because they brought moderate levels of crime and misbehaved in various ways.
From the data I’ve seen, the murder rate in the USA is at historic lows. So I doubt that blacks have only become criminals in the past few decades.
We’re discussing your principle of
>If someone is too dangerous to let loose, you should kill him.
Perhaps the best approach is to exile him. But killing him is not appropriate.
>The idea that prisons rehabilitate wealthy white kids is ludicrous.
I should have said wealthy OR white OR high-IQ kids. And prison is much better at rehabilitation than execution.
>how would they be rehabilitated by something that leaves them unemployable except for at menial labor?
Rehabilitation is not about job skills. Rehabilitation is about criminal behavior. And poor job prospects isn’t a major cause of criminal behavior, that’s progressive propaganda.
For example, take the average man who gets in bar fights. That is, he picks fights with people, and either gets himself hurt, or hurts other people. Not a citizen you want around.
Do you execute him? Do you whip him? Do you imprison him for several months, while deliberately instilling discipline in him?
>We’re talking about prison, not slavery. Holding people captive in ancient Rome, or ancient Israel was expensive. Probably required at least a soldier for each two prisoners.
Prison in the US is expensive. It costs the equivalent of a working class salary to imprison someone.
No, Roman slavery did not require a soldier for every two prisoners.
>Slavery was different, because you actually made money off them. So you can afford to hire a soldier or two.
Prison labor is huge in the US. It still costs the equivalent of a working class salary to imprison someone.
>From the data I’ve seen, the murder rate in the USA is at historic lows. So I doubt that blacks have only become criminals in the past few decades.
Murder rates are at historic lows because:
1) Trauma care is at an unprecedented state of the art high, in large part thanks to lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, when Yung Dromedarius gets popped, the paramedics can do a thoracic needle decompression for his hemopneumothorax, run Hextend into him and keep blood volume high, seal off arterial bleeding with Chitosan or any other number of things. The hospital is quite good at what it does, too. Instead of adding to the murder rate, Yung Dromedarius will now recover and bless society with a medical discovery, or at least a bangin mixtape.
2) Police departments are under massive pressure to massage numbers, so murders get downgraded. If, in a tragedy for all humanity and despite the best efforts of medical science, Yung Dromedarius leaves this world for a better place, it’s possible he won’t make it into the statistics.
3) A lot of inner city PDs are in a hull-down position. Baltimore inner city precincts close their doors from 7PM to 7AM. As you can imagine, they are not particularly active from 7AM to 7PM, either. If the bambalance was not called for Yung Dromedarius when he was shot, it’s possible his body will not be found, or at least not until it’s too late to determine the cause of deff.
4) Lots of whites, and more and more blacks, are too busy plugging into the matrix to do lots of killing. Instead of being out stabbing each other in the pulmonary artery behind a bar at 1AM, they are at home watching sweet Bangtube.
>Perhaps the best approach is to exile him. But killing him is not appropriate.
The way we know that someone is too dangerous to let him run around is that he either killed someone or was caught committing a burglary in such a way that it was obvious that he was ready to kill someone (i.e., at night.) So killing him is quite appropriate.
>I should have said wealthy OR white OR high-IQ kids. And prison is much better at rehabilitation than execution.
Still not buying it. I worked with guys with teardrop tats doing manual labor. Some of them were white. None seemed like prison had rehabilitated them, at least not better than restitution/lashes would have. As for execution, I’d rather miss the chance to rehabilitate a murderer than to have him murder again.
>Rehabilitation is about criminal behavior. And poor job prospects isn’t a major cause of criminal behavior, that’s progressive propaganda.
Have you ever lived on minimum wage? How about paid child support out of a minimum wage paycheck? If your options are selling dope or flipping burgers/changing tires, well, you know, selling dope has a lot going for it-at least you’re not gonna get your wages garnished. But if you’re selling dope, you’ve got to be prepared for extrajudicial arbitration.
