Is petrification more humane and practical than a regular prison?

>>53186071
You know that prison needs to reform the criminal, right?

This is such a weird excuse to make a fetish thread.

>>53186117
Does it count if you reform them into an inanimate object?

>>53186117
>You know that prison needs to reform the criminal, right?
Not in the American 'justice' system.

Suddenly shit makes a lot of sense, huh?

>sentence someone to petrification for twenty years
>twenty years later
>the culprit spend his time being stone, not thinking about being punished
A thread died for this very dumb idea.

>>53186117
that's a pretty modern concept, and is no where near universal

>>53186071
>do not have to wait out days, months or years in prison
Then what's the point in being imprisoned to begin with?

Although I could see it being used to lock up people sentenced to an "eternity" of imprisonment, similar to a death sentence, however they can be freed if they somehow turn out to be innocent.

>>53186146

Depends. They might be fully aware of the passage of time, but trapped in their own body without the ability to interact with anything.

Then again, it'd make any duration of time in 'prison' effectively a sentence to be reduced to total insanity.

>>53186155
If the whole thread concept is about how humane something should be, then shouldn't we take the most humane modern prison system as the benchmark?

>>53186071
Your premise is a stupid excuse and your picture isn't even trying to not be porn.

>>53186146
Depending on your time "away", having all the people that you once loved now dead would be a fitting punishment

>>53186071

Seems like Petrifying would be better suited for having important people skip through time.

Royal person is sick? Petrify that noble until a cure is found.
Want to keep that swordmaster around to teach the final secrets of your royal guard's sword style? Petrify him, then thaw him out when somebody is about to reach master status.
Have a reoccurring Enemy that comes around every couple hundred years? Petrify the hero who defeated them the first time to lead your army into battle.

Prisoners seem like the worse choice, unless they are somehow conscious and able to think and observe while being stone.

Petrification has mostly been used for cryostatis in my campaigns.

>>53186162
If every prison sentence turned into Metallica's The One, you'd hope that their mental care system be top notch right?

>>53186143

US prison system is about prisoners providing free labor. hard to do when you're a rock, rocks can't break rocks.

>>53186275
Depends on the density of the humans ( or whatever) turned into rock. You can break rocks with rocks.

>>53186071
If you just want to lock them up forever but not execute them (you might need them in the future) petrification is pretty solid.

>>53186311
No faggot, then you're still doing the labor yourself and that defeats the point.

>>53186117
>The Medusas of the setting are skilled masons, physiologists and neurologists.
>They use Stonemeld and stonecarving to alter both body and mind.
>They can even implant ideas in your head by melding a stone glyph with your stone brain.
>The only catch is that they have to use rock of the same kind to meld together for it to work, which can only be obtained from other Flesh-to-stone creatures.

File: your humble spymaster.png (469KB, 642x414px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 642x414px

>>53186240
Or political prisoners. Good way to hold onto some nobles while you wait for the ransom. They can even stand in your hall while you have a feast as a demonstration of power.

>>53186393
Just throw them out of a balcony or something in that case. Sucessions always fuck with their power. No need to wait precious inbreeding resources on that

>>53186071
It'd be a great way for a two-level prison system of a society that doesn't want to outright kill criminals that can't be rehabilitated.

Put the guilty that can be reformed in an actual prison.
Put the guilty that cannot into stone storage for eternity.
Really, though, most societies in settings where petrification is an option would probably just ouright execute criminals bad enough to warrant life sentences instead of fucking around with petrification.

>>53186155
Well what's the point of prison then. Punishment? Petrification doesn't. Take them out of society? Discourage repetition through making an example? Just kill them.

Why petrification?

>>53186369
You'd care more if your hands and legs were chipped away from the constant smashing

>>53186071
>Petrified prisoners do not have to wait out days, months, or years in prison.
You make petrification sound like a form of one direction time travel.

Reform's out of the question in stone form, so I'm just trying to think of a situation where freezing someone in stone for x amount of years does just as much good as them spending time away from society consciously for x amount of years

The one thing I could think is prisoners of war? If you wanted a way to be absolutely following the geneva convention against an enemy combatant then petrifying them for the duration of a conflict would probably fit in just fine as long as no one is desecrating the stone-forms.

