Richard:

That's the point.  I'm NOT thinking about capitalism.  I'm thinking about a
scenario that could stare us in the face.  In the meantime I would hope that our
analysis might cover a danger right in front of noses without deciding that
capitalism will always be the cause, especially after we got rid of it!

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law





   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   > Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan. It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.
   >
   > Byron

   OK, that may be so, when "incarceration" for life in a vicious prison
environment is the only other option you are prepared to consider. But, hell,
let's stop thinking about capitalism for a moment and its punitive instituations
and get a little more relective and analytical, eh?
   >
   >
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Paddy Shannon
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>
   >
   > > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > > for consideration.
   >
   > Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:
   >
   > > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   > long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   > social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   > (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   > or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   > the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.
   >
   > I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   > supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   > reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   > your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   > cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.
   >
   > Paddy
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Richard:

I don't disagree on your predictions but my example was actually about
sociopaths--by definition those that have no guilt about what they do.  There is
a school of psychology that holds that many psychological diagnoses are merely
reflections of what society forces an individual.  Serial killing may be
"normal" to some, but society still has to protect itself against these "normal"
people.

So far nobody has found a biochemical cause for sociopathy, but even if
possible, random changes in individuals still bring us back to answering our
detractors.  To them we sound too utopian.  My example was predicated on
handling otherwise normal sociopaths.

Byron


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:45 PM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   Hi Byron

   I didn't have "incarceration" in mind when I spoke of confinement. OK, it
might be easy to take it that way, but I assumed that by 'confinement' I would
be understood (given everything else that I have said) to mean just limited
access to society. Sorry, but it always suprises me how quick people are to
conceive of socialism in terms of their current ideas and experiences.

   "Incarceration" means imprisonment within a pretty vicious and degrading
institution, where individuals are constantly beset by a harsh regime,
meaningless labour, and meaningless and petty rules - the object of it all being
punishment. I have no doubt that many people in that situation for years on end
would rather die. But I'm with Marcos on this. I doubt whether socialist society
would respond to anti-social behaviour in a punitive way.

   Confinement, as I have said just means something which does not permit
unregulated freedom of access to general society. It might, for example, take
the form of something like a closed community within which people lead fairly
ordinary lives. It might permit normal social contact outside the community with
a minder of some kind. But confinement would just be the negative side of the
social respones - one designed to protect others.

   Wherever possible, I think a socialist society would also generate positive
ways of working socially with offenders, by engaging them in communal
situations, for instance, to work out the issues. There are a very few
already-existing models for this which might be adapted, like Maori Family
Therapy (my wife who was a university-based mental health professional with some
interest in criminality did some work in this area.)

   And as I think the relationship between society and the individual would not
be all one way in socialism, I can also imagine that, generally speaking,
engaging the individual would be a lot easier than it would be under capitalism.
(I'm not quite convinced that there are such things as "sociopaths" in a
biochemical sense, but I could be wrong.) In any case, the measures taken might
be quite various depending on the situation. If the purpose is not punishment,
then there is no requirement for uniform treatment in the interests of
'fairness'.

   Capitalism has not put a lot of effort into developing forms of communal
protection that don't also involve punishment, so its solutions to the problm of
criminal behaviour are pretty unimaginative. That means we don't have many
models or much in the way of experience that we can refer to at this point in
time. But that brings me to what I think is the crux of this matter and why I am
really quite reluctant to make detailed speculations about socialist
institutions.

   Paddy is exactly right on this, I think. Right now, we can come up with some
relatively realistic ideas (I'll stop short of 'plans') about what action we
could take to deal with perpetrators of anti-social acts in the first years of
the revolution. At that time we will be developing new institutions out of the
old; we will be working with limited resources; and we will still be the
possessors of a consciousness and set of ideas strongly formed (and limited) by
capitalism. We would have to deal with situations as best we could, with the
resources available and with whatever values we espoused at the time. I would
hope those values would already be fairly communitarian, but who knows.

   Once we move beyond that we are in uncharted territory - in a world peopled by
human beings whose concepts and ways of thinking that will be very alien to us,
and whose relationships will be formed and moulded in ways that we can only
guess at.

   Let's have this conversation again a hundred years after the revolution. We
might then have real points of practical disagreement to hammer out with our
fellows. :-)

   Cheers

   Richard

   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   >
   > Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
   > cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."
   >
   > Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.
So, in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume
that such randomnicity cannot affect the mind. I was hoping that Richard would
have come up with something other than an incarceration plan.
   >
   > I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with
a mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered. After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they would
rather choose death than this true life imprisonment. This means that indefinite
life imprisonment is more cruel than execution. My solution has nothing to do
with revenge.
   >
   > The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.
   >
   > Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan. It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.
   >
   > Byron
   >
   >
   >
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Paddy Shannon
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>
   >
   > > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > > for consideration.
   >
   > Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:
   >
   > > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   > long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   > social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   > (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   > or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   > the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.
   >
   > I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   > supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   > reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   > your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   > cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.
   >
   > Paddy
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bingo???

Byron

I think you need to clarify your ideas on this.  If you were trying to convince
me of the need for socialism, I would be thoroughly confused by now.

First you tell me that in socialism we would murder those who commit serious
anti-social beahviour for the pragmatic purpose of saving on resurces (very
merciful - and judicious!)

Then you tell me that we would do it as part of a eugenicist programme to clean
up the human gene pool (doesn't sound like a very consensual thing to me!).

Now you say that we would kill those members of society as an act of mercy to
save them from what else we would do to them - i.e. make their life so hellish
they would want to kill themselves anyway, and by the way, this is not an act of
revenge.

I don't buy it!   :-)

Murdering murderers apart though, I'd agree on the non-vengeful nature of the
socialist response.  I'm also, step-by-step coming round to Paddy's argument
that we should be concentrating on developing a programme for the immediate
post-revolutionary period, for which we can do some real practical planning. 
I'm not too clear on your view on this, Byron, but I get the impression that you
are in agreement, too.

Cheers

Richard

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Paddy:
>
> Biingo!
>
> Byron
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paddy Shannon
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:05 PM
>   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>
>
>   > The recipients of our message immediately conjure up socialists as being
>   > members of an unrealistic set of souls that believe that socialism will
>   > solve each and every complaint that man has ever voiced--especially when
>   > we try to explain the nature of "crime" under capitalism. To them we come
>   > across as "Jehovah's Witnesses" of a new society. Recall that these
>   > religionists proclaim that in God's kingdom everything will "be in
>   > harmony." The lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. despite the long
>   > canine teeth designed to kill ruminants of most varieties. I think we
>   > have to come to grips that some individuals, despite greatly improved
>   > conditions, will still be problem people. For this occasion I don't
>   > hesitate to discuss what we might do with normal people that might do
>   > horrible things. I always let them know, however, that revenge should
>   > never be in the equation.
>
>   Well now, there I quite agree with you and in fact have said the same thing.
>   If we sound too vague and unrealistic then of course we'll be called
>   utopian. But I think you're kicking at an open door, at least where we're
>   concerned. What I think some socialists don't do is make a clear distinction
>   between what would *have* to happen rightaway in socialism, and what *might*
>   happen in the dim and distant future. Thus, vague speculation can appear to
>   be our answer for everything, whereas in fact socialists need to present the
>   common sense solutions first.
>
>   Paddy
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Paddy:

Biingo!

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:05 PM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > The recipients of our message immediately conjure up socialists as being
   > members of an unrealistic set of souls that believe that socialism will
   > solve each and every complaint that man has ever voiced--especially when
   > we try to explain the nature of "crime" under capitalism. To them we come
   > across as "Jehovah's Witnesses" of a new society. Recall that these
   > religionists proclaim that in God's kingdom everything will "be in
   > harmony." The lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. despite the long
   > canine teeth designed to kill ruminants of most varieties. I think we
   > have to come to grips that some individuals, despite greatly improved
   > conditions, will still be problem people. For this occasion I don't
   > hesitate to discuss what we might do with normal people that might do
   > horrible things. I always let them know, however, that revenge should
   > never be in the equation.

   Well now, there I quite agree with you and in fact have said the same thing.
   If we sound too vague and unrealistic then of course we'll be called
   utopian. But I think you're kicking at an open door, at least where we're
   concerned. What I think some socialists don't do is make a clear distinction
   between what would *have* to happen rightaway in socialism, and what *might*
   happen in the dim and distant future. Thus, vague speculation can appear to
   be our answer for everything, whereas in fact socialists need to present the
   common sense solutions first.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
  > Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.
>
> Byron

OK, that may be so, when "incarceration" for life in a vicious prison
environment is the only other option you are prepared to consider.  But, hell,
let's stop thinking about capitalism for a moment and its punitive instituations
and get a little more relective and analytical, eh?
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paddy Shannon
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
>   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>
>
>   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
>   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
>   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
>   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
>   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
>   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
>   > for consideration.
>
>   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:
>
>   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
>   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
>   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
>   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
>   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
>   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.
>
>   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
>   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
>   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
>   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
>   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.
>
>   Paddy
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi Byron

I didn't have "incarceration" in mind when I spoke of confinement.  OK, it might
be easy to take it that way, but I assumed that by 'confinement' I would be
understood (given everything else that I have said) to mean just limited access
to society.  Sorry, but it always suprises me how quick people are to conceive
of socialism in terms of their current ideas and experiences.

"Incarceration" means imprisonment within a pretty vicious and degrading
institution, where individuals are constantly beset by a harsh regime,
meaningless labour, and meaningless and petty rules - the object of it all being
punishment. I have no doubt that many people in that situation for years on end
would rather die.  But I'm with Marcos on this.  I doubt whether socialist
society would respond to anti-social behaviour in a punitive way.

Confinement, as I have said just means something which does not permit
unregulated freedom of access to general society.  It might, for example, take
the form of something like a closed community within which people lead fairly
ordinary lives. It might permit normal social contact outside the community with
a minder of some kind. But confinement would just be the negative side of the
social respones - one designed to protect others.

Wherever possible, I think a socialist society would also generate positive ways
of working socially with offenders, by engaging them in communal situations, for
instance, to work out the issues.  There are a very few already-existing models
for this which might be adapted, like Maori Family Therapy (my wife who was a
university-based mental health professional with some interest in criminality
did some work in this area.)

And as I think the relationship between society and the individual would not be
all one way in socialism, I can also imagine that, generally speaking, engaging
the individual would be a lot easier than it would be under capitalism. (I'm not
quite convinced that there are such things as "sociopaths" in a biochemical
sense, but I could be wrong.)  In any case, the measures taken might be quite
various  depending on the situation.  If the purpose is not punishment, then
there is no requirement for uniform treatment in the interests of 'fairness'.

