All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So you just want to kill all men accused of rape?
    Edit: I just that was what the not for an objective society.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 7 years, 10 months ago
    Probably not a good position for an enlightened Objectivist society, but when I read the question I thought of something I read about Kublai Khan a long time ago. He boasted that a virgin princess on an ass laden with gold could walk unmolested in any way from one end of his empire to the other. The reason is there is only one penalty for molestation of the girl, the ass, or the gold: Death!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 10 months ago
    In my day, unless you raped, murdered or even accidentally murdered, ie arson, drunkenness etc, you were required to pay back damages and learn your lesson...it worked.

    In my view, regarding the exceptions, so long as the case is air tight...then their death would be required.
    If we had a place on earth where you could NEVER get back to civilization and were forced to attend to your own survival amongst others like you...then that would be a good solution.

    ...maybe that 50mile deep hole in Siberia would be a good place to put you...

    That is about as philosophical as it gets...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 7 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No offense, but I don't want your opinion, I want to discuss the philosophy.
    I won't say that an objective court system uses "collective force". Collective force is more akin to democracy. An Objective government would use objective retaliatory force.
    Taxation is theft, under an objective system there would be no taxation, so who pays to keep the criminal locked up?
    There may be some benefit to paying the system to keep the prisoner locked up, but for how long? Under what conditions am I paying for a criminal to live? If I am a father who's daughter was raped and murdered, should I be the one paying so my enemy can eat three meals a day and live a comfortable life. Should I expect others will pay to keep him lock up?

    I agree that forcing someone to work for you is slavery, but by violating the rights of others, the only fair exchange is the loss of your rights. The criminal would be forced to survive on his own, because the criminal chose to force others to survive for his sake by force. So either we force a criminal to survive on his own and also become an indentured servant to pay for our prison, or we send the man to a deserted island to survive for his own sake. I think exile may be the objective answer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by DeangalvinFL 7 years, 10 months ago
    I can only speak for myself.
    If a society, via an objective court system, uses it's collective force to put someone in prison, then they are assuming the responsibility to provide basic care to that person. The benefit/value to society is that a destructive person is not allowed to roam free, thus the general public that is being taxed to provide for the prisoners are giving value for value.

    An objective legal system would not allow forced labor. Such concepts are foreign and lead to, or are, slavery. Slavery, in all of it's forms, is what Objectivism is ideally trying to destroy. No one should be forced to work for the benefit of others.

    Furthermore, conditions for the release of the prisoner should be clearly identified before a prisoner is released. If they are not willing to ever work by providing positive value to others, than they should stay in prison forever. Or exiled if that is practical.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo