[mikema63]

Per request I'm writing out an outline of my new views.

I am a socialist now, of what stripe I am not totally sure.

I do view government as necessary in the short an mid term while ultimately I am quite attracted to a syndicalist system.

I view technology and scientific research as being the most important thing for raising the general standard of human life, while I feel it still helps in capitalism I think it is extremely uneven and is used largely to control people in the current environment.

I view violence and crime to be more of a disease in need of treatment than something that requires punishment. People need to be fixed not locked away where they can be a burden on society till the end of their lives.

Ultimately I do not believe anything short of revolution or the collapse of the existing system will really make it possible to solve many of societies problems as I believe they are inherent to the current system.

However, I can say I wouldn't mind seeing some reforms like a (very progressive) negative income tax, universal healthcare, universal higher education, a very different approach to the education system, and a very different attitude where the military and is concerned.

As for social policy. I would remove any government relation or acknowledgement of marriage. There wouldn't be any restrictions on abortions. No racism. yada yada.

Anything anybody wants to know?

[slybaldguy]

In the short term, how do you feel about Affirmative Action? Gun rights? Drug use?

[mikema63]

Affirmative action.

Does nothing to solve the underlying disadvantages that minorities face in the US, which I believe to be largely not rampant racism but the economic disadvantage that perpetuates itself as a result of past racism and before that slavery.

Gun rights.

It is politically impossible to ban guns in the US, it wont happen. Instead we should have universal registration, background checks, training, and psychiatric evaluations.

Drug use.

I haven't really got a very anti-drug attitude. Most I think should be legal and just taxed and regulated like any other product, of course that tax should go to the healthcare system.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Do you accept that a significant number of the prison population are terminally criminal and can never be cured of this "disease" that makes them want to terrorize society. So if you don't want these career criminals to be a constant burden on society rotting in their cells would you be for the death penalty? Many of these "sick" people have criminal records with 100+ convictions with things like rape kidnapping torture, can you risk the lives of innocent people by treating those who commit horrific crimes like they have some sort of disease and are innocent of blame.

[mikema63]

terminally criminal and can never be cured of this "disease"

Largely no, I don't believe that at all. Some people like this may have some type of underlying psychological problem like psychopathy where the connections between their amygdala and frontal cortez are weaker than normal or they have a smaller than normal amygdala.

We should create an enviroment where they can remain productive but are watched over.

are innocent of blame.

I largely don't believe in free will, which implies no one really chooses anything and are just a product of genetics and circumstance.

Many of these "sick" people have criminal records with 100+ convictions with things like rape kidnapping torture, can you risk the lives of innocent people by treating those who commit horrific crimes like they have some sort of disease and are innocent of blame.

This is largely an appeal to emotion and is an emotional response built into the human brain to excise members who are counter productive to local human societies. While I understand and share the impulse to remove people who have anti-social behaviors we now have the technology and ability to deal with them in a more refined and productive way.

[slybaldguy]

How do you feel about the US Military and unilateral intervention? What do you think of the Federal Reserve? How should government by funded?

[jessupjonesjnr87]

This is largely an appeal to emotion and is an emotional response built into the human brain to excise members who are counter productive to local human societies. While I understand and share the impulse to remove people who have anti-social behaviors we now have the technology and ability to deal with them in a more refined and productive way.

Forget about emotions, consider rape and torture to be a great economic and social burden on their victims, can we risk these productive citizens lives for the life of someone who will most likely be a drain on society for as long as they are alive?

[slybaldguy]

[quote="jessupjonesjnr87"Forget about emotions, consider rape and torture to be a great economic and social burden on their victims, can we risk these productive citizens lives for the life of someone who will most likely be a drain on society for as long as they are alive?[/quote]

We could always drug, and suppress the emotions of, the victims. We could convince the victims that they are the problem for not contributing to society. A rapist who contributes economically may be valued over a victim who is an economic burden.