Capitalism has not put a lot of effort into developing forms of communal
protection that don't also involve punishment, so its solutions to the problm of
criminal behaviour are pretty unimaginative.  That means we don't have many
models or much in the way of experience that we can refer to at this point in
time.  But that brings me to what I think is the crux of this matter and why I
am really quite reluctant to make  detailed speculations about socialist
institutions.

Paddy is exactly right on this, I think.  Right now, we can come up with some
relatively realistic ideas (I'll stop short of 'plans') about what action we
could take to deal with perpetrators of anti-social acts in the first years of
the revolution.  At that time we will be developing new institutions out of the
old; we will be working with limited resources; and we will still be the
possessors of a consciousness and set of ideas strongly formed (and limited) by
capitalism. We would have to deal with situations as best we could, with the
resources available and with whatever values we espoused at the time.  I would
hope those values would already be fairly communitarian, but who knows.

Once we move beyond that we are in uncharted territory - in a world peopled by
human beings whose concepts and ways of thinking that will be very alien to us,
and whose relationships will be formed and moulded in ways that we can only
guess at.

Let's have this conversation again a hundred years after the revolution.  We
might then have real points of practical disagreement to hammer out with our
fellows.  :-)

Cheers

Richard

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
> cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."
>
> Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.
>
> I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.
>
> The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.
>
> Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.
>
> Byron
>
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Paddy Shannon
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
>   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>
>
>   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
>   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
>   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
>   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
>   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
>   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
>   > for consideration.
>
>   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:
>
>   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
>   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
>   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
>   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
>   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
>   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.
>
>   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
>   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
>   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
>   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
>   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.
>
>   Paddy
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Paddy wrote:

What I think some socialists don't do is make a clear distinction
between what would *have* to happen right away in socialism, and what
*might*
happen in the dim and distant future. Thus, vague speculation can appear to
be our answer for everything, whereas in fact socialists need to present the

common sense solutions first


Marcos: This is the central idea of our debate, most of the time we are
talking about what will take place within a full developed
socialist-communist  society, we never talk about what will take place at
the beginning of a socialist society, but, we  do not even know what is
going to take at the beginning or during the development, we are just
guessing, or speculating. The only thing  that we know for certain  is that
we are not going to have any hanging like the cowboys, death penalty,
squads for shooting, or mob killing, or revenges,  we are going to be living
in a more humane society, with social problems, and some anti-social
behaviors,  because, no society can be perfect, but, the solution to the
problems are going to be done by the majority of the human being, and
Psychology and Psychiatry are going to be used for the benefits of peoples
with mental disorders, and the rehabilitation is going to be more
effective.  I rest my case

2009/11/10 Paddy Shannon <paddyjoeshannon@...>

>
>
> From: "Byron" <bddanel@... <bddanel%40q.com>>
>
> > The recipients of our message immediately conjure up socialists as being
> > members of an unrealistic set of souls that believe that socialism will
> > solve each and every complaint that man has ever voiced--especially when
> > we try to explain the nature of "crime" under capitalism. To them we come
>
> > across as "Jehovah's Witnesses" of a new society. Recall that these
> > religionists proclaim that in God's kingdom everything will "be in
> > harmony." The lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. despite the long
> > canine teeth designed to kill ruminants of most varieties. I think we
> > have to come to grips that some individuals, despite greatly improved
> > conditions, will still be problem people. For this occasion I don't
> > hesitate to discuss what we might do with normal people that might do
> > horrible things. I always let them know, however, that revenge should
> > never be in the equation.
>
> Well now, there I quite agree with you and in fact have said the same
> thing.
> If we sound too vague and unrealistic then of course we'll be called
> utopian. But I think you're kicking at an open door, at least where we're
> concerned. What I think some socialists don't do is make a clear
> distinction
> between what would *have* to happen rightaway in socialism, and what
> *might*
> happen in the dim and distant future. Thus, vague speculation can appear to
>
> be our answer for everything, whereas in fact socialists need to present
> the
> common sense solutions first.
>
> Paddy
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

> The recipients of our message immediately conjure up socialists as being
> members of an unrealistic set of souls that believe that socialism will
> solve each and every complaint that man has ever voiced--especially when
> we try to explain the nature of "crime" under capitalism.  To them we come
> across as "Jehovah's Witnesses" of a new society.  Recall that these
> religionists proclaim that in God's kingdom everything will "be in
> harmony."  The lion will lie down with the lamb, etc. despite the long
> canine teeth designed to kill ruminants of most varieties.  I think we
> have to come to grips that some individuals, despite greatly improved
> conditions, will still be problem people.  For this occasion I don't
> hesitate to discuss what we might do with normal people that might do
> horrible things.  I always let them know, however, that revenge should
> never be in the equation.


Well now, there I quite agree with you and in fact have said the same thing.
If we sound too vague and unrealistic then of course we'll be called
utopian. But I think you're kicking at an open door, at least where we're
concerned. What I think some socialists don't do is make a clear distinction
between what would *have* to happen rightaway in socialism, and what *might*
happen in the dim and distant future. Thus, vague speculation can appear to
be our answer for everything, whereas in fact socialists need to present the
common sense solutions first.

Paddy

Paddy:

The effects of randomnicity in no way affects revolutionary politics. 
Revolutionary politics is the result of consensus of a group while random
changes in the brain only affects individuals.  But lets get back to what I
consider the main point of discussion.  I can't remember when I haven't been
confronted by charges of being a utopian.  Certainly not from everyone, but many
throw up their hands and proclaim that I am a dreamer.  Sound familiar?

The recipients of our message immediately conjure up socialists as being members
of an unrealistic set of souls that believe that socialism will solve each and
every complaint that man has ever voiced--especially when we try to explain the
nature of "crime" under capitalism.  To them we come across as "Jehovah's
Witnesses" of a new society.  Recall that these religionists proclaim that in
God's kingdom everything will "be in harmony."  The lion will lie down with the
lamb, etc. despite the long canine teeth designed to kill ruminants of most
varieties.  I think we have to come to grips that some individuals, despite
greatly improved conditions, will still be problem people.  For this occasion I
don't hesitate to discuss what we might do with normal people that might do
horrible things.  I always let them know, however, that revenge should never be
in the equation.

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.
   > So, in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to
   > assume that such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.

   I can't believe you're seriously arguing this, Byron! Society is not random
   and nothing happens without a reason. To deny this is to give up on
   revolutionary politics and surrender the world to chaos, mystery and
   fatalism.

   > I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers
   > with a mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole
   > can be considered. After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced
   > say they would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment. This
   > means that indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution. My
   > solution has nothing to do with revenge.

   Who do they say this to, prison reformers? Social workers? Journalists? The
   parole board? I think it's highly likely that they merely say this in the
   hope of getting early compassionate parole. If they wanted to choose death
   I'm sure they would have the ingenuity to find a way, callous as that no
   doubt sounds. In any case, you are not going to convince many people that
   death is preferable to all forms of restricted living, or that execution is
   somehow the soft option. I know which I'd choose, any day!

   > Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan. It also
   > relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive,
   > only to actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might
   > hope for.

   Of course you might be right, and society will agree with you. I don't, and
   I don't think society will go that way.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

> Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.
> So, in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to
> assume that such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.

I can't believe you're seriously arguing this, Byron! Society is not random
and nothing happens without a reason. To deny this is to give up on
revolutionary politics and surrender the world to chaos, mystery and
fatalism.

> I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers
> with a mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole
> can be considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced
> say they would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This
> means that indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My
> solution has nothing to do with revenge.

Who do they say this to, prison reformers? Social workers? Journalists? The
parole board? I think it's highly likely that they merely say this in the
hope of getting early compassionate parole. If they wanted to choose death
I'm sure they would have the ingenuity to find a way, callous as that no
doubt sounds. In any case, you are not going to convince many people that
death is preferable to all forms of restricted living, or that execution is
somehow the soft option. I know which I'd choose, any day!

> Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
> relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive,
> only to actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might
> hope for.

Of course you might be right, and society will agree with you. I don't, and
I don't think society will go that way.

Paddy

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html] The psychologists that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded
that it leaves these individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the
original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exists). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:"Moreover I dispute your premise that there are such things as random,
inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics."

Things that exist in quantum mechanics can affect molecules in the brain.  So,
in effect, random things can and do occur and there is no reason to assume that
such randomnicity cannot affect the mind.  I was hoping that Richard would have
come up with something other than an incarceration plan.

I live in the State of Minnesota that sentences first degree murderers with a
mandatory 40 year sentence, i. e., 40 years even before any parole can be
considered.  After about 20 to 30 years most of those so sentenced say they
would rather choose death than this true life imprisonment.  This means that
indefinite life imprisonment is more cruel than execution.  My solution has
nothing to do with revenge.

The Washington Post has an article today about revenge--people going to
executions hoping to get some type of hand-wringing joy watching someone being
executed. [See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/09/AR2009110902794.\
html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter] The psychologists
that have studied these revenge lovers have concluded that it leaves these
individuals just as disturbed, if not more so, than the original murder.

Thus, my suggestion is more humane than any incarceration plan.  It also
relieves society of any use of resources to keep such individuals alive, only to
actually make them suffer, despite what the revenge lovers might hope for.

Byron



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Paddy Shannon
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM
   Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

   > I asked my question before you "made all your points." And no, I am not
   > being disingenuous. Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
   > killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities." I
   > conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
   > essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable. If mine is
   > unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
   > for consideration.

   Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
   long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
   social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
   (where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
   or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
   the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
   supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
   reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
   your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
   cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

   Paddy





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

From: "Byron" <bddanel@...>

> I asked my question before you "made all your points."  And no, I am not
> being disingenuous.  Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial
> killer (who has had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities."  I
> conclude that you have no possible plan that can be articulated--in
> essence no plan, but you consider mine unacceptable.  If mine is
> unacceptable to you then the least you can do is to unveil a possible one
> for consideration.

Geez, Byron, you're hard to please! Richard's given you his options already:

   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment
(where it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above,
or anything else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or
the community, while preserving a communitarian ethos.

I can't see what's wrong with that. I can't see any of us in the WSM
supporting the idea of judicial murder as you propose it, if for no other
reason than the possibility of making a ghastly mistake. Moreover I dispute
your premise that there are such things as random, inexplicable and
cause-less actions. They don't exist, except in quantum mechanics.