>For example, take the average man who gets in bar fights. That is, he picks fights with people, and either gets himself hurt, or hurts other people. Not a citizen you want around.
>Do you execute him? Do you whip him? Do you imprison him for several months, while deliberately instilling discipline in him?
If he gets himself hurt, that’s his problem.
If he hurts someone else, then he owes his victim lost wages, the price of medical treatment, the price of his humiliation and the fixed cost for any permanent disfigurement ([the price of] an eye for an eye, etc.) This can easily be a lot of money, especially for the kind of guy whose idea of a good time is picking fights in a bar. If he can’t pay, he will end up selling himself into slavery. http://www.dinonline.org/2015/01/08/assault-in-torah-law-2/
Hi B.
Tangentially, keep in mind that there are cases of false assault allegation: both by police (to get an official pretext to arrest someone, and showcase their “protector” status in front of public and a young vagina) and victim (who may be a woman putting a false charge, in order to avoid a responsibility to answer a different assault charge against *her*).
>No, Roman slavery did not require a soldier for every two prisoners.
I didn’t say that. I said that imprisoning people in Roman days required a soldier for every two prisoners.
>As for execution, I’d rather miss the chance to rehabilitate a murderer than to have him murder again.
What percentage of prisoners are in prison for murder? I’m guessing it’s not much.
>Have you ever lived on minimum wage?
Yeah. Well, sort of. I spent several months living in a tent, and my spending was probably less than minimum wage.
>If your options are selling dope or flipping burgers/changing tires, well, you know, selling dope has a lot going for it
Yeah. And the average middle-class guy could probably make $200k/year by engaging in some criminal enterprise. But since it will be hard, have a large risk of death/jail, he won’t.
To a large extent, blacks in Africa live in tents or huts. In America, lower-class blacks don’t want to live in a tent. And since American blacks tend to not care about death/jail/risk/criminality/etc, they sell dope. Poverty is not the actual cause of criminality.
>If he can’t pay, he will end up selling himself into slavery
Is there a modern country that practices slavery? Why not?
What do you do if the slave runs off?
Violent people are a liability for many reasons. I doubt that anyone would be willing to purchase a slave, and use him as a janitor.
>Tangentially, keep in mind that there are cases of false assault allegation
This is a big problem in a witness-based justice system. The Torah deals with this by requiring two witnesses and making the witnesses liable for the penalty that the accused would have incurred.
>I didn’t say that. I said that imprisoning people in Roman days required a soldier for every two prisoners.
What’s the difference between a slave doing forced labor in a place he can’t leave and a prisoner doing forced labor in a place he can’t leave?
>What percentage of prisoners are in prison for murder? I’m guessing it’s not much.
We’re talking about execution, and you said that execution isn’t much of a way to rehabilitate someone. I was responding to that by saying that the kind of guys who get executed, rehabilitation is irrelevant.
>I spent several months living in a tent, and my spending was probably less than minimum wage.
A voluntary extended camping session and living in a shithole with no prospect of making much more than the minimum are two different propositions entirely.
>And the average middle-class guy could probably make $200k/year by engaging in some criminal enterprise.
Very unlikely. By upbringing, he neither has the skillset nor the mindset, any more than he has the skillset or the mindset to be a big game hunter or subsistence farmer. But a black person who grew up in a place where criminal enterprise was glorified, considered the most honorable means of employment, subsidized and protected by the state (indirectly,) where going to jail is a regular occupational hazard like an injury in pro sports, who spent his formative years in schools designed not to teach any marketable skills and who has an arrest/imprisonment record instantly visible to any potential employer, has very few disincentives and very many incentives to make a living in a criminal way. As a criminally minded product of the Soviet Union, I understand, though I don’t sympathize.
>Poverty is not the actual cause of criminality.