[mikema63]

Actually I was thinking more of dealing with the rapists issues, not drugging the victim. And my goal isn't really their economic contribution, your straw manning my beliefs.

I do think that with early intervention we can prevent people from degenerating to the point where they do that sort of thing, people don't go from infant to rapist without a list of inbetween anti-social behaviors that can be corrected and dealt with. If it has gone so far that They can not be "fixed" then they should be segregated in a place where we can help them as much as possible and allow them as much freedom as possible while still protecting others.

US Military and unilateral intervention

against

Federal Reserve

Meh, its a tool. I don't think it is helping now, but it could in the right hands.

How should government by funded

Taxes, what else?

[slybaldguy]

Which taxes?

[mikema63]

Income tax largely, I would also like to see a carbon tax type system for every type of harmful emission, pegged to their relative harm.

I also am also good with property taxes though I think pegging school funding to local property taxes is retarded. A geoist land value tax would be good.

[AFAIK]

I view technology and scientific research as being the most important thing for raising the general standard of human life, while I feel it still helps in capitalism I think it is extremely uneven and is used largely to control people in the current environment.

Are there any reforms you'd like to make in regard to the research & development of technology?
What are your thoughts on open source, patents, increasing public funding to 100%?

[mikema63]

Besides higher funding? Not really.

What are your thoughts on open source, patents, increasing public funding to 100%?

Open source good except where it comes to pay to publish journals that are supposed to allow anyone to publish research, which has led to a lot of fake research getting published.

I'm against patents, I'm against the current system of property all together much less intellectual property.

How would I increase funding to 100%, I don't understand? I would focus most military funds to technology and scientific development though.

[slybaldguy]

Do you approve of profiling children to predict future criminals? Should there be a permanent DNA database of all citizens? Nuclear disarmament?

[Heisenberg]

I view violence and crime to be more of a disease in need of treatment than something that requires punishment. People need to be fixed not locked away where they can be a burden on society till the end of their lives.

I agree that people should not simply be locked away, because that doesn't serve any purpose. However, I have a couple of questions here:

(1) How do you define rehabilitation, and how can it be proven that someone has been rehabilitated?
(2) Why must we expend an awful lot of time and effort "reforming" violent criminals? You say later that you don't believe in free will, and that everyone is a product of their genetics and circumstance: this implies a "hard-wiring" of behaviour. Further, you advocate a complete removal of restriction on abortions, which implies that you don't necessarily believe that human life is inherently sacred (this isn't meant as an insult, because I am not opposed to abortion either).

[AFAIK]

How would I increase funding to 100%, I don't understand? :?: I would focus most military funds to technology and scientific development though.

Currently the state provides significant funding of science labs, universities, etc.
All R&D could be entirely funded by the state bypassing the private sector, patents, profits, etc.

-What do you think of using geo-engineering to mitigate climate change?
-What do you think about social engineering? Your comments about intervening and reforming anti-social behaviour suggests you would take a hands on approach to other issues.

[mikema63]

profiling children to predict future criminals

Identifying psychological disorders is important, otherwise it would be hard to profile children for behaviors they haven't developed yet. If they start displaying anti-social behaviors then we intervene.

Should there be a permanent DNA database of all citizens

It wouldn't cause any harm, and from my point of view we should do medical diagnostics on DNA at birth (and for everyone) as a routine thing anyway.

Nuclear disarmament

Partially, we should have a few ICBM's as a deterrent but there is no reason to have as many as we do and certainly not in foreign countries.

How do you define rehabilitation, and how can it be proven that someone has been rehabilitated?

Hard to say, they would have to be monitored regularly by professionals for the rest of their lives until we have a better understanding of the psychology. For really good specifics you would have to ask psychologists.

Why must we expend an awful lot of time and effort "reforming" violent criminals? You say later that you don't believe in free will, and that everyone is a product of their genetics and circumstance: this implies a "hard-wiring" of behaviour. Further, you advocate a complete removal of restriction on abortions, which implies that you don't necessarily believe that human life is inherently sacred (this isn't meant as an insult, because I am not opposed to abortion either).