Paddy

Richard:

I asked my question before you "made all your points."  And no, I am not being
disingenuous.  Your answer to handling the hypothetical serial killer (who has
had a normal upbringing) is a "range of possibilities."  I conclude that you
have no possible plan that can be articulated--in essence no plan, but you
consider mine unacceptable.  If mine is unacceptable to you then the least you
can do is to unveil a possible one for consideration.

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 5:55 PM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   > I asked what you would do before. Can you just give a short answer? It
shouldn't be that hard!

   Probably not Byron! I'm a local government officer. It goes against the grain!

   If you can't be bothered to work through what I have written, that is up to
you. I've made all the points I want to make several times over. I am not going
to make them again.

   Cheers

   Richard

   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   >
   > Richard:
   >

   >
   > Byron
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Richard
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:48 PM
   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
   > >
   >
   > Hi Byron
   >
   > I'm tempted to think you are being deliberately disingenuous here. I've
responded to this issue. Try responding to mine.
   >
   > However, as you appear to be determined to set the rules for the debate,
let's spell it out for you. It is not a matter of what I would do (which is
entirely speculative), it is a matter of considering the range of possibilities
open to socialist society and how it might respond to them.
   >
   > The possibilities range, in a decontextualised sense, all the way from
anarchic individualism where there is no collective social response (as happens
in some hunter-gatherer societies) to your social Darwinian solution:
cold-blooded communal murder for the purpose of social engineering or otherwise.
   >
   > If you ask me what I think the likelihoods are that socialist society would
adopt this possibility or that, then I would think it unlikely that it would
choose either of these extremes. I think the individualistic (anarchic) solution
is unlikely because communal production would produce a strong communal ethos
and one of mutual dependency. There would also be no options for ostracism or
self-exile - options often taken in small-scale hunter-gatherer societies. I
think socialism would be likely to rule out communal murder for reasons I have
already given you.
   >
   > That leaves everything else in between.
   >
   > So what is there? Well, uou can work out the possibilities, as easily as I
can: it isn't rocket science. I've also stated my guess that socialist society
would apply a simple principle: it would do whatever it could to provide
measures which would protect the community and the individual. However, since
you don't seem satisfied with principles, I'll oblige with a few possible
concrete proposals. (Bear in mind though that I think this is a bit of a waste
of time, since I'm just dredging around for ideas, and I am aware that socialist
society may well come up with something quite different.)
   >
   > The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment (where
it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above, or anything
else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or the community,
while preserving a communitarian ethos.
   >
   > What socialist society would actually decide, might well depend on the
assessed nature of the threat, existing technological methods of containment,
and the availability of pharmaceutical or other remedies.
   >
   > Personally, given my view of what socialism might look like, I imagine that
there might also be an possibility for the perpetrator, where appropriate, to
have a say in deciding among the options presented. This is, of course, just
another speculation but it stems, on the one hand, from the idea that socialist
social institutions may adopt the role of managing anti-social behaviour (rather
than punishing the perpetrator) and on the other, from the idea that in a
socialist society, a perpetrator of anti-social acts might well possess a strong
communal ethos derived from their environment and be struggling to come to terms
with their own behaviour(though they might not, if, for example, sociopathy is a
real condition and not a medical fiction).
   >
   > Cheers
   >
   > Richard
   >
   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > >
   > > Richard:
   > >
   > > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
   >
   > > Byron
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Richard
   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Hi Byron
   > >
   > > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
   > >
   > > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting
at windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society
free of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
   > >
   > > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
   > >
   > > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion
has arisen.
   > >
   > > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
   > >
   > > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
   > >
   > > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator
for his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this
kind of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
   > >
   > > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
   > >
   > > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some
behaviour is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
   > >
   > > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so
far, you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
   > >
   > > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
   > >
   > > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
   > >
   > > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus
primarily on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the
individual person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is
absolutely necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually
evolve are of course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of
transgressors, would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact,
unnecessary.
   > >
   > > Cheers
   > >
   > > Richard
   > >
   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Richard:
   > > >
   > > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged
that socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is
that we will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't
anticipate randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would
you handle a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry
enough for him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you
tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you
promise that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
   > > >
   > > > Byron
   > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > From: Richard
   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
   > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Hi Byron
   > > >
   > > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour
- that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as
I said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
   > > >
   > > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
   > > >
   > > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
   > > >
   > > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
   > > >
   > > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
   > > >
   > > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
   > > >
   > > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
   > > >
   > > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
   > > >
   > > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
   > > >
   > > > Maybe I am just naive.
   > > >
   > > > Cheers
   > > >
   > > > Richard
   > > >
   > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > > >
   > > > > Richard:
   > > > >
   > > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
   > > > >
   > > > > Byron
   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > From: Richard
   > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
   > > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Hi Byron
   > > > >
   > > > > Ouch!
   > > > >
   > > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
   > > > >
   > > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
   > > > >
   > > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
   > > > >
   > > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Hi Judith:
   > > > > >
   > > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great
improvement in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people
that will be several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some
serial killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing
yet engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them
tragedies like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive.
Certainly the inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be
next to non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To
protect society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's
resources to keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in
order here.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Byron
   > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
   > > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
   > > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Hi Marcos
   > > > > >
   > > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
   > > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens
rea ),
   > > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
   > > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
   > > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
   > > > > > mean that they are correct,
   > > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
   > > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
   > > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
   > > > > > ideology.
   > > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
   > > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
   > > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
   > > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
   > > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
   > > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
   > > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
   > > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
   > > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
   > > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
   > > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for
people deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody.
However you may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning
Point has tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
   > > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that
may well still exist with socialism or do we not?
   > > > > > Best
   > > > > > Jude
   > > > > >
   > > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
   > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
   > > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
   > > > > > > what
   > > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
   > > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
   > > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
   > > > > > > custody
   > > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
   > > > > > > PC,
   > > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
   > > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
   > > > > > > what
   > > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
   > > > > > > > fantasies...
   > > > > > > >
   > > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
   > > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
   > > > > > > ===========
   > > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
   > > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant
has
   > > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them
to
   > > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough,
or
   > > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
   > > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
   > > > > > > desired effect.
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Julian Vein
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
   > > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > http://www.eset.com
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > > >
   > > > > > ------------------------------------
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > > > > >
   > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Apologies, John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcos" <UPRalmamater@...>
To: <WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 1:26 PM
Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law


