Does Society Need Prisons?

[Belindi]

I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery.

Scott would agree that if he personally had no possibility of restraining a murderer or rapist harming his kids then he'd want some other peacekeeper to restrain the murderer or rapist thereby protecting Scott's kids.

I'm puzzled by what sort of society Scott wants. I expect Scott is well aware of legal extortion, legal slavery, and legal near-cannibalism that is caused and always has been caused by those who have unrestrained profit motives of international capitalism including warmongering. These activities cause far more suffering, violence, and death than do even the sum total of the most dangerous anti-social individuals.

What sort of political governance would protect the rights or welfare of the governed at home and abroad? I mean, the means of production including the human labour is closely bound up with social control in the form of prisons or other deterrents.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

If I stop paying my car insurance, the car insurance will discontinue my coverage, and then if my car gets destroyed, and I ask them to buy me a new car, they will then refuse. I have no problem with that, and it makes perfect sense to me. Nothing that in that interaction between me and the insurance company was violent or coercive. No violent robbery occurred.

Typically, I don't call it a "tax" if it is voluntary and non-violent. Philosophically, as a matter of semantics, I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery. For more on that, please see my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

For example, I once lived in a large apartment complex with private roads, private garages, and over 100 apartments and a community pool and community fitness center. Keep in mind, at that time, I was working for below minimum wage as a bartender, making a significantly below average income for someone in the USA, really kind of poor by American standards, considering I had two kids to feed and such.

I'm puzzled by what sort of society Scott wants. I expect Scott is well aware of legal extortion, legal slavery, and legal near-cannibalism [...] These activities cause far more suffering, violence, and death than do even the sum total of the most dangerous anti-social individuals.

Yes, I am aware, and I appreciate you wisely pointing the existence of such things as legal slavery and legal violence. I think I make my position on such matters very clear in the following post:

Friends, I ask you to oppose ALL non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's legal or done by your government.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Pattern-chaser,

Thank you for your comments!

I still don't understand what you mean by "crimes that should not be crimes". Giving one example (the illegality of homosexuality) does not help me understand at all. Can you define what you mean by it more precisely, not just with examples? Namely, what do you mean by "should"?

I'm sure the reference here is to laws that are unjust, [...]

Unfortunately, that doesn't provide any clarity for what is means to me. Perhaps more to the point, generally speaking, I consider both shouldness and justice to be superstitions, mean I don't believe either exist, if the words are even anything but nonsense. For more on that, please see the following topic of mine:

A World Blinded by Sadistic Anger | How the dangerous superstition of justice leads to aggressive violence and misery

Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

If it's something like moral propriety--such as something that might have a person gasp at the prospect of homosexuality and say "that's improper!" or say "it's inappropriate for two people of the same gender to have sex!"--then that's also a superstition I don't believe in.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your replies!

If I stop paying my car insurance, the car insurance will discontinue my coverage, and then if my car gets destroyed, and I ask them to buy me a new car, they will then refuse. I have no problem with that, and it makes perfect sense to me. Nothing that in that interaction between me and the insurance company was violent or coercive. No violent robbery occurred.

Typically, I don't call it a "tax" if it is voluntary and non-violent. Philosophically, as a matter of semantics, I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery.

But there are always going to be foolish people who don't buy insurance, not only for luxuries like cars,but for health care, food, and shelter. Are the people who have foresight and insure themselves going to let the idiots go to hell?

I get that when you violently imprison people if they refuse to buy your insurance, you might say and genuinely believe that is "for their own good" or "for the greater good". Likewise when one violently throws marijuana-smokers or gay people in prison, they may say and genuinely believe its "for their own good" or "for the greater good". In short, it's violent nanny statism. I adamantly oppose it; perhaps you support it.

I discuss my feelings, beliefs, and opinions about violent nanny statism in the following topics:

- Orwellian Agent-Smithism | How Control Freaks, God Complexes, And Violent Nanny Statism Attack Freedom and Diversity

- Dangerous Moral Busybodies | "A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

- All the do-gooders are troublemakers: A plague of virtuous people | A perfectly pestiferous mass of a million saints

- Friends, I ask you to oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's legal or done by your own government.


