US Immigration Crisis

I comment about political movements like those Trumpy fascists. Especially in a politics forum.

I don't like innocent people getting attacked by anyone, but I guarantee any of your proposals to deal with it would cause more harm than good.

And, lol you being a libertarian, I'm sure it's jackbooted thugs that you want to send into the streets.

Have you been to NYC recently? If so, did you feel unsafe? Did you feel more unsafe than you do in other large cities (e.g. LA, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia)?

Past a certain size, it's not the city that matters it's about where you go in the city.

Fine.

Does the data support a conclusion that NYC is among the more dangerous large cities in the United States, either right now or more generally over the last decade?

I don't have a pre emptive solution to deal with people randomly assaulting others in the street.

I have a solution after the fact which is significant gratuitous violence should be dealt with the death penalty (after due process as obvious and normal).

In general every act a decent person would never do, and that a decent person can't be framed as doing, should be dealt with the death penalty under simple "incompatibility with society" reasoning.

No thugs proposed

Does that mean that insurance fraud, auto theft, identity theft, and a million other crimes should carry a punishment of death?

You really do want to live in 1300s, albeit with modern dental care.

No clue there. I haven't been to NYC in like 6 years. No issues while there. Was fun.

I wouldn't have asked the question if the answer was less than obvious. Kelhus knows perfectly well that the data doesn't support the idea that NYC is among the more dangerous large cities in the U.S. He just doesn't care, which is a little odd for someone who is obsessed with the idea that others are pushing "narratives."

Why is the title immigration crisis?

Now I will say that the last time I was in LA (Santa Monica actually) a homeless guy in a bathrobe told me he was the devil and threatened to knee me in the nuts. And that's Kelhus's home turf.

Wow, this is...quite something, even for you.

So how does this work in your mind? People need to have shown a certain amount of outrage over other assaults before they're allowed to comment on this one? Or because there are other assaults, we just shouldn't talk about any of them?

by jalfrezi P

Why is the title immigration crisis?

Because that's how most people call it

So you're a Utopian Statist and you believe that if you give the state all these powers and the means to execute these powers it's going to just turn out great. Ramp up state executions. What could go wrong?

I disagree on the White Collar are net contributors. I think the Saklers and Sam Bank Friedman caused more harm than imaginable

See the line about "many million dollars of damage" for that.

But anyway, we could use a Sam bank Friedman from jail (or otherwise limited in his ability to damage others), say if he hacks criminal databases we give him a steak or something, might be worth more alive than dead.

Which powers? The state already has the power to jail you and being jailed as an innocent for enough years is a lot worse than death (if you like freedom).

Like being killed is very very very very far from being the worst possible outcome.

And btw it's not like this never was the rule of the land, it was and it worked very well in many countries included the UK

Lol no. What are you talking about? In the 18th Century there were like a 100 executions a year in England. The only places ever that have executed people like you are talking about are Mao's China, Stalin's Russia, and Hitler's Germany.

Aside from the fact that 100/year with 5.5m people would mean 6k/year today in the USA, that was after they had been executing a ton of people every year, if you remove the worst people in society and if the rest knows they face very probable death they... Commit less crimes you know?

Which is what you want to accomplish.

Fact is in 1800 in England a long list of crimes allowed for the death penalty, and it worked, even more so if that ends up meaning not too many people get executed anyway, because they stop using violence randomly.

To state the obvious, 18th century England didn't invent the concept of capital punishment for property crimes.

Ofc not but it was one of the most civilized countries to still keep it in their book until late.

Italian jurist Beccaria did a huge damage to the world by writing from the left that the death penalty was bad, in a way that convinced a ton of people that mattered.

But criminals themselves were better off dead than in prison for life, I never understood how people can seriously claim losing your liberty, what makes life worth living and humans better than beasts, forever, can be preferable to swift and (when possible) painless death.

The death penalty is a lot more humane than long jail sentences

This is a complete goalpost shift. You said previously that the death penalty should be imposed on anyone who committed crimes that a "decent" person would not commit. That's an odd standard to begin with, but if that's your standard, I would say that people who defraud senior citizens and prey on their loneliness and propensity for confusion are not good people. That's why I asked whether fraudsters and common thieves would receive the death penalty in Luciomtopia.

But now you seem to be using two completely different measuring sticks, namely: (1) was the crime violent; and (ii) is the perpetrator a net positive contributor to society.

Strangely enough, most people who commit serious property crimes would prefer to spend X years in prison rather than be executed. (For that matter, most people who commit murder would choose life in prison over the death penalty, but I guess you just assume that those people don't know what's good for them.)

There is very little evidence that the death penalty, at least as used in the United States, has a significant deterrent effect.