>I do not think that a socialist society is going to be based on punishment.
> Serial killers also have mentasl and psychiatric problems, and a new
> society
> will try to rehabilitate human beings, even more, we do not know if some
> capitalists are going to take sides with the cause of the working class,
> are
> we going to place them in jail, or are we going to shoot them, as I was
> told
> by a leftist, that I am going to be shot because I do not agree with the
> ideas of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez? , Are we going to act
> similar to the leftists ? I have dealt with many criminals of all kinds in
> the past, and all of them needed psychological and psychiatric treatments.
> 2009/11/9 groucoeng <groucoeng@...>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Byron"
>> <bddanel@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Richard:
>> >
>> > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer
>> > my
>> query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have
>> proposed?
>> >
>> > Byron
>>
>> Hi Byron
>> The answer is simple, put he/she out of harms way in a secure psychiatric
>> hospital and treat he/she humanely.
>>
>> What do you recommend?
>>
>> Danny WSM
>>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Richard
>> > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
>> > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Byron
>> >
>> > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in
>> >society? Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh
>> > >please
>> tell me you won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go.
>> Run
>> along now!" Get real.
>> >
>> > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are
>> > tilting
>> at windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a
>> society
>> free of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society
>> as
>> "criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
>> >
>> > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you
>> have been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder,
>> social
>> darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very
>> black and white perception of what the possible responses available to a
>> socialist society might be.
>> >
>> > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some
>> > confusion
>> has arisen.
>> >
>> > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what
>> we collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social
>> behaviour is wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from
>> our
>> collective gene pool, we, as a species, have to take collective
>> responsibility for it. Allowing a Stalin or Hitler to take control,
>> implies
>> the denial of collective responsibility and is the very opposite of what
>> I
>> said. (Read on to the end of my last-but--one-post.)
>> >
>> > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
>> doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour
>> (i.e.
>> "accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary.
>> Unless
>> socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it
>> will
>> have to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the
>> only known way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is
>> something that it will have to consider.
>> >
>> > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator
>> for his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in
>> this kind of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly
>> anti-social
>> and unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support
>> for
>> social murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are
>> very
>> widely distributed in the population and that in that case, we are,
>> indeed,
>> buggered!)
>> >
>> > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really
>> > an
>> issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like
>> this
>> so roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
>> >
>> > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some
>> behaviour is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his
>> behaviour is inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment
>> vitally influences or even determines behaviour, then there too we have
>> to
>> take into consideration collective, social factors.
>> >
>> > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so
>> far, you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social
>> responsibility
>> altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the
>> individual is wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of
>> society. This is a very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship
>> familiar enough to us through the capitalist legal system and it is
>> naturally a fully coercive one. But the relationship between the
>> individual
>> and society within socialism will surely not be the same as the
>> relationship
>> between the individual and the law/state within capitalism, since it will
>> not be built upon the same power relationships. It will not be built upon
>> the class conflict.
>> >
>> > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
>> within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation.
>> Within
>> capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the
>> interests
>> of national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the
>> capitalist class - as we understand.
>> >
>> > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
>> interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the
>> will
>> and collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the
>> interests of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is
>> made up of freely associating human beings (the principle of
>> voluntarism),
>> it also has a responsibility to serve the interests of the individual
>> within
>> the community *as far as possible*. I take it this means that the
>> community
>> would have no collective interest in constraining the individual in his
>> or
>> her own person any further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging
>> other individuals or the community.
>> >
>> > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus
>> primarily on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm
>> the
>> individual person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this
>> is
>> absolutely necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will
>> actually evolve are of course, beyond speculation, but to my mind,
>> communal
>> murder of transgressors, would seem to me to be ludicrously
>> inappropriate,
>> and in fact, unnecessary.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> >
>> > Richard
>> >
>> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Byron"
>> <bddanel@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Richard:
>> > >
>> > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged
>> that socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point
>> is
>> that we will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't
>> anticipate randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just
>> how
>> would you handle a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you
>> feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in society? Upon his
>> release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't
>> do
>> that again! If you promise that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get
>> real.
>> > >
>> > > Byron
>> > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > From: Richard
>> > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
>> > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Hi Byron
>> > >
>> > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social
>> > > behaviour
>> - that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense,
>> unless,
>> as I said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks
>> on
>> cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
>> > >
>> > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann:
>> > > we
>> should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social
>> behaviour,
>> not because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they
>> can
>> pass on those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social
>> behaviour)
>> to future generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to
>> me. Sounds like George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive
>> strike! Sounds like Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect
>> society.
>> > >
>> > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
>> anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's
>> take
>> this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it
>> through to its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the
>> group
>> of genes that leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we
>> then round up and kill people who carry them before they have committed
>> any
>> murderous acts. Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you
>> have
>> avoided) this would be the logical conclusion.
>> > >
>> > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by
>> some people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from
>> your
>> existing arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed
>> to
>> commit anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them,
>> too,
>> in the interests of future generations.
>> > >
>> > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To
>> the 'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
>> > >
>> > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that
>> it would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little
>> social
>> blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a
>> more
>> alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for
>> future generations. (It's a joke!)
>> > >
>> > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
>> > >
>> > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
>> > >
>> > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
>> would give way to the administration of things?
>> > >
>> > > Maybe I am just naive.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers
>> > >
>> > > Richard
>> > >
>> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Richard:
>> > > >
>> > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social
>> behavior in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it.
>> Should
>> we not then collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants'
>> behavior, or should we protect society by eliminating them from the gene
>> pool? But please recall that I also later stated that in the future we
>> may
>> be able to correct such dangerous mental aberrations.
>> > > >
>> > > > Byron
>> > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > From: Richard
>> > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
>> > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Hi Byron
>> > > >
>> > > > Ouch!
>> > > >
>> > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might
>> > > > sometimes
>> have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which
>> some
>> of us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour
>> as
>> part of what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea
>> that may be to us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you
>> perjoratively
>> describe them, but human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool
>> as
>> the rest of us. If we carry a selection of genes that predispose us to
>> violence, as your argument implies, then we have a responsibility towards
>> those that carry them (unless of course you take a non-moral, social
>> Darwinist view and want to help selection along).
>> > > >
>> > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of
>> > > > the
>> community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would
>> place our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
>> > > >
>> > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of
>> human genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But,
>> whichever way, the argument is the same.
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
>> "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi Judith:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great
>> improvement in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of
>> people
>> that will be several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real
>> sense.
>> Some serial killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently
>> normal
>> upbringing yet engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those
>> around them tragedies like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such
>> creatures alive. Certainly the inclination for a "religious cleansing" of
>> such people would be next to non-existent under socialism where
>> superstition
>> would be minimized. To protect society and eliminate the annoyance of
>> draining any of society's resources to keep such miscreants alive, I
>> believe
>> that execution would be in order here.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Byron
>> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>> > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
>> > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
>> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
>> > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Hi Marcos
>> > > > >
>> > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
>> > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens
>> rea ),
>> > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not
>> > > > > think
>> that in
>> > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
>> brutality
>> > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures,
>> > > > > it
>> does not
>> > > > > mean that they are correct,
>> > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
>> individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
>> certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime
>> and
>> the reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised
>> by
>> perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the
>> realms of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it
>> means
>> 'love for child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they
>> take
>> and the affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual
>> crimes
>> against women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender
>> more
>> respect for women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in
>> relation
>> to the male. This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of
>> 'passion'
>> i.e. ownership of an individual.
>> > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
>> > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
>> capitalist
>> > > > > ideology.
>> > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
>> Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per
>> usual
>> the voice of the people was not listened to.
>> > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
>> > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and
>> > > > > several
>> were
>> > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
>> > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed
>> by the sexual
>> > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
>> homosexuals.
>> > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
>> child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
>> particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young
>> people where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their
>> frustration
>> or suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely
>> repentent
>> although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I
>> include
>> sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit
>> countries where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available
>> to
>> those that can pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about
>> abuse,
>> market value and dire poverty.
>> > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples
>> > > > > become
>> worst
>> > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside
>> > > > > the
>> prisons
>> > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on
>> > > > > the
>> streets
>> > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for
>> people deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated
>> anybody.
>> However you may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called
>> Turning Point has tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain
>> attempt to run it 'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this
>> as
>> I've been asked to comment.
>> > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that
>> may well still exist with socialism or do we not?
>> > > > > Best
>> > > > > Jude
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
>> > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
>> consider
>> > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
>> prison
>> > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill
>> and torture
>> > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
>> protective
>> > > > > > custody
>> > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
>> prison... in
>> > > > > > PC,
>> > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
>> protective
>> > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will
>> > > > > > > get
>> exactly
>> > > > > > what
>> > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to
>> > > > > > > fulfill
>> their
>> > > > > > > fantasies...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would
>> > > > > > > quickly
>> and
>> > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
>> > > > > > ===========
>> > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked
>> > > > > > the
>> house
>> > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the
>> > > > > > occupant
>> has
>> > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive
>> > > > > > them
>> to
>> > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful
>> > > > > > enough,
>> or
>> > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
>> them,
>> > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not
>> > > > > > have
>> the
>> > > > > > desired effect.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Julian Vein
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of
>> > > > > > virus
>> signature
>> > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > http://www.eset.com
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I asked what you would do before.  Can you just give a short answer?  It
shouldn't be that hard!

Probably not Byron!  I'm a local government officer.  It goes against the grain!

If you can't be bothered to work through what I have written, that is up to you.
I've made all the points I want to make several times over.  I am not going to
make them again.

Cheers

Richard

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Richard:
>

>
> Byron
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:48 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
>   >
>
>   Hi Byron
>
>   I'm tempted to think you are being deliberately disingenuous here. I've
responded to this issue. Try responding to mine.
>
>   However, as you appear to be determined to set the rules for the debate,
let's spell it out for you. It is not a matter of what I would do (which is
entirely speculative), it is a matter of considering the range of possibilities
open to socialist society and how it might respond to them.
>
>   The possibilities range, in a decontextualised sense, all the way from
anarchic individualism where there is no collective social response (as happens
in some hunter-gatherer societies) to your social Darwinian solution:
cold-blooded communal murder for the purpose of social engineering or otherwise.
>
>   If you ask me what I think the likelihoods are that socialist society would
adopt this possibility or that, then I would think it unlikely that it would
choose either of these extremes. I think the individualistic (anarchic) solution
is unlikely because communal production would produce a strong communal ethos
and one of mutual dependency. There would also be no options for ostracism or
self-exile - options often taken in small-scale hunter-gatherer societies. I
think socialism would be likely to rule out communal murder for reasons I have
already given you.
>
>   That leaves everything else in between.
>
>   So what is there? Well, uou can work out the possibilities, as easily as I
can: it isn't rocket science. I've also stated my guess that socialist society
would apply a simple principle: it would do whatever it could to provide
measures which would protect the community and the individual. However, since
you don't seem satisfied with principles, I'll oblige with a few possible
concrete proposals. (Bear in mind though that I think this is a bit of a waste
of time, since I'm just dredging around for ideas, and I am aware that socialist
society may well come up with something quite different.)
>
>   The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment (where
it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above, or anything
else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or the community,
while preserving a communitarian ethos.
>
>   What socialist society would actually decide, might well depend on the
assessed nature of the threat, existing technological methods of containment,
and the availability of pharmaceutical or other remedies.
>
>   Personally, given my view of what socialism might look like, I imagine that
there might also be an possibility for the perpetrator, where appropriate, to
have a say in deciding among the options presented. This is, of course, just
another speculation but it stems, on the one hand, from the idea that socialist
social institutions may adopt the role of managing anti-social behaviour (rather
than punishing the perpetrator) and on the other, from the idea that in a
socialist society, a perpetrator of anti-social acts might well possess a strong
communal ethos derived from their environment and be struggling to come to terms
with their own behaviour(though they might not, if, for example, sociopathy is a
real condition and not a medical fiction).
>
>   Cheers
>
>   Richard
>
>   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Richard:
>   >
>   > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
>
>   > Byron
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Richard
>   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
>   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Byron
>   >
>   > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
>   >
>   > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting
at windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society
free of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
>   >
>   > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
>   >
>   > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion
has arisen.
>   >
>   > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
>   >
>   > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
>   >
>   > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator
for his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this
kind of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
>   >
>   > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
>   >
>   > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some
behaviour is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
>   >
>   > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so
far, you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
>   >
>   > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
>   >
>   > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
>   >
>   > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus
primarily on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the
individual person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is
absolutely necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually
evolve are of course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of
transgressors, would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact,
unnecessary.
>   >
>   > Cheers
>   >
>   > Richard
>   >
>   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Richard:
>   > >
>   > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged
that socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is
that we will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't
anticipate randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would
you handle a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry
enough for him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you
tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you
promise that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
>   > >
>   > > Byron
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: Richard
>   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
>   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Hi Byron
>   > >
>   > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour
- that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as
I said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
>   > >
>   > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
>   > >
>   > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
>   > >
>   > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
>   > >
>   > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
>   > >
>   > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
>   > >
>   > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
>   > >
>   > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
>   > >
>   > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
>   > >
>   > > Maybe I am just naive.
>   > >
>   > > Cheers
>   > >
>   > > Richard
>   > >
>   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Richard:
>   > > >
>   > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
>   > > >
>   > > > Byron
>   > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > From: Richard
>   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
>   > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Hi Byron
>   > > >
>   > > > Ouch!
>   > > >
>   > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
>   > > >
>   > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
>   > > >
>   > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Hi Judith:
>   > > > >
>   > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great
improvement in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people
that will be several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some
serial killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing
yet engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them
tragedies like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive.
Certainly the inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be
next to non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To
protect society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's
resources to keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in
order here.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Byron
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
>   > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Hi Marcos
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
>   > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens
rea ),
>   > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
>   > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
>   > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
>   > > > > mean that they are correct,
>   > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
>   > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
>   > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
>   > > > > ideology.
>   > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
>   > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
>   > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
>   > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
>   > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
>   > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
>   > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
>   > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
>   > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
>   > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
>   > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for
people deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody.
However you may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning
Point has tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
>   > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that
may well still exist with socialism or do we not?
>   > > > > Best
>   > > > > Jude
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
>   > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
>   > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
>   > > > > > what
>   > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
>   > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
>   > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
>   > > > > > custody
>   > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
>   > > > > > PC,
>   > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
>   > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
>   > > > > > what
>   > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
>   > > > > > > fantasies...
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
>   > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
>   > > > > > ===========
>   > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
>   > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant
has
>   > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them
to
>   > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough,
or
>   > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
>   > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
>   > > > > > desired effect.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Julian Vein
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
>   > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > http://www.eset.com
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ------------------------------------
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   > > > >
>   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Richard:

I asked what you would do before.  Can you just give a short answer?  It
shouldn't be that hard!