Thank you,
Scott

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

As to whether violent offenders are common or a "teeny tiny" percentage, most sources put them as [...] or 40% of all US prisoners

40% is a minority, so at least we agree that the majority of prisoners are only charged with non-violent crimes.

[...]
Nonetheless, can you provide the links to your specific source(s) for that statistic, meaning the 40% of all US prisoners being violent?

I ask because I am interested in the definition and criteria used for "violent criminal".

For example, an otherwise very peaceful gay person in Uganda who resists arrest and execution would then probably be considered a "violent criminal".

A woman who defended herself by physically resisting legal marital rape would herself be a "violent criminal".

If Martin Luther King had resisted arrest 1 of the 29 times he was arrested, he would have been deemed a "violent criminal".

There are many sources of data on prisoners (the primary subject matter of a thread on prisons, I might add). Take for example ProCon.org

I typed that URL into my browser and didn't see any stats.

But it's moot. I was just curious what your source was.

Didn't see resisting arrest, sorry. MLK need not apply.

You will likely find those under "aggravated and simple assault".

John Oliver did a great, informative, and hilarious piece on school police in which he reports about how school officers arrested more than 54,000 students in s single school year. He reports about children being charged with assault for things such as throwing a paper airplane or Skittles. He reports about a five-year-old with ADHD who had a tantrum and was charged with battery on a police officer.

Those are many of the "violent criminals" you'll find in your statistics, and also help explain why arrests for violent crime go up so drastically when there's things like the war on drugs such as marijuana. It's hard to estimate just how much "violent crime" would instantly disappear if consensual crimes like marijuana possession or being gay were legalized.

Of the three categories in the Original Post (OP), many so-called "violent criminals" really fall into category 1 of the 3. But, regardless, many truly violent criminals fall into the 2nd category, not the 3rd, especially if the police started the conflict. I am extremely confident that the number that fall into the third category of the three is indeed teeny tiny. Heck, the police in the USA arrest over half of a million people for marijuana each year. Rapists and serial killers just cannot put up numbers like that.

But it's moot. It doesn't really matter if there is 100 of them, 1,000, or 10,000 in terms of what I am willing to do or do to them.

It's analogous to talking about whether their more pigs or cows in relation my vegetarianism. I'm not going to eat them either way.

Likewise, I oppose all non-consensual non-defensive violence (e.g. murder, rape, slavery, etc.). It's not something I do, and it's not something I support. You'll never see me hanging peaceful gay people or putting pacifists in prison. Indeed, you will never see my put anyone in prison. You could see me helping drag someone to the mental ward of a hospital, but only in very exceptional cases regarding very exceptional people.


Thank you,
Scott

[Belindi]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply!

If I stop paying my car insurance, the car insurance will discontinue my coverage, and then if my car gets destroyed, and I ask them to buy me a new car, they will then refuse. I have no problem with that, and it makes perfect sense to me. Nothing that in that interaction between me and the insurance company was violent or coercive. No violent robbery occurred.

Typically, I don't call it a "tax" if it is voluntary and non-violent. Philosophically, as a matter of semantics, I only call it a "tax" if it is legal violent robbery. For more on that, please see my topic, Is taxation by big non-local governments violent robbery?

For example, I once lived in a large apartment complex with private roads, private garages, and over 100 apartments and a community pool and community fitness center. Keep in mind, at that time, I was working for below minimum wage as a bartender, making a significantly below average income for someone in the USA, really kind of poor by American standards, considering I had two kids to feed and such.

I'm puzzled by what sort of society Scott wants. I expect Scott is well aware of legal extortion, legal slavery, and legal near-cannibalism [...] These activities cause far more suffering, violence, and death than do even the sum total of the most dangerous anti-social individuals.

Yes, I am aware, and I appreciate you wisely pointing the existence of such things as legal slavery and legal violence. I think I make my position on such matters very clear in the following post:

Friends, I ask you to oppose ALL non-consensual non-defensive violence, even when it's legal or done by your government.


Thank you,
Scott

I read your link to your book and philosophy. Of the Biblical sheep and goats I am normally one of the goats and only occasionally one of the sheep.This admission does nothing to absolve me.The apology of the Guardian newspaper to dead slaves and their descendants does nothing to absolve the wrongdoing of Europe and the US. It is however a sign that a conscience increasingly exists so let's hope that politics will work to free the oppressed classes who are most often the imprisoned ones.
I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place. Neither do I agree with Scott on democracy. Nobody claims democracy is a panacea, but it's the best we can do in this world wheres strife is endemic.

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding of this thread is that among the numerous options available currently in the criminal justice system, can the prison option be eliminated? While I certainly support shifting (drastically) the percentage of criminals in the prison system lower, I do not support shifting it to zero. You?

That's a thoroughly mature outlook. In answer to your question, I regret that there may always be citizens who, for the safety of the public at large, need to be held apart from the rest of us. I also agree that our aim should be to minimise the number of citizens who need to be treated in this way, if we can.

[Pattern-chaser]

Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

I doubt that I can describe what I mean in words that you will find acceptable. The best I can think of to offer is that "appropriate" expands to "appropriate to the needs of society".

If it's something like moral propriety--such as something that might have a person gasp at the prospect of homosexuality and say "that's improper!" or say "it's inappropriate for two people of the same gender to have sex!"--then that's also a superstition I don't believe in.

No, no, nothing like that.

[Ecurb]

Oscar Wilde chips in on the discussion. Warning, the poem is long. Read it anyway. It's a masterpiece.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/ ... ading-gaol

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

I doubt that I can describe what I mean in words that you will find acceptable. The best I can think of to offer is that "appropriate" expands to "appropriate to the needs of society".

If it's something like moral propriety--such as something that might have a person gasp at the prospect of homosexuality and say "that's improper!" or say "it's inappropriate for two people of the same gender to have sex!"--then that's also a superstition I don't believe in.

No, no, nothing like that.

Sorry, I simply don't understand what you mean at all.

I don't find your words 'unacceptable'. Rather, I don't even understand what they (and by extension you) mean. I don't know what you mean to say, at all.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

According to you, what is my stance on "personal purity"?

Is it possible to quote for me verbatim a sentence of mine with which you disagree?

Neither do I agree with Scott on democracy.

I'm not sure what you mean. What don't you agree with me about exactly? How sure are you that I believe what you think I believe in regard to that alleged disagreement? In any case, would you mind quoting verbatim a sentence of mine I wrote with which you disagree, presumably one about democracy?


(I'm not easily offended. I love discussing points of disagreement and learning about different views. More than that, if I believe or say anything untrue at any time, I like to be told and made aware of it, and I appreciate those who help me become aware of a mistake in my writing or beliefs, be it a factual error or even just a typo. I'm the type who likes to be told when I have spinach in my teeth, not the type who kills or despises the messenger in that case.)


Thank you,
Scott

[Pattern-chaser]

Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

I doubt that I can describe what I mean in words that you will find acceptable. The best I can think of to offer is that "appropriate" expands to "appropriate to the needs of society".

Sorry, I simply don't understand what you mean at all.

I don't find your words 'unacceptable'. Rather, I don't even understand what they (and by extension you) mean. I don't know what you mean to say, at all.

Laws are not absolute, or defined externally to humanity. They are not objective, but rather they are created by humans, for our own reasons, according to our own 'logic', or to no 'logic' at all. In that context, the appropriateness of a law being "appropriate to the needs of society" makes more sense, I think? Our best laws are those that meet the needs of most or all of us, most or all of the time.

For example, some laws are held, by some, to be inappropriate, maybe even unjust. Such laws should, perhaps, never have been created in the first place?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Hence "crimes that should not be crimes" — acts that would not be criminal if the law was more appropriately formed.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

If it's something like moral propriety--such as something that might have a person gasp at the prospect of homosexuality and say "that's improper!" or say "it's inappropriate for two people of the same gender to have sex!"--then that's also a superstition I don't believe in.

I doubt that I can describe what I mean in words that you will find acceptable. The best I can think of to offer is that "appropriate" expands to "appropriate to the needs of society".

Sorry, I simply don't understand what you mean at all.

I don't find your words 'unacceptable'. Rather, I don't even understand what they (and by extension you) mean. I don't know what you mean to say, at all.

Laws are not absolute, or defined externally to humanity. They are not objective, but rather they are created by humans, for our own reasons, according to our own 'logic', or to no 'logic' at all. In that context, the appropriateness of a law being "appropriate to the needs of society" makes more sense, I think?

Sorry, no, that context doesn't help me figure out what you mean by "appropriateness" or "appropriate" at all. Likewise, I don't know what you mean by the phrase, ""appropriate to the needs of society". Can you define these words, or provide a specific definition that matches your usage? I could look them up in a dictionary (American or British?), but it would list many different definition and I wouldn't know which one if any match what you mean by the word 'appropriate' or 'appropriateness'.

Can you define what you mean by the word 'appropriate' as you use it?

If it's something like moral propriety--such as something that might have a person gasp at the prospect of homosexuality and say "that's improper!" or say "it's inappropriate for two people of the same gender to have sex!"--then that's also a superstition I don't believe in.

For example, some laws are held, by some, to be inappropriate, maybe even unjust. Such laws should, perhaps, never have been created in the first place?

[Emphasis added.]

Oh, I think what you are talking about is a superstition I don't believe in. In other words, I don't believe it exists. I explain that in the following two topics of mine:


- A World Blinded by Sadistic Anger | How the dangerous superstition of justice leads to aggressive violence and misery


- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace


Of course, my book, In It Together, makes the stronger, more convincing, more efficient-to-read, and more agreeable case, in part since I worked on the book for over 5 years and employed multiple paid professionals to help craft, edit, and refine it. So it offers much more value per word read than any of my posts here on these forums could ever come close to doing.


Thank you,
Scott

[amorphos_ii]

Resentment is born of societal factors ~ we create it in people. Equally an infant ‘wants’ – like an animal it is largely instinct based. So yes I am saying that it can be mostly avoided, nipped in the bud as they say.

You are quite correct that some will still commit crimes.

1. less laws equal less crimes?

2. most crimes do not need a prison sentence, damn, taking peoples phones away would be worse for most people!

Placing people into a life after prison, where they feel separated and kinda blacklisted from society, is no the answer. People need to have hope and a fresh start, otherwise like in much of psychology their situation presents as a wall in the mind. When the mind cannot get past this wall it seeks a way out, sometimes to such a great degree that they will commit suicide.

We see this also in cultures where something like child sex is culturally acceptable, but also has a dualistic religion – so they believe in good/evil. The duplicity of this means that if one believes it is ok to do that, but also that it is evil [in varying degrees] then to get past the wall, they now need a scapegoat, someone they can blame and say ‘look, those guys in the west are the evil ones’. In fact I think that this gets desperate that a ‘drive’* is manifest, to the degree that a terrorist will drive* into innocent pedestrians.

[Belindi]

Hi, Belindi,

Thank you for your reply.

I don't agree with Scott's stance on personal purity. Nobody is Jesus Christ and we all have to get our hands dirty if we want to make the world a better place.

According to you, what is my stance on "personal purity"?

Is it possible to quote for me verbatim a sentence of mine with which you disagree?

Neither do I agree with Scott on democracy.

I'm not sure what you mean. What don't you agree with me about exactly? How sure are you that I believe what you think I believe in regard to that alleged disagreement? In any case, would you mind quoting verbatim a sentence of mine I wrote with which you disagree, presumably one about democracy?


(I'm not easily offended. I love discussing points of disagreement and learning about different views. More than that, if I believe or say anything untrue at any time, I like to be told and made aware of it, and I appreciate those who help me become aware of a mistake in my writing or beliefs, be it a factual error or even just a typo. I'm the type who likes to be told when I have spinach in my teeth, not the type who kills or despises the messenger in that case.)


Thank you,
Scott

I have found the text where I got the first , "personal purity" ,notion of your philosophy. I hope you did not think I was being sarcastic, I wasn't. I was paraphrasing your "spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom". I'd better have quoted you. Moreover, the "material world of the flesh" has had a bad image from the powerful Abrahamic religions and the flesh deserves to be respected .
Scott wrote:

Political philosophy mostly only interests me to the extent that it acts as an analogue for my spiritual philosophy of spiritual freedom. For instance, self-government can act as an analogue of self-discipline, and self-employment can act as an analogue of both of self-government and self-discipline.

Primarily, the authorities and enslavements I seek to firmly, stubbornly, and defiantly reject are much more than merely petty political ones. I suspect generally only those people who are way too attached to the material world of the flesh could care very much about the topical human politics of a sliver of time on a tiny planet in an endless sky.