Yes and no. Moral depravity is the cause of poverty and criminality both. But the moral depravity is artificially induced and sustained. When you tell a group of people that they have a grievance against the rest of society, that crime is an honorable and legitimate way of redressing that grievance, and then subsidize those of them who do not work, the result is massive moral depravity. This was not the case 70 years ago, before the emergence of the welfare state.
>Is there a modern country that practices slavery? Why not?
Sure. The US has debt slavery for child support, for instance. Officially, though, slavery was brought to an end through abolition. You know, that thing where the Brits and then Americans imposed their will upon the world.
>What do you do if the slave runs off?
This shit is not rocket science. The Romans had gladiator schools. Gladiators had about a 1% chance of survival, access to weapons, and outstanding training in using them. There was not much of an escape problem except for the whole Spartacus thing.
>Violent people are a liability for many reasons. I doubt that anyone would be willing to purchase a slave, and use him as a janitor.
I would, no problem. It is a basic part of being a man as opposed to mangina to be able to work with and manage potentially violent people productively and respectfully. As a guy with ex-cons in his family, who’s worked manual labor jobs with ex-cons, served in the military with violent guys and criminals, I can tell you I’d have no problem buying someone with an assault or theft conviction and using him for, say, herding and farm labor. Easy decision, no issues.
>What’s the difference between a slave doing forced labor in a place he can’t leave and a prisoner doing forced labor in a place he can’t leave?
From the perspective of the warden/slaveowner the primary difference is the value of the labor. Slaves are mobile and can be trusted with tools that can be used as weapons. Prisoners can only work inside prisons.
From the perspective of the guards/slaveowner, the primary difference is the ruthlessness they use to control the prisoner/slave. Slaves were routinely whipped. American prisoners are not. Slaves were often emasculated, and the insufficiently submissive ones were killed. Also, slaves were worked to exhaustion, while prisoners are kept in a small cell for most of their day.
It’s easier to control people if you are able to be very harsh. Prison is like soft-slavery. Much less productive, much less harsh.
>We’re talking about execution, and you said that execution isn’t much of a way to rehabilitate someone. I was responding to that by saying that the kind of guys who get executed, rehabilitation is irrelevant.
Sure. But most people in prison, are not in prison for murder. You are arguing that we shouldn’t have prisons. So what do you do with the people who are in prison for non-murder crimes?
What do you do with Cocaine dealers? Do you let them out? That would ruin our society. Do you execute all of them? Your execution rate will be extraordinarily high, and it’s a non-violent crime. Do you give them public whippings? That’s probably the best option, but I suspect that it won’t be effective enough. Whippings hurt, but they stop hurting after a few weeks. And then they go back to dealing.
Another option is exiling them to Mali or the Congo. Or exiling them to some bad area of the USA. I suspect that some combination of prison, whippings, execution and exiling is appropriate. Our current government refuses to use execution, whippings and exiling for drug dealers.
Also the US executes almost no one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country#Executed_per_capita
>A voluntary extended camping session and living in a shithole with no prospect of making much more than the minimum are two different propositions entirely.
The difference is entirely psychological. Buddha would tell the poor person that he needs to give up his desire for wealth.
Most people want wealth. That’s why few people voluntarily live in a tent. White people are almost never willing to act like criminals to get wealth. Black people are sometimes willing to act like criminals to get it.
>But a black person who grew up in a place where criminal enterprise was glorified…
Everyone is effected by their environment. If you live in an environment that glorifies and trains people for criminality, you are more disposed to criminality. But that’s due to the moral choices of your parents, friends, ethnic group, et cetera. White people make better moral choices, so living around White people is better.
>Moral depravity is the cause of poverty and criminality both.
It’s not typically the cause of poverty. The Congo and Bolivia are not poor due to their lack of virtue. Sweden and Saudi Arabia are not rich due to their inherent virtue.
>>Is there a modern country that practices slavery? Why not?
>Sure. The US has debt slavery for child support
Debt slavery is not genuine slavery. People are not whipped for failing to pay child support. They are occasionally jailed, but usually not.