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 2:48 PM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
   >

   Hi Byron

   I'm tempted to think you are being deliberately disingenuous here. I've
responded to this issue. Try responding to mine.

   However, as you appear to be determined to set the rules for the debate, let's
spell it out for you. It is not a matter of what I would do (which is entirely
speculative), it is a matter of considering the range of possibilities open to
socialist society and how it might respond to them.

   The possibilities range, in a decontextualised sense, all the way from
anarchic individualism where there is no collective social response (as happens
in some hunter-gatherer societies) to your social Darwinian solution:
cold-blooded communal murder for the purpose of social engineering or otherwise.

   If you ask me what I think the likelihoods are that socialist society would
adopt this possibility or that, then I would think it unlikely that it would
choose either of these extremes. I think the individualistic (anarchic) solution
is unlikely because communal production would produce a strong communal ethos
and one of mutual dependency. There would also be no options for ostracism or
self-exile - options often taken in small-scale hunter-gatherer societies. I
think socialism would be likely to rule out communal murder for reasons I have
already given you.

   That leaves everything else in between.

   So what is there? Well, uou can work out the possibilities, as easily as I
can: it isn't rocket science. I've also stated my guess that socialist society
would apply a simple principle: it would do whatever it could to provide
measures which would protect the community and the individual. However, since
you don't seem satisfied with principles, I'll oblige with a few possible
concrete proposals. (Bear in mind though that I think this is a bit of a waste
of time, since I'm just dredging around for ideas, and I am aware that socialist
society may well come up with something quite different.)

   The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from
long-term confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or
social therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment (where
it exsits). It might involve any possible combination of the above, or anything
else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or the community,
while preserving a communitarian ethos.

   What socialist society would actually decide, might well depend on the
assessed nature of the threat, existing technological methods of containment,
and the availability of pharmaceutical or other remedies.

   Personally, given my view of what socialism might look like, I imagine that
there might also be an possibility for the perpetrator, where appropriate, to
have a say in deciding among the options presented. This is, of course, just
another speculation but it stems, on the one hand, from the idea that socialist
social institutions may adopt the role of managing anti-social behaviour (rather
than punishing the perpetrator) and on the other, from the idea that in a
socialist society, a perpetrator of anti-social acts might well possess a strong
communal ethos derived from their environment and be struggling to come to terms
with their own behaviour(though they might not, if, for example, sociopathy is a
real condition and not a medical fiction).

   Cheers

   Richard

   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   >
   > Richard:
   >
   > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?

   > Byron
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Richard
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > Hi Byron
   >
   > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
   >
   > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting at
windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
   >
   > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
   >
   > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.
   >
   > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
   >
   > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
   >
   > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for
his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind
of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
   >
   > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
   >
   > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some behaviour
is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
   >
   > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so far,
you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
   >
   > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
   >
   > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
   >
   > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily
on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are of
course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.
   >
   > Cheers
   >
   > Richard
   >
   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > >
   > > Richard:
   > >
   > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would you handle
a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry enough for
him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you tell him
"Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you promise
that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
   > >
   > > Byron
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Richard
   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Hi Byron
   > >
   > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
   > >
   > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
   > >
   > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
   > >
   > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
   > >
   > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
   > >
   > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
   > >
   > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
   > >
   > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
   > >
   > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
   > >
   > > Maybe I am just naive.
   > >
   > > Cheers
   > >
   > > Richard
   > >
   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Richard:
   > > >
   > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
   > > >
   > > > Byron
   > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > From: Richard
   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
   > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Hi Byron
   > > >
   > > > Ouch!
   > > >
   > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
   > > >
   > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
   > > >
   > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
   > > >
   > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > > >
   > > > > Hi Judith:
   > > > >
   > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
   > > > >
   > > > > Byron
   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
   > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
   > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Hi Marcos
   > > > >
   > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
   > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea
),
   > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
   > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
   > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
   > > > > mean that they are correct,
   > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
   > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
   > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
   > > > > ideology.
   > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
   > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
   > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
   > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
   > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
   > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
   > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
   > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
   > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
   > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
   > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
   > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
   > > > > Best
   > > > > Jude
   > > > >
   > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
   > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
   > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
   > > > > > what
   > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
   > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
   > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
   > > > > > custody
   > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
   > > > > > PC,
   > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
   > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
   > > > > > what
   > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
   > > > > > > fantasies...
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
   > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
   > > > > > ===========
   > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
   > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
   > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
   > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
   > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
   > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
   > > > > > desired effect.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Julian Vein
   > > > > >
   > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
   > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > http://www.eset.com
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > > > ------------------------------------
   > > > >
   > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Danny:

I appreciate your answer but I am awaiting Richard's.

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: groucoeng
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:25 AM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law





   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   >
   > Richard:
   >
   > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
   >
   > Byron

   Hi Byron
   The answer is simple, put he/she out of harms way in a secure psychiatric
hospital and treat he/she humanely.

   What do you recommend?

   Danny WSM

   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Richard
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > Hi Byron
   >
   > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
   >
   > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting at
windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
   >
   > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
   >
   > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.
   >
   > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
   >
   > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
   >
   > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for
his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind
of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
   >
   > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
   >
   > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some behaviour
is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
   >
   > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so far,
you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
   >
   > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
   >
   > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
   >
   > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily
on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are of
course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.
   >
   > Cheers
   >
   > Richard
   >
   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > >
   > > Richard:
   > >
   > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would you handle
a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry enough for
him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you tell him
"Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you promise
that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
   > >
   > > Byron
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Richard
   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Hi Byron
   > >
   > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
   > >
   > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
   > >
   > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
   > >
   > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
   > >
   > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
   > >
   > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
   > >
   > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
   > >
   > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
   > >
   > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
   > >
   > > Maybe I am just naive.
   > >
   > > Cheers
   > >
   > > Richard
   > >
   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Richard:
   > > >
   > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
   > > >
   > > > Byron
   > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > From: Richard
   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
   > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Hi Byron
   > > >
   > > > Ouch!
   > > >
   > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
   > > >
   > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
   > > >
   > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
   > > >
   > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > > >
   > > > > Hi Judith:
   > > > >
   > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
   > > > >
   > > > > Byron
   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
   > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
   > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Hi Marcos
   > > > >
   > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
   > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea
),
   > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
   > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
   > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
   > > > > mean that they are correct,
   > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
   > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
   > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
   > > > > ideology.
   > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
   > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
   > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
   > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
   > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
   > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
   > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
   > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
   > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
   > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
   > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
   > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
   > > > > Best
   > > > > Jude
   > > > >
   > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
   > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
   > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
   > > > > > what
   > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
   > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
   > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
   > > > > > custody
   > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
   > > > > > PC,
   > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
   > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
   > > > > > what
   > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
   > > > > > > fantasies...
   > > > > > >
   > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
   > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
   > > > > > ===========
   > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
   > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
   > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
   > > > > >
   > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
   > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
   > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
   > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
   > > > > > desired effect.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Julian Vein
   > > > > >
   > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
   > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
   > > > > >
   > > > > > http://www.eset.com
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > > > ------------------------------------
   > > > >
   > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paddy:

They are like chicken teeth and fish legs. Hard to be found with the proper
ideas in their heads, most of the leftists are blanquists, or
Leninists-Stalinists  of others stripes

2009/11/9 Paddy Shannon <paddyjoeshannon@...>

>
>
> From: "Marcos" <UPRalmamater@... <UPRalmamater%40gmail.com>>
>
> > I was told
> > by a leftist, that I am going to be shot because I do not agree with the
> > ideas of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez...
>
> I'm sorry to hear this, Marcos. You need to pick better leftist friends. I
> was told by an acquaintance in the old CPGB that I probably wouldn't get
> shot, but only sent to a labour camp for 'corrective education'. Clearly it
>
> pays to shop around.
>
> Paddy
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Please stick to the subject.  Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first.  Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
>

Hi Byron

I'm tempted to think you are being deliberately disingenuous here.  I've
responded to this issue.  Try responding to mine.

However, as you appear to be determined to set the rules for the debate, let's
spell it out for you.  It is not a matter of what I would do (which is entirely
speculative), it is a matter of considering the range of possibilities open to
socialist society and how it might respond to them.

The possibilities range, in a decontextualised sense, all the way from anarchic
individualism where there is no collective social response (as happens in some
hunter-gatherer societies) to your social Darwinian solution: cold-blooded
communal murder for the purpose of social engineering or otherwise.

If you ask me what I think the likelihoods are that socialist society would
adopt this possibility or that, then I would think it unlikely that it would
choose either of these extremes. I think the individualistic (anarchic) solution
is unlikely because communal production would produce a strong communal ethos
and one of mutual dependency. There would also be no options for ostracism or
self-exile - options often taken in small-scale hunter-gatherer societies.  I
think socialism would be likely to rule out communal murder for reasons I have
already given you.

That leaves everything else in between.

So what is there? Well, uou can work out the possibilities, as easily as I can:
it isn't rocket science. I've also stated my guess that socialist society would
apply a simple principle: it would do whatever it could to provide measures
which would protect the community and the individual. However, since you don't
seem satisfied with principles, I'll oblige with a few possible concrete
proposals.  (Bear in mind though that I think this is a bit of a waste of time,
since I'm just dredging around for ideas, and I am aware that socialist society
may well come up with something quite different.)

The range of possibilities which occur to me includes everything from long-term
confinement of some kind(close or communal), through individual or social
therapy, 'house arrest' with a minder, to pharmaceutical treatment (where it
exsits).  It might involve any possible combination of the above, or anything
else you can think of which removes the threat to individuals or the community,
while preserving a communitarian ethos.

What socialist society would actually decide, might well depend on the assessed
nature of the threat, existing technological methods of containment, and the
availability of pharmaceutical or other remedies.

Personally, given my view of what socialism might look like, I imagine that
there might also be an possibility for the perpetrator, where appropriate, to
have a say in deciding among the options presented. This is, of course, just
another speculation but it stems, on the one hand, from the idea that socialist
social institutions may adopt the role of managing anti-social behaviour (rather
than punishing the perpetrator) and on the other, from the idea that in a
socialist society, a perpetrator of anti-social acts might well possess a strong
communal ethos derived from their environment and be struggling to come to terms
with their own behaviour(though they might not, if, for example, sociopathy is a
real condition and not a medical fiction).

Cheers

Richard



--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Richard:
>
> Please stick to the subject.  Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first.  Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?

> Byron
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   Hi Byron
>
>   >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
>
>   No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting at
windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
>
>   And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
>
>   But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.
>
>   What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
>
>   Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
>
>   Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for
his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind
of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
>
>   As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
>
>   We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some behaviour
is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
>
>   As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so far,
you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
>
>   I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
>
>   Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
>
>   For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily
on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are of
course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.
>
>   Cheers
>
>   Richard
>
>   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Richard:
>   >
>   > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would you handle
a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry enough for
him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you tell him
"Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you promise
that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
>   >
>   > Byron
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Richard
>   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
>   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Byron
>   >
>   > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
>   >
>   > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
>   >
>   > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
>   >
>   > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
>   >
>   > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
>   >
>   > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
>   >
>   > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
>   >
>   > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
>   >
>   > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
>   >
>   > Maybe I am just naive.
>   >
>   > Cheers
>   >
>   > Richard
>   >
>   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Richard:
>   > >
>   > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
>   > >
>   > > Byron
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: Richard
>   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
>   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Hi Byron
>   > >
>   > > Ouch!
>   > >
>   > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
>   > >
>   > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
>   > >
>   > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
>   > >
>   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Hi Judith:
>   > > >
>   > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
>   > > >
>   > > > Byron
>   > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > From: Judith Stephenson
>   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
>   > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Hi Marcos
>   > > >
>   > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
>   > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea
),
>   > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
>   > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
>   > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
>   > > > mean that they are correct,
>   > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
>   > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
>   > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
>   > > > ideology.
>   > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
>   > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
>   > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
>   > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
>   > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
>   > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
>   > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
>   > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
>   > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
>   > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
>   > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
>   > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
>   > > > Best
>   > > > Jude
>   > > >
>   > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
>   > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
>   > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
>   > > > > what
>   > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
>   > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
>   > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
>   > > > > custody
>   > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
>   > > > > PC,
>   > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
>   > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
>   > > > > what
>   > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
>   > > > > > fantasies...
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
>   > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
>   > > > > ===========
>   > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
>   > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
>   > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
>   > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
>   > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
>   > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
>   > > > > desired effect.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Julian Vein
>   > > > >
>   > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
>   > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > http://www.eset.com
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > > > ------------------------------------
>   > > >
>   > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

From: "Marcos" <UPRalmamater@...>

> I was told
> by a leftist, that I am going to be shot because I do not agree with the
> ideas of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez...

I'm sorry to hear this, Marcos. You need to pick better leftist friends. I
was told by an acquaintance in the old CPGB that I probably wouldn't get
shot, but only sent to a labour camp for 'corrective education'. Clearly it
pays to shop around.

Paddy

I do not think that a socialist society is going to be based on punishment.
Serial killers also have mentasl and psychiatric problems, and a new society
will try to rehabilitate human beings, even more, we do not know if some
capitalists are going to take sides with the cause of the working class, are
we going to place them in jail, or are we going to shoot them, as I was told
by a leftist, that I am going to be shot because I do not agree with the
ideas of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and Hugo Chavez? , Are we going to act
similar to the leftists ? I have dealt with many criminals of all kinds in
the past, and all of them needed psychological and psychiatric treatments.
2009/11/9 groucoeng <groucoeng@...>

>
>
>
>
> --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Byron"
> <bddanel@...> wrote:
> >
> > Richard:
> >
> > Please stick to the subject. Before I answer your retort please answer my
> query first. Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
> >
> > Byron
>
> Hi Byron
> The answer is simple, put he/she out of harms way in a secure psychiatric
> hospital and treat he/she humanely.
>
> What do you recommend?
>
> Danny WSM
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Richard
> > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
> > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Byron
> >
> > >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in
> >society? Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please
> tell me you won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run
> along now!" Get real.
> >
> > No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting
> at windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society
> free of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
> "criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
> >
> > And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you
> have been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
> darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very
> black and white perception of what the possible responses available to a
> socialist society might be.
> >
> > But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion
> has arisen.
> >
> > What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what
> we collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social
> behaviour is wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our
> collective gene pool, we, as a species, have to take collective
> responsibility for it. Allowing a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies
> the denial of collective responsibility and is the very opposite of what I
> said. (Read on to the end of my last-but--one-post.)
> >
> > Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
> doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
> "accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
> socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will
> have to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the
> only known way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is
> something that it will have to consider.
> >
> > Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator
> for his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in
> this kind of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social
> and unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for
> social murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very
> widely distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed,
> buggered!)
> >
> > As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
> issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this
> so roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
> >
> > We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some
> behaviour is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his
> behaviour is inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment
> vitally influences or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to
> take into consideration collective, social factors.
> >
> > As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so
> far, you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
> altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the
> individual is wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of
> society. This is a very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship
> familiar enough to us through the capitalist legal system and it is
> naturally a fully coercive one. But the relationship between the individual
> and society within socialism will surely not be the same as the relationship
> between the individual and the law/state within capitalism, since it will
> not be built upon the same power relationships. It will not be built upon
> the class conflict.
> >
> > I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
> within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
> capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests
> of national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the
> capitalist class - as we understand.
> >
> > Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
> interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will
> and collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the
> interests of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is
> made up of freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism),
> it also has a responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within
> the community *as far as possible*. I take it this means that the community
> would have no collective interest in constraining the individual in his or
> her own person any further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging
> other individuals or the community.
> >
> > For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus
> primarily on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the
> individual person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is
> absolutely necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will
> actually evolve are of course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal
> murder of transgressors, would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate,
> and in fact, unnecessary.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>, "Byron"
> <bddanel@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Richard:
> > >
> > > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged
> that socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is
> that we will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't
> anticipate randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how
> would you handle a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you
> feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in society? Upon his
> release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do
> that again! If you promise that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
> > >
> > > Byron
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Richard
> > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
> > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Byron
> > >
> > > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour
> - that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless,
> as I said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
> cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
> > >
> > > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
> should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour,
> not because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can
> pass on those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour)
> to future generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to
> me. Sounds like George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive
> strike! Sounds like Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
> > >
> > > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
> anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
> this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it
> through to its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group
> of genes that leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we
> then round up and kill people who carry them before they have committed any
> murderous acts. Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have
> avoided) this would be the logical conclusion.
> > >
> > > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by
> some people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your
> existing arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to
> commit anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too,
> in the interests of future generations.
> > >
> > > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To
> the 'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
> > >
> > > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that
> it would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
> blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
> alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for
> future generations. (It's a joke!)
> > >
> > > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
> > >
> > > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
> > >
> > > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
> would give way to the administration of things?
> > >
> > > Maybe I am just naive.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Richard:
> > > >
> > > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social
> behavior in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should
> we not then collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants'
> behavior, or should we protect society by eliminating them from the gene
> pool? But please recall that I also later stated that in the future we may
> be able to correct such dangerous mental aberrations.
> > > >
> > > > Byron
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Richard
> > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
> > > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Byron
> > > >
> > > > Ouch!
> > > >
> > > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
> have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some
> of us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as
> part of what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea
> that may be to us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively
> describe them, but human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as
> the rest of us. If we carry a selection of genes that predispose us to
> violence, as your argument implies, then we have a responsibility towards
> those that carry them (unless of course you take a non-moral, social
> Darwinist view and want to help selection along).
> > > >
> > > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
> community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would
> place our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
> > > >
> > > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of
> human genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But,
> whichever way, the argument is the same.
> > > >
> > > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>,
> "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Judith:
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great
> improvement in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people
> that will be several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense.
> Some serial killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal
> upbringing yet engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those
> around them tragedies like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such
> creatures alive. Certainly the inclination for a "religious cleansing" of
> such people would be next to non-existent under socialism where superstition
> would be minimized. To protect society and eliminate the annoyance of
> draining any of society's resources to keep such miscreants alive, I believe
> that execution would be in order here.
> > > > >
> > > > > Byron
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Judith Stephenson
> > > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com <WSM_Forum%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marcos
> > > > >
> > > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
> > > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens
> rea ),
> > > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
> that in
> > > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
> brutality
> > > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
> does not
> > > > > mean that they are correct,
> > > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
> individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
> certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and
> the reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
> perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the
> realms of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means
> 'love for child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take
> and the affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes
> against women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more
> respect for women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation
> to the male. This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion'
> i.e. ownership of an individual.
> > > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
> > > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
> capitalist
> > > > > ideology.
> > > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
> Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual
> the voice of the people was not listened to.
> > > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
> > > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
> were
> > > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
> > > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed
> by the sexual
> > > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
> homosexuals.
> > > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
> child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
> particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young
> people where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration
> or suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
> although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
> sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit
> countries where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to
> those that can pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse,
> market value and dire poverty.
> > > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
> worst
> > > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
> prisons
> > > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
> streets
> > > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for
> people deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody.
> However you may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called
> Turning Point has tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain
> attempt to run it 'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as
> I've been asked to comment.
> > > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that
> may well still exist with socialism or do we not?
> > > > > Best
> > > > > Jude
> > > > >
> > > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
> > > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
> consider
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
> prison
> > > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill
> and torture
> > > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
> protective
> > > > > > custody
> > > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
> prison... in
> > > > > > PC,
> > > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
> protective
> > > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
> exactly
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
> their
> > > > > > > fantasies...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
> and
> > > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
> > > > > > ===========
> > > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
> house
> > > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant
> has
> > > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them
> to
> > > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough,
> or
> > > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
> them,
> > > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
> the
> > > > > > desired effect.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Julian Vein
> > > > > >
> > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature
> > > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.eset.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This,"What is socialism?",on our website, has been translated
into Greek.

The link can be accessed from here,
http://www.worldsocialism.org/othlang.php#gre
to here,
http://www.worldsocialism.org/noneng/gre4.php

Fraternally,

Matt

------------------------------------

--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Richard:
>
> Please stick to the subject.  Before I answer your retort please answer my
query first.  Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?
>
> Byron

Hi Byron
The answer is simple, put he/she out of harms way in a secure psychiatric
hospital and treat he/she humanely.

What do you recommend?

Danny   WSM



>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   Hi Byron
>
>   >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.
>
>   No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting at
windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)
>
>   And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.
>
>   But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.
>
>   What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)
>
>   Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.
>
>   Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for
his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind
of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)
>
>   As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an
issue for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.
>
>   We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some behaviour
is genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.
>
>   As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so far,
you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.
>
>   I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing
within these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within
capitalism the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of
national capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist
class - as we understand.
>
>   Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.
>
>   For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily
on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are of
course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.
>
>   Cheers
>
>   Richard
>
>   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Richard:
>   >
>   > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would you handle
a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry enough for
him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you tell him
"Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you promise
that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
>   >
>   > Byron
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Richard
>   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
>   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Byron
>   >
>   > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
>   >
>   > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
>   >
>   > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
>   >
>   > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
>   >
>   > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
>   >
>   > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
>   >
>   > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
>   >
>   > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
>   >
>   > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people
would give way to the administration of things?
>   >
>   > Maybe I am just naive.
>   >
>   > Cheers
>   >
>   > Richard
>   >
>   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Richard:
>   > >
>   > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior
in an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
>   > >
>   > > Byron
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: Richard
>   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
>   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Hi Byron
>   > >
>   > > Ouch!
>   > >
>   > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes
have nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of
us behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
>   > >
>   > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
>   > >
>   > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
>   > >
>   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Hi Judith:
>   > > >
>   > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
>   > > >
>   > > > Byron
>   > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > From: Judith Stephenson
>   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
>   > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Hi Marcos
>   > > >
>   > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
>   > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea
),
>   > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think
that in
>   > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
>   > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it
does not
>   > > > mean that they are correct,
>   > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain
individual 'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should
certainly explore ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the
reasons behind it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by
perpetrators as they do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms
of child abusers - i tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for
child' which is the complete opposite to the action that they take and the
affect it has on a growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against
women. One would hope that a socialist society would engender more respect for
women as individual entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male.
This would perhaps lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of
an individual.
>   > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
>   > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
>   > > > ideology.
>   > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
>   > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
>   > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several
were
>   > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
>   > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by
the sexual
>   > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against
homosexuals.
>   > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just
child molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for
particular jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people
where they are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or
suppression they manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent
although their are therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include
sexual tourists within the child molester category that pay to visit countries
where child prostitutes, female and male are readily available to those that can
pay. This isn't about sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and
dire poverty.
>   > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become
worst
>   > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
>   > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
>   > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
>   > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
>   > > > Best
>   > > > Jude
>   > > >
>   > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
>   > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
>   > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
>   > > > > what
>   > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the
prison
>   > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
>   > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against
protective
>   > > > > custody
>   > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is
prison... in
>   > > > > PC,
>   > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
>   > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
>   > > > > what
>   > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
>   > > > > > fantasies...
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly
and
>   > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
>   > > > > ===========
>   > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the
house
>   > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
>   > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
>   > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
>   > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against
them,
>   > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have
the
>   > > > > desired effect.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Julian Vein
>   > > > >
>   > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
>   > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > http://www.eset.com
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > > > ------------------------------------
>   > > >
>   > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Richard:

Please stick to the subject.  Before I answer your retort please answer my query
first.  Just what would you do about the serial killer I have proposed?

Byron
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Richard
   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 8:01 PM
   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law



   Hi Byron

   >Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?
Upon his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty. Oh >please tell me you
won't do that again! If you promise that we'll >let you go. Run along now!" Get
real.

   No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading! (My posts for example). You are tilting at
windmills. I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour. (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)

   And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have
been very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social
darwinism etc. What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black
and white perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist
society might be.

   But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.

   What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species". In other words, if that anti-social behaviour is
wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective gene
pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it. Allowing
a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said. (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)

   Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour
doesn't mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e.
"accept it" in the sense in which you took it). Quite the contrary. Unless
socialism takes a anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have
to find some means of restraining behaviour of this kind. And if the only known
way to do that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it
will have to consider.

   Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for
his genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind
of example). To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and
unacceptable way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social
murder might suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely
distributed in the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)

   As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an issue
for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.

   We have to decide where the argument lies. If we assume that some behaviour is
genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.

   As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which so far,
you appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility
altogether (moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is
wholly subservient to the collective will and interest of society. This is a
very one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us
through the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one.
But the relationship between the individual and society within socialism will
surely not be the same as the relationship between the individual and the
law/state within capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power
relationships. It will not be built upon the class conflict.

   I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing within
these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation. Within capitalism
the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of national
capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist class - as
we understand.

   Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the
interests of capital via the legal machine. In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole. But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*. I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.

   For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily
on managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary. What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are of
course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.

   Cheers

   Richard

   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
   >
   > Richard:
   >
   > You are reading far too much in my posts. I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems. My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain. Just how would you handle
a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing? Would you feel sorry enough for
him to again release him out in society? Upon his release would you tell him
"Naughty, naughty. Oh please tell me you won't do that again! If you promise
that we'll let you go. Run along now!" Get real.
   >
   > Byron
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: Richard
   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   >
   >
   >
   > Hi Byron
   >
   > Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
   >
   > In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
   >
   > Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
   >
   > Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
   >
   > Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
   >
   > We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
   >
   > So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
   >
   > Do you really believe all this, Byron?
   >
   > Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people would
give way to the administration of things?
   >
   > Maybe I am just naive.
   >
   > Cheers
   >
   > Richard
   >
   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > >
   > > Richard:
   > >
   > > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior in
an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
   > >
   > > Byron
   > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > From: Richard
   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
   > > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > Hi Byron
   > >
   > > Ouch!
   > >
   > > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes have
nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of us
behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
   > >
   > > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
   > >
   > > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
   > >
   > > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
   > > >
   > > > Hi Judith:
   > > >
   > > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
   > > >
   > > > Byron
   > > > ----- Original Message -----
   > > > From: Judith Stephenson
   > > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
   > > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
   > > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > Hi Marcos
   > > >
   > > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
   > > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea ),
   > > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think that
in
   > > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
   > > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it does
not
   > > > mean that they are correct,
   > > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain individual
'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should certainly explore
ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the reasons behind
it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by perpetrators as they
do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms of child abusers - i
tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for child' which is the
complete opposite to the action that they take and the affect it has on a
growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against women. One would hope
that a socialist society would engender more respect for women as individual
entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male. This would perhaps
lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of an individual.
   > > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
   > > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
   > > > ideology.
   > > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
   > > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
   > > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several were
   > > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
   > > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by the
sexual
   > > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against homosexuals.
   > > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just child
molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for particular
jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people where they
are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or suppression they
manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent although their are
therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include sexual tourists within
the child molester category that pay to visit countries where child prostitutes,
female and male are readily available to those that can pay. This isn't about
sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and dire poverty.
   > > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become worst
   > > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
   > > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
   > > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
   > > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
   > > > Best
   > > > Jude
   > > >
   > > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
   > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
   > > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
   > > > > what
   > > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
   > > > > >
   > > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the prison
   > > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
   > > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against protective
   > > > > custody
   > > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is prison...
in
   > > > > PC,
   > > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
   > > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
   > > > > what
   > > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
   > > > > > fantasies...
   > > > > >
   > > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly and
   > > > > > efficiently deal with them.
   > > > > ===========
   > > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the house
   > > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
   > > > >
   > > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
   > > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
   > > > >
   > > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
   > > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
   > > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against them,
   > > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have the
   > > > > desired effect.
   > > > >
   > > > > Julian Vein
   > > > >
   > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
   > > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
   > > > >
   > > > > http://www.eset.com
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > > >
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > > > ------------------------------------
   > > >
   > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > >
   > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   > >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Byron

>Would you feel sorry enough for him to again release him out in >society?  Upon
his release would you tell him "Naughty, naughty.  Oh >please tell me you won't
do that again!  If you promise that we'll >let you go.  Run along now!"  Get
real.


No Byron I wouldn't. Get reading!  (My posts for example).  You are tilting at
windmills.  I certainly haven't suggested that socialism will be a society free
of anti-social behaviour.  (I won't speak of a "crime free" society as
"criminality" is a word with all sorts of propery-related overtones.)

And I don't think I am reading too much into your remarks either; you have been
very specific about what you are proposing - social murder, social darwinism
etc.  What primarily strikes me is that you seem to have a very black and white
perception of what the possible responses available to a socialist society might
be.

But I see now, on re-reading your last-post-but-one where some confusion has
arisen.

What I wrote was that we have to "accept this behaviour as part of what we
collectively are as a species".  In other words, if that anti-social behaviour
is wholly generated by genes which are randomly acquired from our collective
gene pool, we, as a species, have to take collective responsibility for it.
Allowing a Stalin or Hitler to take control, implies the denial of collective
responsibility and is the very opposite of what I said.  (Read on to the end of
my last-but--one-post.)

Accepting collective responsibility for seriously anti-social behaviour doesn't
mean that we, as a society, have to put up with that behaviour (i.e. "accept it"
in the sense in which you took it).  Quite the contrary.  Unless socialism takes
a  anarchic (individualistic) view of such matters, it will have to find some
means of restraining behaviour of this kind.  And if the only known way to do
that is to restrain the perpetrator, then that is something that it will have to
consider.

Accepting *collective* responsibility means not blaming the perpetrator for his
genes or coldly eliminating him as you propose(usually a him, in this kind of
example).  To do so, in my view, would be a wholly anti-social and unacceptable
way of dealing with the situation. (Widespread support for social murder might
suggest that these particular anti-social genes are very widely distributed in
the population and that in that case, we are, indeed, buggered!)

As I don't believe in robotic gene expression, then this isn't really an issue
for me, but it worries me to hear Social Darwinist solutions like this so
roundly proposed within the context of socialism.

We have to decide where the argument lies.  If we assume that some behaviour is
genetic determined then blaming the individual for his behaviour is
inappropriate; if, on the other hand, the social environment vitally influences
or even determines behaviour, then there too we have to take into consideration
collective, social factors.

As far as I can see, the only way to step round this (a route which  so far, you
appear to be taking) is to abandon collective social responsibility altogether
(moral considerations, if you like) and assert that the individual is wholly
subservient to the collective will and interest of society.  This is a very
one-sided relationship - the kind of relationship familiar enough to us through
the capitalist legal system and it is naturally a fully coercive one. But the
relationship between the individual and society within socialism will surely not
be the same as the relationship between the individual and the law/state within
capitalism, since it will not be built upon the same power relationships.  It
will not be built upon the class conflict.

I can think of many probable differences in the relationships existing within
these two systems, not least the issue of social motivation.  Within capitalism
the state has no choice but to preserve and further the interests of national
capital, and therefore broadly serves the interest of the capitalist class - as
we understand.

Within capitalism then, the individual is genuinely subservient to the interests
of capital via the legal machine.  In socialism, however, the will and
collective institutions of the community are only there to serve the interests
of the community as a whole.  But as the community as a whole is made up of
freely associating human beings (the principle of voluntarism), it also has a
responsibility to serve the interests of the individual within the community *as
far as possible*.  I take it this means that the community would have no
collective interest in constraining the  individual in his or her own person any
further than to prevent his or her behaviour damaging other individuals or the
community.

For these reasons, it seems to me likely that socialism will focus primarily on
managing disruptive *behaviour* and only constrain or harm the individual
person, including the individual perpetrator, as far as this is absolutely
necessary.  What attitudes and institutions socialism will actually evolve are
of course, beyond speculation, but to my mind, communal murder of transgressors,
would seem to me to be ludicrously inappropriate, and in fact, unnecessary.

Cheers

Richard




--- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Richard:
>
> You are reading far too much in my posts.  I have already acknowledged that
socialism will solve most of capitalism's "crime" problems.  My point is that we
will never have a completely problem-free society since we can't anticipate
randomnicity which includes actions we cannot explain.  Just how would you
handle a serial killer that had a healthy upbringing?  Would you feel sorry
enough for him to again release him out in society?  Upon his release would you
tell him "Naughty, naughty.  Oh please tell me you won't do that again!  If you
promise that we'll let you go.  Run along now!"  Get real.
>
> Byron
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Richard
>   To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 3:00 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>
>
>
>   Hi Byron
>
>   Nobody said anything about collectively accepting anti-social behaviour -
that's ridiculous! - but murdering the perpetrator makes no sense, unless, as I
said, you are a social Darwinist - and from your most recent remarks on
cleansing the gene pool, it sounds very much like you are.
>
>   In other words, you are using the same line of reasoning as Meghann: we
should kill off people who carry genes that lead to anti-social behaviour, not
because they in some sense 'deserve' to be killed, but because they can pass on
those genes (and therefore those patterns of anti-social behaviour) to future
generations. Great! Sounds like a truly compassionate future to me. Sounds like
George Bush and the neo-con doctrine of the pre-emptive strike! Sounds like
Stalin and the Kulaks on the way to the perfect society.
>
>   Let's assume, as your initial argument suggested, that some forms of
anti-social behaviour are not influenced by the environment. Then let's take
this latest social Darwinist argument at its face value and follow it through to
its logical conclusion. Assume we are able to identify the group of genes that
leads to this "murderous anti-social behaviour": should we then round up and
kill people who carry them before they have committed any murderous acts.
Without a moral perspective on this (which so far you have avoided) this would
be the logical conclusion.
>
>   Or suppose that we had established that these genes were carried by some
people in an inactive, recessive form: it would then follow from your existing
arguments that, though they are only carriers and not programmed to commit
anti-social acts themselves, we should nevertheless murder them, too, in the
interests of future generations.
>
>   Whoopee! sounds like we have a new science of socialist eugenics! To the
'Selfish Gene' we can now add the 'Selfish Genetocracy'
>
>   We started with a rationale for collective murder on the grounds that it
would save resources. We've now moved onto the idea that a little social
blood-letting would help rinse out the gene pool. That at least has a more
alturistic ring to it in the sense that it is showing consideration for future
generations. (It's a joke!)
>
>   So, Where do we go from here? The mind boggles.
>
>   Do you really believe all this, Byron?
>
>   Whatever happened to the idea that with socialism, coercion of people would
give way to the administration of things?
>
>   Maybe I am just naive.
>
>   Cheers
>
>   Richard
>
>   --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Richard:
>   >
>   > I can't understand your suggestion that murderous anti-social behavior in
an individual presents us with collectively accepting it. Should we not then
collectively accept Stalin's, Hitler's and other tyrants' behavior, or should we
protect society by eliminating them from the gene pool? But please recall that I
also later stated that in the future we may be able to correct such dangerous
mental aberrations.
>   >
>   > Byron
>   > ----- Original Message -----
>   > From: Richard
>   > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:30 AM
>   > Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Hi Byron
>   >
>   > Ouch!
>   >
>   > Suppose you are right in your belief that environment might sometimes have
nothing at all to do with the violent and anti-social way in which some of us
behave, what then? Well, it means we have to accept this behaviour as part of
what we collectively are as a species, however unpleasant an idea that may be to
us. Serial killers are not 'creatures' as you perjoratively describe them, but
human beings who have sprung from the same gene pool as the rest of us. If we
carry a selection of genes that predispose us to violence, as your argument
implies, then we have a responsibility towards those that carry them (unless of
course you take a non-moral, social Darwinist view and want to help selection
along).
>   >
>   > I would sincerely hope that a society based upon the interests of the
community as a whole (and not just of a propertied section of it) would place
our common social humanity above the issue of 'resources'.
>   >
>   > I would sincerely doubt that there are many, if any, features of human
genetic inheritance that are outside environmental influence. But, whichever
way, the argument is the same.
>   >
>   > --- In WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com, "Byron" <bddanel@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > Hi Judith:
>   > >
>   > > I suspect that in a socialist society--even though a great improvement
in behaviors will occur--there will still be a handful of people that will be
several deviations from the mean--outliers in the real sense. Some serial
killers come to mind--those that have had an apparently normal upbringing yet
engage in killing. Despite all the best efforts of those around them tragedies
like this can occur. I see no reason to keep such creatures alive. Certainly the
inclination for a "religious cleansing" of such people would be next to
non-existent under socialism where superstition would be minimized. To protect
society and eliminate the annoyance of draining any of society's resources to
keep such miscreants alive, I believe that execution would be in order here.
>   > >
>   > > Byron
>   > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > From: Judith Stephenson
>   > > To: WSM_Forum@yahoogroups.com
>   > > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 4:17 AM
>   > > Subject: Re: [WSM_Forum] Re: A World Without Law
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > Hi Marcos
>   > >
>   > > The concept of punishment is an idea supported by the bourgeois
>   > > jurisprudence, it is based on the so called ' Guilty mind" ( mens rea ),
>   > > the whole criminal law is based on that conception . I do not think that
in
>   > > a socialist society we are going to be using the violence and the
brutality
>   > > of the capitalist system, because people approve those measures, it does
not
>   > > mean that they are correct,
>   > > Yes this is correct, to my mind anyway but there are certain individual
'crimes/behaviours' that are dangerous and socialists should certainly explore
ways of enabling 'offenders' to recognise their crime and the reasons behind
it.Clearly some 'criminal behaviours' are unrecognised by perpetrators as they
do not see them as instrinsically wrong, i.e. in the realms of child abusers - i
tend to dislike the word paedophilia as it means 'love for child' which is the
complete opposite to the action that they take and the affect it has on a
growing person. Many crimes are individual crimes against women. One would hope
that a socialist society would engender more respect for women as individual
entitities as opposed to 'other' in relation to the male. This would perhaps
lesser certain crimes, 'crimes of 'passion' i.e. ownership of an individual.
>   > > how many peoples approved the invasion of Iraq
>   > > and Afganistan ? Millions approved based on the reasoning of the
capitalist
>   > > ideology.
>   > > Millions did not approve the invasion and occupation of Iraq and
Afganistan and demonstrated their complete disapproval. However as per usual the
voice of the people was not listened to.
>   > > In the Dominican Republic many Haitians have been decapitated by
>   > > the peoples from the Ghettos because they were thieves, and several were
>   > > thrown down from the second floor from an apartment building.
>   > > Many child molesters have been mentally frustrated and suppressed by the
sexual
>   > > fanaticism of the religions, and the discrimination against homosexuals.
>   > > The majority of child molesters are not homosexuals they are just child
molesters including Catholic priests. They ensure that they go for particular
jobs of power and control around vulnerable children and young people where they
are unlikely to be challenged. Whatever their frustration or suppression they
manage to be extremely manipulative and rarely repentent although their are
therapy centres that try to rehabilitate. But I include sexual tourists within
the child molester category that pay to visit countries where child prostitutes,
female and male are readily available to those that can pay. This isn't about
sexual relations this is about abuse, market value and dire poverty.
>   > > Prisons have never rehabilitated anybody, sometimes peoples become worst
>   > > when they come out from the prisons, and the atmosphere inside the
prisons
>   > > sometimes is the same or worst than the atomosphere outside on the
streets
>   > > This is absolutely correct, prisons and special hospitals (for people
deemed as criminally insane) have very rarely rehabilitated anybody. However you
may be interested to know that in the UK a charity called Turning Point has
tendered (market forces) to run a prison in the vain attempt to run it
'humanely'. I am still wondering what I feel about this as I've been asked to
comment.
>   > > The question is, do we perpetuate a prison system for crimes that may
well still exist with socialism or do we not?
>   > > Best
>   > > Jude
>   > >
>   > > 2009/11/4 Julian Vein
>   > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > Meghann Coughlan wrote:
>   > > > > In response to pedophilia and a lawless society, you need to
consider
>   > > > what
>   > > > > is happening with pedophilia in our current society...
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Pedophiles are immediately put into Protective Custody in the prison
>   > > > > systems. Why? Because every other con in the place will kill and
torture
>   > > > > them the first chance they get, (I am completely against protective
>   > > > custody
>   > > > > for pedophiles). So, currently, the worst that happens is prison...
in
>   > > > PC,
>   > > > > which is not at all like prison in general population. Remove
protective
>   > > > > custody and I can guarantee that those pieces of shit will get
exactly
>   > > > what
>   > > > > is coming to them... and they may not be so inclined to fulfill
their
>   > > > > fantasies...
>   > > > >
>   > > > > In a society without laws, parents and neighbours would quickly and
>   > > > > efficiently deal with them.
>   > > > ===========
>   > > > Like they did a few years ago in England when a mob attacked the house
>   > > > of a paedatrician because they thought he was a paedophile?
>   > > >
>   > > > Or those rent-a-mobs who attack police vans because the occupant has
>   > > > been arrested for sexual offences, but not yet convicted?
>   > > >
>   > > > If these offenders have sufficiently strong urges that drive them to
>   > > > their crimes, they may well feel that if they're careful enough, or
>   > > > intimidate their victims into not reporting their deeds against them,
>   > > > they won't get caught and the thought of a deterrent may not have the
>   > > > desired effect.
>   > > >
>   > > > Julian Vein
>   > > >
>   > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature
>   > > > database 4574 (20091104) __________
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>   > > >
>   > > > http://www.eset.com
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   > > ------------------------------------
>   > >
>   > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > >
>   > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   > >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>   >
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>