Of course your setting would have to have both petrification /and/ a geneva convention sort of deal for that to be viable and I don't know what the overlap is like on that

>>53186624
You could tell the prisioner he's going to be warped /carved into a heinous form. That'd me moraly questionable though

>>53186716
I have no mouth and I must scream stuff

File: Archibald.png (121KB, 318x237px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 318x237px

The problem is you're merely delaying the problem. If the prisoner is relatively harmless, you're just condemning them to inhabiting a future that they may not adapt to. If they're dangerous, you're basically exposing the future generations to >an ancient evil awakens on a smaller scale.

Though sometimes the prisoner may turn out to have valuable skills or knowledge, like pic related.

>>53186117
Sez who? Can you name one system that actually works to reform the prison population. Can you name one that exceeds a 50% ACTUAL success rate? Don't feel too bad, neither could my Law dean, back in school.

>>53186428
>Take them out of society? Discourage repetition through making an example? Just kill them.

For every offence? Some mind find that excessive

>>53186240
>Royal person is sick? Petrify that noble until a cure is found.
Do you want a crisis of succession? Because that's how you get a crisis of succession.

>>53186146
And this is different from our system...How?

>>53186624
Yeah, PoWs seems like the best case, since that also means the enemy won't start starving them if food runs low. It makes taking and keeping prisoners more of a flat cheap cost to undo the spell at the end of the war, and as a bonus anyone caught like that will still be in good physical condition when they go back.

>>53186767
Well, maybe something like taking stuff from them. Like money... but not everyone has that. Or time... oh, there's an idea...

>>53186624
Keep in mind also that it's a major drain on the state's coffers to keep prisoners alive and healthy and confined for a long time. Depending on how easy it is to petrify people, it might be a major saving.

>>53186753
I recall one in Europe. Sweden or Norway or one of those other places. Basically just had little apartments in the middle of nowhere 100% focused on reform and their rates were great

>>53186778
but you might also get a king who will return in the time of his country's greatest need.

>>53186427
If you get it via a captive basilisk you can get it at the cost of just food and animal handlers. Or you have a Medusa on your side.

File: RedDeath.jpg (83KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 1024x768px

>>53186071
>Is petrification more humane and practical than a regular prison?
Of course. But so is killing the criminal.

>>53186071
>Is petrification more humane and practical than a regular prison?

Depends on why you're going to prison in the first place, however...

>Petrified prisoners do not have to wait out days, months, or years in prison.

...so, then, what's the point? I fail to see how this is functionally different from just exiling them to Australia or something.

>>53186393
Fragmented

Our (ancient) SpellJammer game used this as a 'cold sleep' cheat. The wiz casting the spell would work in a fairly safe de-stoning system, or more than one. As the Wiz, The release was my blood, tightest control, as I had to freely give it, but I also used 'air' and 'mounted stoners that flew on the Lander.

File: 5.jpg (55KB, 555x555px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 555x555px

>>53186117
That falls into the fallacy of the mallable man which -though predating it- has become increasinbly popular under marxism. In some cases it works, no doubt about that, but the universal appeal of this approach leads to a failing system. We have simply become too sensitive to realize that in many cases reform is impossible, and what are we supposed to do then? Life imprisonment is unjust to all parties involved: the state which has to waste resources and manpower watching over an unreformable prisoner, the citizens whose income is exploited to provide the neccessary funding, and the prisoner who has nothing to look forward to but death yet is denied even the possibility of commiting suicide.

It gets especially bad in what's happening among many immigrants in Europe: they enter prison petty thieves, they leave trained and determined terrorists. That is because the unreformable still linger, polluting the minds of those who need to be "reformed" faster than the broken system can pretend to "fix" them.

>>53186071
>Is petrification more humane and practical than a regular prison?

"Is a deathless state of un-living where you are removed from the world better than living in the world arebeit in shitty conditions"

No.

>>53186226
Yeah, but this would lead to them either committing suicide, or becoming likely sociopaths.

>>53186393
That's actually a great idea for prisioners of war (they keep their value, they're not harmed and they can't escape), although it wouldn't work for post-war prisoners who are often children that are better used to gain future allies.

>>53186071
Have you read Ginny Weasley and the Sealed Intelligence? https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11117811

Spoiler for the climax of the story: It turns out that the petrification ability of the basilisk is only a side effect of its main ability, which is to make a perfect copy of the mind of anyone who looks into its eyes. Also, multiple basilisks form an intelligent hive mind if brought close together. Conclusion: Make all humans ""immortal"" by copying them into the collective mind of a gigantic basilisk hive.

>>53186959
This.
The solution to crime is always murder.

>>53186959
if we believe we must punish people for their wrongdoings, maybe as an example, as we cannot believe for certainty they'll be punished in the afterlife, it would be worth the costs.

>>53186753
The most successful systems are those that integrate genuine education and skills training into the sentence.
While not the case with everyone, most convicts re-offend because of a lack of prospects outside and there is a distinct correlation between low levels and education and high levels of crime, so equipping them with a proper set of skills or even a trade will give them a legitimate means of living without having to break the law again.

>>53187221
>integrate genuine education and skills training into the sentence
Well, The States should integrate this in public schools before they integrate this in prisons. Mostly the same target group.

>>53187221
Some of you really need to accept that some people will always commit crime. It doesn't matter if they have an education or not, or if they somehow managed to get a college degree. They will just use that newly gained knowledge to commit more elaborate crimes.

see: blacks commit petty crime(due to lack of education), whites commit elaborate crimes (due to access to education). Education is worthless. Some people are just assholes and will commit crime because they feel like it.

Also the Mexican cartels aren't uneducated gooses, you don't form an underground empire by lacking education.

>>53187287
>Well, The States should integrate this in public schools before they integrate this in prisons.

As a teacher in the USA, I agree entirely

>>53187221
what about intelligent psychopats ?

>>53187307
>some people will always commit crime. It doesn't matter if they have an education or not,
>Education is worthless.
While both of those are true concluding the latter from the prior is sheer idiocy.

>>53186071
Just here to look at naked medusa.

>>53187307
> blacks commit petty crime(due to lack of education)

it's due to poverty desu

>>53186071
No.

The isolation and sensory deprivation will drive them mad, leaving you with galleries upon galleries of lunatics that can never be released.

>>53187221
>>53187307
Education is strongly correlated to crime and recidivism rates, but equally strong is the correlation between the labor market and wages, and crime and recidivism rates.

>>53187185
But murder is a crime...

All ya niggas need to read some Beccaria. Seriously.
http://www.constitution.org/cb/crim_pun.htm

I've studied criminal systems for eight years and most of there posts are painful to read.

>>53186071
>>53186240
Petrification must be great for sea travel and other colonization projects. Cryo sleep in fantasy settings.

Anyways, stone is also degraded by time. Even without magical mishap, there's probably a percentage of people waking up with massive woulds because of cracks or erosion.
Not to mention insects getting in the orifices.

>>53186753
If your country has a >50% recidive rate, you must live in some backward hellhole.

So from this thread all I got was that petrification is overpowered and should be banned in every campaign.

Thanks /tg/

>>53186178
Honestly, the system OP is suggesting is just for people too concerned with being "humane" to execute criminals but don't give a shit about how inhumane it is to violate bodily autonomy, IE smug hypocrites.

The only just punishment for dangerous criminals is immediate execution, regardless of their actual crime.

>>53186391
>fantasy state reeducation camps where criminals and 'dissidents' are literally reformed in to obedient servants
Would be a pretty cool Orwellian twist to a fantasy campaign

>>53186071
Prison is meant to punish/humiliate OR re-educate/reform/repair.
If your idea of prison is to pop an individual out of society and then pop them back into society unchanged, then sure, but your idea of prison is fucking retarded.

A better answer would be: petrification is a good DETAINMENT procedure.

>>53186130
At least OP tried, unlike every other fetish thread on /tg/

>>53186959
Explain the dissapearingly low recidivism rates of Scandinavian low security prison systems then.

The problem isnt that "some people are just criminal" its that "in some situations crime becomes the most easy/effective/moral option". And those situations include mental ones, trained modes of thinking that require unpacking with the help of mental health professionals so the inmate can realize why they committed the crime.

You have to work out a way, such as education within the prison system or mental healthcare to allow them to find a place in a different system.

Except that neither rehabilitates nor punishes. Might as well execute them and not run the risk of someone trying to unpetrify them in the future.

>>53186240
>>53187871
Every once in a blue moon, the Warcraft writers have a cool idea

I quite liked the Panderia concept of the bug warriors, they freeze their greatest paragons of combat in amber to be revived in a time of crisis.

>>53186311
Rock breaks rock, Ed-boy.

>>53186162
>>53186071
Reminds me of an idea I saw once:

All crimes, regardless of severity, are punished by stranding the criminal in the Astral Plane for a single real day (1000 relative years).

>>53189284
Do you want supervillains? Because that's how you get supervillains.

>>53189284
>strand the criminal mastermind in a plane with functionally infinite time to train and learn from the other criminals with 500+ years of practice with 24 hours of prep before he and his minions are freed

Sounds like a good idea

>>53189356
Stranded as in "alone, with nothing to do."

>>53189284
Again, that solves the problem how?

>>53189433
>Again
what? You haven't told me that before

>>53186117
>You know that prison needs to reform the criminal, right?

That's what a chisel and hammer are for.

>>53186117
No, it doesn't. It's to punish them. Anyone who claims it's there to reform them or help them is lying or ignorant.

>>53189801
In the case of public prison, helping the inmates reduces repeat offenders, which reduces tax dollars spent on human scum.

In the case of private prison, you're totally correct.

File: mem.png (105KB, 500x403px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x403px

Violating a persons right to bodily autonomy is worse than killing them.
Death is natural and comes to all living things, forced modification is perversion.

A fool criticizes murder hobos for resorting to violence as their only solution but a wise man understands that violence IS the only reasonable solution.
You cannot dispute this.

>>53189831
>helping the inmates reduces repeat offenders, which reduces tax dollars spent on human scum.
They only resort to that because simply killing all of them was deemed too unethical.

>>53186071
Consider the following. If a prisoner is to be released at some point, a prisoner taken out of personification has lost nothing in terms of time or age. Yes, you've destroyed a good number of their human connections, but those can be replaced.

No time has passed in their incarceration. No lessons learned.

>>53189885
Yes, exactly.

You've not only failed to cause them to suffer (punish them) but destroyed all their connections to the world around.
Instead of discouraging them from further criminal activity you've left criminality as the only way to exist.

File: clint.gif (19KB, 240x228px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 240x228px

>>53189847
I'd rather have my bodily autonomy taken away from me and then possibly given back then be killed.

Get out of here, Akhmed.

>>53189985
You're only saying that because you have this prevented thing, this empathy for the criminal.
You think "What would I want done to me if I was scum" not "what is right for scum".
Of course you would want the most perverse, lenient punishment over what is just.

The scum should be killed in all cases, anything else is selfishness deceived as concern and you should focus on not being scum.

This is how you get Dread Sorcerer Dave coming back 500 years later when the records of why he was turned into a statue have long since been lost and he is freed by accident to renew his reign of terror.

File: Romanian.png (331KB, 400x550px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 400x550px

>>53186071

>medusa and gypsy

>gypsy
>blond hair

No.

>>53191395
Personally I find it hard to trust the killing of criminals when a lot of people who get executed are later determined to have been innocent of the crimes for which they were accused. I suppose that's less of a concern in magical fantasy worlds where you can ask a passing deity to undo your mistake.

>>53186071
>>53186874
Spinning this is a different direction, if the petrification needs to be maintained somehow (goes away when the medusa dies, or w/e), it's a good way for them to maintain power.
If you kill them, boom! City is swarming with violent criminals.

>>53188300
But apparently on the more Animal Farm side of Orwell

File: eyes_up_here_buddy_by_joerandel.png.jpg (161KB, 786x1017px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 786x1017px

>>53187363

>>53188300
>camps
it's a room with a revolving door and an high-level enchantress.

>>53186781
Really? Prisoners in our system are aware of their punishment/rehabilitation. That is the primary function of incarceration. How are they supposed to learn anything if 20 years feels like a quick nap.

>Lets make no attempt to change the offender in anyway send him out again into the streets. Surely he'll be a changed man.

>>53186146
>20 years later, all the criminal's contacts and associates are now old or dead.
>A lone fish in a big sea.

Seems pretty rough mate. Plus I'm sure after the second time they just smash your statued form.

>>53186071

The primary purpose of a prison is to punish, with the secondary and tertiary purposes being to keep dangerous people away from society and to rehabilitate them so they are no longer dangerous upon being released.

A prison that only really does one of these things, and not even the main one, is not a very good prison.

>>53187307

There are certainly some people who are so psychologically damaged, either because they were born that way or because of trauma, that they will never stop being dangerous criminals. '

I don't think there's substantial evidence that these people form a majority of criminals, though. Most criminals are likely reformable to some extent, if given the right support.

>>53187185
>>53187619
It's not murder if it's a legal and justified execution
Lawful Good isn't always lawful nice

>>53192557
Gygax also encouraged Paladins to execute alignment converts, to send them to a nice afterlife before they have a chance to backslide.

>>53192641
Why not just kill all Lawful Goods now?

>>53192700
t. Lawful Evil

>>53186071
If petrification doesn't include consciousness (if it does, it's pretty torturous, especially if we're talking years or decades) to be honest it seems like a kind of forward-only time travel. I'm not sure I'd mind having the option of moving forward, say, a century or two.

Think about it.

>Work for however long it takes to amass a small fortune
>not, like, billions, but enough money to make money >Appoint a money manager or firm to cautiously invest money, setting aside enough to pay for un-petrification. >Leave a living will stating I'm not to be un-petrified until age-reversal, digital immortality, cyborgs, or some other analogous tech is attainable
>from my perspective I basically travel into a future where I have eternal life and enough of a nest egg to at LEAST establish a regular lifestyle due to compounding interest over like 200 years
>and if something goes horribly wrong, world war 3, asteroid strike, societal collapse w/e then I'll remain blissfully ignorant of it

I like how this thread evolved from fetish bait to "what can change the nature of man?". Also, I feel bad for you who think that a person cannot change and once a scum, always a scum.

>>53188232
Execution honestly seems more humane than some prison sentences we have today.

Making someone sit in a cage for 50 years only to eventually be tossed out with usually no social network, no safety net, no hireability, no savings, having wasted their healthy years...somehow that honestly seems worse than simply putting a bullet in their head and being done with it. Let alone life without parole. That IS a death sentence, after all - they will not leave prison alive - it's just a bizarrely slow and torturous one, especially when you remember that lifers are usually max-security, meaning they're often in solitary confinement or at least held in a cell 23 hours a day. Life without parole seems a more cruel punishment than execution. They're both death sentences.

>>53186117
It's easier to reform them if everyone they knew before being taken out of society is dead.

Take a gang member for example. If his entire gang is dead after two hundred years of petrification, when he goes back into society it'll be easier to rehabilitate him on parole.

>>53192911
And if the entire gang unpetrifies within a few years of eachother...

>>53192922
You could specifically have it set to be within five years of each other.

>>53187394
They're linked since many school districts are funded based on property taxes.

>>53186275
>Flesh to Stone
>Animate Object

>>53192911
All that means is that you'll have a supply of isolated, desperate criminals that can be quickly recruited by contemporary groups.

>>53186959
>It's impossible to reform these people
>When imprisoned they enter as petty thieves and leave as trained and determined terrorists
Isn't that kinda self-contradictory?

>>53187394
Controlling for socioeconomic status, blacks commit crime at a higher rate than whites.

There are poor whites too, you know.

>>53193143
Whites don't get told to respect their roots, and then show non-stop gangsta rap and BLMs violence.

>>53193234
Yep. It's a self-reinforcing cycle wherein a historically poorer and victimized population creates a culture that glamorizes criminal violence and a victim complex, which then gets used to justify self-harming community behaviors like gangland violence, which creates a culture that...

OP proposed the idea in a very dumb way, but I remember a thread/screencap talking about this a while back. I dunno if it's been posted, but since I'm short on time I'll tell you anyway:

The idea went like this: No one knows how long cockatrices/basilisks live, probably a very long time. Say, a local kingdom uses a cockatrice as a means of enacting something equivalent to the death penalty (which would be common in something resembling medieval times). So, several hundred years of use into a cockatrice's life, it dies, and now you've got several hundred years' worth of unstoned murderers/thieves/warlords running around all of a sudden. It's a neat campaign starter if you decide to run with it.

>>53193479
The vast majority of "black" culture is created by media corporations for consumption by non-blacks. It's essentially a product created by and for others that is then presented to the black community and the outside world as their culture.

It's kinda like how country songs don't resemble anything close to rural life.

>>53193597
And they eat it up.

>>53186071
Humane? Maybe.
Practical? FUCK no.
You don't solve the problem by petrifying a prisoner.

If you lock somebody up for 10 years, they have 10 less years of their life to steal, murder, etc. If you petrify somebody and restore them 10 years later, they'll just live 10 years calendar years later than they would have and spend an equal number of years stealing, murdering, etc.

For prison to have ANY affect, you must have a way to reform the prisoner (or at least a plan to do so when they're unpetrified), or put them in a position where they can live their life without being of detriment to society.

File: demolitionman-sylvesterstallone-gunpoint.jpg (60KB, 1203x579px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 1203x579px

>ctrl+f "Demolition Man"
>0 results

Extremely, extremely disappointed in you /tg/

>>53193597
>The vast majority of "black" culture is created by media corporations for consumption by non-blacks.
I'd like a source saying anything to the effect that most hip hop, rap, tyler perry comedies etc are consumed by whites.

>>53186071
>>53192911

Wasn't this the premise of William Shatner's TekWar?

File: 1494318328875.jpg (23KB, 253x217px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 253x217px

>>53186071

No, prisons didn't exist as a form of punishment during the Middle Ages. Prisons only exited to ensure you didn't escape trial. Also, you had to pay for your cell. The more you pay, the bigger the cell. No, being poor didn't prevent you from being imprisoned, you would pay it by begging.

>>53186117
Well stone transmutation tends to do that.

But no. Prisons were always deterrence and punishment.

The reformation shit only came after apologists and socialists found that certain groups don't care.

This idea would only be worth considering if the prisoners remain conscious. Otherwise it wouldn't do anything really.

File: 20170512_071204png.png (551KB, 1080x1600px) Image search: [Google]

551KB, 1080x1600px

Never change /tg/

>>53186071
It's better than execution if there's no reason to believe in an afterlife in your setting. The biggest downside to executions is that there is always a slim chance you had the wrong guy. Not a problem if you just petrify death row inmates and keep them in some giant vault. Even better, it gives your BBEG an army to work with in certain settings.

>>53193708
I'm a middle class white guy, who mostly interacts with middle class white people.
But most lower class white people I've worked with listened to rap, etc.

>>53193968
Well if whites are a majority then it naturally makes sense if they would be the largest consumers.

>>53194230
The plural of anecdote is not data. And that certainly doesn't prove said media is explicitly not meant for blacks.

>>53186849
Norway.

And that's because save for the mentally ill it's fucking hard to fuck up your life in Norway.

>>53194340
>>53186849
Sweden has a very good reformation rate for nativeborn citizens, but not as good as Norway's.

>>53188654
It works for petty crime, but you cannot deny that there are people who cannot be reformed. Doing that is just some ultra-behaviorist fantasy where everything about man can be fixed and nobody is just violent, sadistic or psychopathic. Psychology isn't there yet, and I doubt it'll ever get there.

>>53193102
>That is because the unreformable still linger, polluting the minds of those who need to be "reformed" faster than the broken system can pretend to "fix" them.
>That is because the unreformable still linger, polluting the minds of those who need to be "reformed" faster than the broken system can pretend to "fix" them.
The answer is in the very next sentence mate.

>>53194340
Norway is also almost entirely white. If you eliminate the non-white population, the US has a crime rate lower than Norway's.

>>53188654
> Explain the dissapearingly low recidivism rates of Scandinavian low security prison systems then.

It's more than offset by more first time offenders because there are basically no consequences for committing a crime. In places like Sweden they basically reward you for breaking the law. In the real world, providing things like education or healthcare in a prison system just increase crime rates because you get tons of people committing crimes in order to get into prison and reap the rewards.

>>53194349
Yet they still manage have more total rapes per year than the US, even though they have only a tiny fraction of the population.

>>53194626
>eliminate the non-white population
Settle down Hitler aren't you supposed to be dead?

>>53194791
More importantly when did Brazil get stable Internet connection?

>>53194802
I managed to reply during one of the more stable moments.

>>53194765
Every idiot knows that those statistics are incomparable because you both have totally different legal definitions of rape. Many things classified as rapes in Sweden (and a few scandi countries) would be recorded as something else under US law.

>>53194705
Sadly this, our success in Scandiwegia makes us a poor example for other places.

Demolition Man but with petrification instead of cryogenics.

>>53188300
An actual twist would be that it works.

>>53194828
>Every idiot knows that those statistics are incomparable because you both have totally different legal definitions of rape. Many things classified as rapes in Sweden (and a few scandi countries) would be recorded as something else under US law.
Public indecency is a big issue here but rape is seriously a big and growing issue as well.

>>53194705
>in the real world
You mean in shitholes like America where it's easily possible to end up in such a shitty situation that prison actually seems like a relatively nice place. Real countries don't fail their citizens quite so much.

