[| I, CWAS |]

It is not surprising that it is considered no big deal in America, a nation with a majority of the population adhering to collectivism. The number alone, not even looking at principal, is enough to call for the abolishment of it. But collectivists continue to support it.

From 1976-2006, as of JAN 2006, 123 exonerations
From 1976-2006, as of JAN 2006, 1005 executions.

How many innocent men/women did collectivists support murdering? I wonder how many people Sadaam had executed who didn't violate any of his arbitrary laws, and were innocent of all accusations.

[Phred]

Are you saying some of those 1005 who were executed were not guilty of the crime for which they were executed, or are you just assuming some of them were?

An average of 35 executions per year in a nation of 200 to almost 300 million people is not very high. I can guarantee you a lot more than 35 a year deserved to be executed.





Phred

[| I, CWAS |]

The death penalty is nothing more than murder, by another name. But that was not the point. How ironic that the death penalty is supposed to be enacted as punishment for those who took innocent life, yet give or take 1:8-10 is the ratio of innocent:guilty. From a pure statistical perspective the punishment is a contradiction if it is executing a single innocent individual. The 123 that got off are simply the fortunate ones, without a doubt numerous innocents were executed.

[Maxim Litvinov]

This figure (nothing to do with 'collectivism', but anyway) pales into insignificance against the millions of people that are *left to die* each year because of selfish individualism.

[| I, CWAS |]

This figure (nothing to do with 'collectivism', but anyway) pales into insignificance against the millions of people that are *left to die* each year because of selfish individualism.

Are we about to rehash this again? If you want to debate the drawbacks of psychological egoism, fine, but don't confuse it with individualism. As for "left to die" do you support the neo-conservatives and their quest to solve such a problem? And give an example of people "left to die" because of selfish individualism.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Collectivism is at its core a commitment to the collective - that is to people other than yourself. Individualism is a denial of any need to 'interfere' in the lives of others.

In the same way that state-sponsored killing (which I do not sanction) is such interference, deaths through people not having access to medical care, potable water, food and shelter is a case of non-interference.

Spending a million dollars to get the state to kill one person is not nearly so great a crime as not spending a million dollars and having a thousand people die.

[| I, CWAS |]

Collectivism is at its core a commitment to the collective - that is to people other than yourself. Individualism is a denial of any need to 'interfere' in the lives of others.

A. Collectivism is the abolishment of the invidual, as that being the state, of being, of being itself, vis-a-vis collectivism, it is not surprising to see collectivists shrug at the thought of the state murdering innocent individuals, if with the same net it gets other invidividuals deemed undesirable to the collective.

B. Once again Individualism does not hold that. You are referring to psychological egoism. Individualism does not condemn or condone interference. This is up to the individual to decide in line with their values.

In the same way that state-sponsored killing (which I do not sanction) is such interference, deaths through people not having access to medical care, potable water, food and shelter is a case of non-interference.

State sponsored killing of a prisoner is an active killing, which the minimalist state or any state has any business engaging in. In a taxless society it is not the states job to handle the functions of the market.

A. Your reasoning condones resource war, and possibly unlimited exploitation, if resources are limited and a neighbor has plentiful bounty, it would be just to invade and kill their citizens in order to obtain sustence for domestic citizens. This is no different than Ratzelian lebensraum.

Spending a million dollars to get the state to kill one person is not nearly so great a crime as not spending a million dollars and having a thousand people die.

How so?

[Phred]

I ask again --

Is your objection to the executions due to a belief that some who were executed were not guilty? If so, what leads you to believe some were not guilty?

If all who were executed were guilty, what's the problem?




Phred

[| I, CWAS |]

Are you saying some of those 1005 who were executed were not guilty of the crime for which they were executed, or are you just assuming some of them were?

Statistically, especially in cases without DNA testing, it is highly probable.

If all who were executed were guilty, what's the problem?

See above, I am actually trying to focus on that aspect of the debate, and not universal opposition to state sanctioned killing of its own citizens. I can't see any rational person claiming it is a perfect system. If the state is to engage in the dubious process of executing its own citizens, shouldn't it be without doubt, full proof?

[norman the carpet]

Any state (by that I mean any independent jurisdiction, it can be a country or a part of a country) that sanctions the death penalty has to accept that innocent - and I mean "innocent" in the sense that they simply didn't commit the crime, rather than "not guilty" which is a procedural judgement - people will be executed. Those states that simply can't deal with that situation have taken the death penalty off the books. Those states that accept it will happen from time to time have either kept it on the books or reinstated it. The statistics aren't important if you're the innocent one who is about to be executed.