>Officially, though, slavery was brought to an end through abolition. You know, that thing where the Brits and then Americans imposed their will upon the world.
Saudi Arabia is somewhat independent of the US, but does not have slavery. China and Russia are relatively independent of the US, but do not have slavery. There are no modern countries with slavery, because it is not practical.
>>What do you do if the slave runs off?
>This shit is not rocket science.
During the civil war, escaped slaves were hunted down, and there were political difficulties in doing that. If the modern US implemented slavery, plenty of slaves would escape to Canada. We could patrol the border, or pressure Canada to return them. Both would be expensive and only semi-effective. And today, the slaves wouldn’t be worth that much anyway. So it wouldn’t be economically justified.
In Roman days and pre-civil war days, manual labor was worth a lot. It’s not worth very much anymore. But slaves are still just as likely to murder you.
>I can tell you I’d have no problem buying someone with an assault or theft conviction and using him for, say, herding and farm labor.
You certainly can’t have a slave around customers. If nothing else, some asshole customer would start a fight, and he’d beat them up. Farms are isolated, and so if he doesn’t sneak into town, you’d only have to be concerned with him killing you or your family. Possible, but I doubt the average American criminal would make an acceptable farm hand. Even if you were willing to whip him. This would probably work for a portion of American criminals.
>From the perspective of the guards/slaveowner, the primary difference is the ruthlessness they use to control the prisoner/slave.
This is gibberish. There were plenty of prison populations treated far more ruthlessly than slaves were in, say, the American South. For instance, the prisoners of every 20th century totalitarian regime. For the same reason that you don’t torture your dog or your horse, normal people didn’t torture their slaves.
>It’s easier to control people if you are able to be very harsh.
Not necessarily. Being very harsh is a frequent symptom of not being able to control people effectively.
>Prison is like soft-slavery. Much less productive, much less harsh.
Not necessarily. There are vast prison economies in the world today. In the 1930s-1950s USSR, massive gold and uranium mining and forestry operations ran on prison labor. Etc.
>What do you do with Cocaine dealers?
What do you do with bootleggers and distillers? Of the many idiotic policies enacted by the US over the last 100 years, the War on Drugs is right up there with prohibition. If you are looking for the reason blacks are feralized, the War on Drugs and the Welfare State are your answer.
>Buddha would tell the poor person that he needs to give up his desire for wealth.
I’m not a Buddhist.
>White people are almost never willing to act like criminals to get wealth. Black people are sometimes willing to act like criminals to get it.
Given the right set of incentives, almost all people will act like criminals to get wealth. See: the USSR, full of white people, completely criminally-minded.
>If you live in an environment that glorifies and trains people for criminality, you are more disposed to criminality. But that’s due to the moral choices of your parents, friends, ethnic group, et cetera.
People respond to incentives and disincentives. If you incentivize amoral choices, you get more amoral choices.
>The Congo and Bolivia are not poor due to their lack of virtue.
Sure they are.
>Sweden and Saudi Arabia are not rich due to their inherent virtue.
Of course they are.
>Debt slavery is not genuine slavery. People are not whipped for failing to pay child support. They are occasionally jailed, but usually not.
Being whipped is not the quintessence of slavery.
>Saudi Arabia is somewhat independent of the US, but does not have slavery.
Saudi officially abolished slavery in 1962, and unofficially has indentured servitude to this very day.
> China and Russia are relatively independent of the US, but do not have slavery.
Both have massive prison and camp complexes producing huge amounts of manufactured goods through forced labor.
>During the civil war, escaped slaves were hunted down
How many escaped slaves were there?
>In Roman days and pre-civil war days, manual labor was worth a lot. It’s not worth very much anymore.
Skilled and semi-skilled manual labor is worth quite a lot, and there is lots of money to be made in managing it effectively.
>But slaves are still just as likely to murder you.
Slaves were never very likely to murder you.