>>53194845
Well yeah, Enchantment.

>>53194869
I'm sure it is, I wasn't denying that it happens, but I seriously doubt it's more than US levels.

>>53194879
No, Sweden fails us plenty. And many do use prison to advance their education/live for free.

>>53194896
Well if I am to be frank the most common incidence you hear of is foreigners raping other foreigners, actual rape. It's pretty fucked up especially as we're one of the few places where women are more likely to be assaulted by a stranger than an acquaintance. And although the definition of rape is broad it's not that broad (getting kissed is not rape) wtf kind of place doesn't count someone masturbating on you as rape?

>>53194897
"Many" is something of an exaggeration i think. Anyway I bet you'd rather stick it out there in Sweden than in the US. There are degrees of failure, every country's government has flaws. But some are objectively worse. It amazes me how a government like theirs continues to exist when it does barely anything to help its citizens. If a government doesn't assist its people then why even have one?

>>53194926
America, for starters. Which is my whole point of why that statistic comparison that gets thrown around is totally invalid.

>>53194879
No, it happens in any country where they offer rewards for committing crimes. It's been proven time and again that if you make prison comfortable, you get more crime because more people want to take advantage of the free stuff they can get from going to prison.

>>53194926
>And although the definition of rape is broad it's not that broad (getting kissed is not rape) wtf kind of place doesn't count someone masturbating on you as rape?
In the US rape requires penetration. In a lot of states in the US it specifically refers to a man penetrating a woman with his penis. If it doesn't feature that, it's sexual assault, not rape.

>>53194944
I'd rather stick it out here as it's my home, the big things I hear of the US is personal liberty, rights to self determination and action and massive buying power. While Sweden is comfortable, stable and is very wealthy it really does feel constrictive knowing that certain actions and impulses in retaliation will get you into more trouble than the instigator.

>>53194944
>If a government doesn't assist its people then why even have one?
Because assisting isn't a governments duty, it is merely to provide a space where the rights and liberties of its citizens are guaranteed. In many cases this means the state MUST bound itself to non-intervention. What these "social-democrat paradises" are doing is effectively buying the loyalty of their voters (and opening up the borders is part of their strategy: create a welfare dependent lower class that will keep loyally voting social-democrat). In some cases like Greece it collapses quickly, for a country like Sweden it will take longer (http://uk.businessinsider.com/swedish-riksbank-warns-on-recession-and-sky-high-household-debt-2016-6?international=true&r=UK&IR=T).

>Inb4 "hurr durr Amerilard"
I'm European, I just recognize the danger of a state that is given too many competences. Those who can give you everything can also take it away, and considering the direction European governments are going with their "fake news" and "hate speech", I don't think they'd hesitate to abuse their power in pushing a certain narrative that favors them.

>Inb4 "hurr durr b-but muh grannies dying in the streets"
The Netherlands has my favorite healthcare system in the world because it's on par with these "social democratic paradises" yet its healthcare system is entirely privatized. There are just two rules the state enforces: everyone needs to be insured and insurance companies cannot refuse clients. It has laws that regulate the free market rather than a state monopoly or some strange mixture like the NHS or whatever France has.

>>53194991
>While Sweden is comfortable, stable and is very wealthy
But for how long? Between its rising private debt and demographic displacement, the Swedish populace does feel like a frog in a pan of boiling water.

>>53194975
That's fucking weird, among other things that means coercing sex for reception isn't rape.

>>53194879
>Real countries don't fail their citizens quite so much.
Get fucked, commie. We "fail" our citizens because those who do work our market deems valuable succeed and we don't well we do, and way more than we should, but not as much as most european socialist democracies punish those people in order to prop up those who the market doesn't value the contribution of.

I'm not even an ancap, but nor am I a socialist "baww think of the plight of the people who can't hold down even a no-skill job" bleeding heart.

>>53195007
Providing for the general welfare of the citizens is actually not only a legitimate duty of the federal government, it's spelled out in its founding charter.

I don't expect you to read the whole of the Constitution, but you can at least read the preamble.

>>53195010
Feminists aren't whining about it. Do you know why? Because the following statistics of the CDC:
>1 in 20 women get raped
>1 in 71 men get raped
sounds like it's a pretty female problem right? Until...
>1 in 21 men are "forced to penetrate", which isn't rape at all!
Feminists are afraid of men "hijacking" rape, so they can no longer wave it around as a victim card (All men are rapists and all women potential victims, the fact that women rape men about as often as vice versa kind of contradicts that feminist mantra).