My main goal is mainly a system that intervenes early before people become violent criminals, ideally in childhood. The reforming of current violent criminals would be more part of the transitioning between systems than the future norm. Prevention over treatment.

Simply killing off the worst section of the criminal population may be more efficient but I don't think it sets the right tone (I suppose you would call it) for the new program.

As for "hard-wiring" my belief that there isn't free will doesn't necessarily imply that we cannot change people. After all environment is a large part of people development and the brain is very plastic and malleable.

Currently the state provides significant funding of science labs, universities, etc.
All R&D could be entirely funded by the state bypassing the private sector, patents, profits, etc.

It's already at about 90% actually, even private R&D gets government grants.

What do you think of using geo-engineering to mitigate climate change?

We should consider it and certainly develop the science and technology to do so if necessary.

What do you think about social engineering?

We can rebuild him...we have the technology

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I do think that with early intervention we can prevent people from degenerating to the point where they do that sort of thing, people don't go from infant to rapist without a list of inbetween anti-social behaviors that can be corrected and dealt with. If it has gone so far that They can not be "fixed" then they should be segregated in a place where we can help them as much as possible and allow them as much freedom as possible while still protecting others.

Sex crimes often have nothing to do with economic or social backgrounds. Anyway how will you know when these people are fixed and how many chances can you give them. What if a triple murderer/rapist starts showing signs of reforming after 18months, should he be released back into the community after that short a time just because he seems cured. What about the victim and her family, are you going to tell them that their grief and anguish is just some chemical reaction in their brains that they need to get over?

[Heisenberg]

Hard to say, they would have to be monitored regularly by professionals for the rest of their lives until we have a better understanding of the psychology. For really good specifics you would have to ask psychologists.

This is where I have a problem. The traditional method of punishment is not perfect. However, if it is to be replaced, the system that replaces it should have clearly-defined, measurable aims. Something like "rehabilitation" is very hard to define, and putting too much faith in psychology (a very subjective discipline) doesn't meet those criteria.

My main goal is mainly a system that intervenes early before people become violent criminals, ideally in childhood. The reforming of current violent criminals would be more part of the transitioning between systems than the future norm. Prevention over treatment.

I accept this, but I think that everyone can agree that prevention is better than treatment. No one (well, no one reasonable at least) advocates letting people simply become criminals. The issue I have is that your approach is naive (although obviously well-intentioned): if this prevention fails, as any human system will, there must be consequences. What do you believe those consequences should be?

Simply killing off the worst section of the criminal population may be more efficient but I don't think it sets the right tone (I suppose you would call it) for the new program.

I don't think we should just kill people off, but I think it's important that there is a moral element to criminal justice. Crime mustn't be viewed in a detached manner - it can cause extreme physical, mental and emotional damage to victims (even so-called "petty crime" like vandalism and anti-social behaviour). If you consider that an emotional argument, I suppose you could say that there is a "social benefit" to effective punishment. Whether it's entirely "rational" or not, people want to see those who wrong them punished. This certainly is a hard-wired part of human nature, and it's idealistic to think this can be overridden.

[mikema63]

Ultimately, as I have said, people that continue to be untreatable should be segregated out of the general population.

I hesitate to outline a lot of specifics since it's not my area of specialty, I just wanted to give a general outline of my ideals.

are you going to tell them that their grief and anguish is just some chemical reaction in their brains that they need to get over?

No, why would I expect them to get over something like that? It being a chemical reaction and pattern of synapse activity doesn't make it any less meaningful.

No one (well, no one reasonable at least) advocates letting people simply become criminals.

The problem, as I see it, is that most early anti-social behavior is largely not treated properly and at the first crime these people are moved to a holding place where no focus is turned towards reforming them and they develop more serious criminal behaviors.