>You certainly can’t have a slave around customers. If nothing else, some asshole customer would start a fight, and he’d beat them up.
Untrue. I worked customer-facing heavy manual labor with guys with eyedrop tattoos in their late 20s and 30s. Nobody ever got into a confrontation with customers. People know the difference between a bar at 1AM and a jobsite at 1PM.
>I doubt the average American criminal would make an acceptable farm hand.
I don’t. I served with some ex- and current-coke dealers in the US military. They made decent (not outstanding) soldiers. I also served with quite a few guys who’d either spent time in juvie or narrowly avoided it for all kinds of teenage shit as well as family gun-running/stolen property fencing businesses. Quite a few of them were outstanding soldiers.
The problem was that the Soviet Union criminalized capitalism, but the Soviet economy functioned on illegal and forbidden capitalism, to get around the untenable and erratic dictates of the central plan. Everyone, therefore, had to be criminal in order to survive.
When capitalism returned to the Soviet Union, the only people with real experience in making businesses function were criminals, in large part the mafia, many of whom soon became immensely wealthy.
When some American mafias decided to go legit and build Las Vegas, they did not immediately lose all their old habits, indeed some would say they still have not.
they are also rigorously trained to obey prison authority
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
>The problem was that the Soviet Union criminalized capitalism, but the Soviet economy functioned on illegal and forbidden capitalism, to get around the untenable and erratic dictates of the central plan. Everyone, therefore, had to be criminal in order to survive.
Even before the USSR, most of the Russians were not particular respecters of the law. Elan and rebellion were foundational characteristics of the Russian personality.
During the existence of the USSR, not only was cutting corners and making shady deals the only way to survive, but massive amounts of people went through the penal system and the military (where you also make things happen by disregarding the letter of the law.)
You got a population which viewed the law not as the way that things run fairly and we all get along, but as an obstacle to be surmounted or a bludgeon with which to strike your enemies. Which is exactly how blacks in the US (and increasing numbers of whites) see things.
>When capitalism returned to the Soviet Union, the only people with real experience in making businesses function were criminals, in large part the mafia, many of whom soon became immensely wealthy.
That’s a misconception.
Most of the professional criminals ended up not immensely wealthy but dead. The guys who really made money were the professional/academic class like Berezovsky and Gusinsky who had the brains to create and seize massive business opportunities and the semi-criminal mentality required to do so in a chaotic environment where law did not really function. Of course, they used partnerships with professional criminals to get there.
>For instance, the prisoners of every 20th century totalitarian regime.
I was talking about US prisons. Prisoners in Red China are not in the same category as prisoners in the US. Also, Red China used a lot of “re-education camps”, which are more similar in nature to slavery.
>For the same reason that you don’t torture your dog or your horse, normal people didn’t torture their slaves.
Whipping slaves for misbehavior is not torture. But what do American prisoners who misbehave get? Solitary confinement?
>There are vast prison economies in the world today. In the 1930s-1950s USSR, massive gold and uranium mining and forestry operations ran on prison labor.
I am not familiar with those prisons. But I suspect that they were not similar in nature to US prisons, and were probably closer to actual slavery. I don’t see how anyone could cut timber or mine gold without being given access to tools (which could be weaponized), and being routinely let out of the jail building.
>>Sweden and Saudi Arabia are not rich due to their inherent virtue.
>Of course they are.
Is Oil now a virtue?
>How many escaped slaves were there?
I am unaware. But if they saw an opportunity to get away, lots of slaves would escape. You are going to need to firmly prevent escape. Which will probably mean arresting escapees, and returning them to their masters.
>People respond to incentives and disincentives. If you incentivize amoral choices, you get more amoral choices
Sure. And Blacks are subject to similar incentives that Whites are subject to. After all, they live in the same society. Except the Blacks are stupid and cruel, so are more willing to do cruel things, and less able to do smart things.
>Saudi officially abolished slavery in 1962, and unofficially has indentured servitude to this very day.
“Unofficial” slavery means that the government is not enforcing slavery.
>Both have massive prison and camp complexes producing huge amounts of manufactured goods through forced labor.
I was not aware of this. This, combined with several other points, has made me conclude that slavery may be practical, in come circumstances.
But you originally claimed that we shouldn’t have prisons. Is there an example of a modern society that has implemented this? Or mostly implemented this?
Also, looking at the murder rate in Russia, criminality appears to be correlated with “native” populations.
http://i.imgur.com/yIvA0RA.png?1
http://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/2r5y0c/2010_homicide_rate_per_100000_people_in_russia_by/
>Prisoners in Red China are not in the same category as prisoners in the US.
Who says?
>Whipping slaves for misbehavior is not torture. But what do American prisoners who misbehave get? Solitary confinement?
They get anything and everything. Beatings from guards, solitary confinement, having other inmates set on them, whatever you want. The Feds sort of keep a lid on things, but for instance Texas doesn’t take Fed prison money specifically so that they can do whatever they want (explained to me by a veteran prison system nurse.)
> I don’t see how anyone could cut timber or mine gold without being given access to tools (which could be weaponized), and being routinely let out of the jail building.
You need to stop being such a woman. Either get informed and argue, or don’t argue at all. Prisoners in the US are used to fight fires, and are HAPPY for it-it’s a privilege.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/amandachicagolewis/the-prisoners-fighting-californias-wildfires#.tk8Zz4qGw
>Is Oil now a virtue?
The only reason their societies are rich (unlike that of massively oil-rich Nigeria) is that they take care of each other and don’t massively steal the oil wealth generated.
> But if they saw an opportunity to get away, lots of slaves would escape.
This is untrue. Plenty of slaves in America were engaged in pursuits like stock herding in remote areas. Very few escaped. You need to look at the source material and not Uncle Tom’s Cabin.
>And Blacks are subject to similar incentives that Whites are subject to. After all, they live in the same society.
They live in very different parts of the society and are subject to different incentives.
>“Unofficial†slavery means that the government is not enforcing slavery.
What does that have to do with anything?
>But you originally claimed that we shouldn’t have prisons. Is there an example of a modern society that has implemented this? Or mostly implemented this?
No. So what? If I wanted to live in a modern society, I’d be there already.
>Also, looking at the murder rate in Russia, criminality appears to be correlated with “native†populations.
Yes, and nothing to do with the location of prison camps, settlements for released prisoners, etc. Come on.
I don’t see much evidence that they’re practical now either.
Can you name a modern Reactionary state that doesn’t have prisons?
Cannot name a modern reactionary state. But Saudi Arabia and Singapore imprison impressively few people.
Could you imagine the Cathedral reaction to a state that had whippings, fines, execution, slavery and execution as the only criminal punishments?
How long before the Tomahawks blew up the courts?
I recommend you read up on Saudi prisons for terrorists.
>Saudi Arabia and Singapore imprison impressively few people
Singapore doesn’t really count, because
1)Majority ethnic Chinese, and
2)Very selective about it’s immigrants, who make up most of the population
If the USA were like that, it would have virtually no imprisonment, either.
Saudi Arabia executes almost nobody. In 2013, they executed 79 people, about double the number of people the US executed.
The murder and general crime rate in Singapore used to be quite high, similar to western levels, higher than most western levels. Lee cracked down, and crime went to levels almost indistinguishable from zero.
Large minority in Singapore are ethnic Malays, who, in Malaysia, are pretty bad. Also lots of guest workers from all over the world.
Also, found this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Also
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_country#Executed_per_capita
@Jim
Singapore is well-governed, no doubt. But neither Singapore or Saudi Arabia seem to have an abnormally low imprisonment rate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate
Singapore: 233
Sweden: 60
Japan: 51
China: 124
USA: 707
Saudi Arabia: 162
Russia: 470
Brazil: 274
I stand corrected.
And note too in such systems slavery might not be permanent and it came with protections for the slave .
Flogging is also a meritorious and effective punishment
Amusingly though enslaving criminals is allowed under the current US constitution, the r the reason it was cracked down on the 1950’s was the Southrons persistent abuse of the law to get cheap labor for dangerous jobs. It was quite typically to convict a drifter or some unwanted person on a bogus charge and then sell them to the mines or whoever. That is not acceptable as not only was it unjust it also cheapened workers wages.
Cheap wages exclusive of trainee minors are harmful to society.
Also re: Bee’s suggestion to just “hang them all” its been tried. England during the Bloody Code era did this. It ended up making a mockery of the justice system and in our society you’d get too many jury nulls in many cases
Also no reason if someone is going to hang they shouldn’t simply always resort to violent crime and armed resistance . This would escalate say a minor drug offense or felony theft into seriously violent offenses. Given that people do not subscribe to Christian morality or other social control systems, in such a regime there is no reason they shouldn’t cause much more harm. The end result to them is the same.
Its important to remember that moral capital from Christianity is fading and the control that goes with it is no longer free or assumed to be free, This means safety has to be paid for in money/opportunity/assimilation or if that is impossible by exclusion/seclusion.
Also its very hard to police such a society since today’s police are focused on “getting home safe” persistent attacks and gang retaliation will cause them to refocus on softer targets, such as hanging a sixteen year old girl for dope or shoplifting. Much safer but a near certain elimination of legitimacy.
There would be no hanging for shoplifting or smoking dope, because:
– dope would be legal
– punishment for shoplifting would be whipping, not hanging.
– hanging would be for criminals too dangerous to keep around. not pickpockets, but murderers or violent robbers.
Current California law allows felony prosecution for stealing $900 or more. This could easily be a single item of clothing, an I-Phone or some jewelry.
Also multiple counts of shoplifting can be felonious as well
That could be changed though,
The bloody code worked fine. Pretty much everyone executed for supposedly minor property crimes engaged in violence or the threat of violence, or stole stuff in a way that was likely to result in violence. It was routine to convict them and execute them for the property crime that had led to violence, and not mention the violence, because, after all, the only way to disentangle who was at fault in the violence was that the violence was motivated by a property crime. Saved a lot of court time to execute them for stealing a loaf of bread, and leave out the complicated way the loaf had become covered in blood.
Judges and juries would routinely let people go upon hearing testimonials of their good character. This was not a mockery of justice, but the way the system was supposed to work. If someone had family and stuff, and family would call in favors to get a testimonial from a respectable person to get the offender let off, either the offender had good character, or the family would beat good character into him after getting him off.
We will have to agree to disagree on that issue. The Early modern period was hellish, violent and life was cheap, It was an awful, awful time and in many ways a worse time to live the the Medieval or even chunks of the Migration Era.
Also people in 1780 didn’t have cars , networked computers or Kalashnikov rifles either. How we arrange society needs to change with the technology
To get to a period in England where life was cheap, you have to back a good deal further than 1780.
Is Governor Cuomo a useful idiot or merely a stooge?
Let’s check: “Religion – Roman Catholicism”
Confirmed for anti-white Vatican stooge.
A.J.P.
Let’s check Adolf Hitler: “Religion – Roman Catholicism”
Confirmed for anti-white Vatican stooge.
L.O.L., next you’ll be clicking your heels together and saying “There’s no place like home” er …
“Heil Hitler!”
I don’t get it.
So very much you don’t…
A.J.P.
[…] Jim takes note: Greece runs out of other people’s money. Also, NY Governor Cuomo shocked (SHOCKED!!) that women will do anything for an alpha male thug. […]
And Jim’s Prophet of Doom credentials are further proved:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/06/and-again-another-woman-shot-in-back-of-head-random-act-of-violence-while-walking-in-hollywood/