>>53195007
>But for how long?
Probably not long, EU looks uncomfortable after Britain so who knows what'll happen.

What we do have is loving and rich neighbor, who conveniently might like a union afterwards.

>>53194957
You seem to have missed the point. The reason people go for the "reward" of imprisonment is when they are in such a fucked up situation that it is genuinely an improvement. If a dude has a job and a wage to live on and a place to live he doesn't just up and think "shit that prison cell looks slightly better than my tiny studio apartment, I better go and rape someone so I can go to jail and live the sweet life". It's based on desperation. If your society is one in which there is very little support and plenty of ways for people to fall between the cracks then you get more of this sort of exploitation. Sure it will still happen in societies that do more to take care of their citizens but way less often.

>>53195010
It depends on the state. In more liberal states, the definition of rape is broader. California, for example, has a definition of rape that includes women raping men or other women, whereas in a more conservative state like Georgia that is classified as sexual assault, not rape.

>>53195025
>general welfare
General welfare is an incredibly vague term, and we KNOW that the Founding Fathers did not intende a welfare state by those words because it simply did not exist at the time (though Franklin did favor public education, and I cannot disagree with a man with such fine taste in lovers). This also contradicts what we see written in the Federalist Papers, where there appears to be almost an obsession with limiting the power of the state (and also limiting democracy, something a lot of people don't know).

Trying to translate that vague guarantee into a promise to maintain a welfare state is about as retarded as using the constitution to justify abortion. And it's a sad state of affairs when educated judges do both.

>>53195035
>It's based on desperation.
Not really, we have a fairly massive number of non natives to native born in our prisons despite receiving enough assistance and aid to survive.

The thing is desperation makes assholes but if those assholes move to where desperation is low they don't stop being assholes.

>>53195029
Don't you have a mother? Why do you blame this on feminists?

Are you ugly?

>>53195007
> The Netherlands has my favorite healthcare system in the world because it's on par with these "social democratic paradises" yet its healthcare system is entirely privatized. There are just two rules the state enforces: everyone needs to be insured and insurance companies cannot refuse clients.

So basically the thing Obama tried to do and now is getting undone because Americans believe that it's tyrannical big-government socialism.

>>53195029
It's not an issue of feminism. States where feminism is more entrenched are more likely to classify men being forced to penetrate as female-on-male rape, not less.

>>53195085
Not quite, in the Netherlands you don't receive state assistance to achieve insurance, rather your earnings are garnished.

>>53186753
Scandinavian prison systems are exemplary, with exception to Sweden. Norway, Finland, Denmark, in particular Norway, all do well.

>>53195007
>assisting isn't a governments duty
HAH, wow that is a good one. Despite the fact that in fact many countries do specify something to that effect in their constitutions (see>>53195025), don't you think it's kind of shitty for such a massive and powerful organisation to exist and profit from the people without giving back to them?

>>53195014
>Get fucked, commie
Well that didn't take long. Shouldn't you be having a neighbourhood watch meeting to root out those dirty reds? And to actually address your point sure if you believe that "the market" is the most important thing then that would be an entirely valid thing to say. I guess I'm just not the sort of arsehole who values the capitalist system more than human life.

>>53194957
> It's been proven time and again that if you make prison comfortable, you get more crime because more people want to take advantage of the free stuff they can get from going to prison.

Source?

Is there any data that actually shows a meaningful number of people committing crimes in order to go to prison? I've seen this argument before, by I've never seen the data to back it up. Is this a real problem?

>>53195128
Maybe we don't think a government SHOULD be "massive and powerful" and also think using a government's size and power to justify giving it more size and power is a fucking retarded slippery slope to start down.

Maybe it shouldn't profit off of us.

>>53195125
What is Finnish prison anyway? Being forced to interact with others?

>>53195135
It's called common sense. If you incentivize something, more people will do it. If you incentivize crime, you get more people committing crimes. Simple.

>>53195128
But the market IS human activity. The market is not a church or the decisions of elite bureaucrats or the commandments of a king or anything else. The market is just people, you fucking retard. People who, at least ideally, voluntarily enter exchanges based on perceived mutual benefit arising from differences in valuation, ability, resources, and desires. Referring to "the capitalist system" as some kind of ominous monolith is fucking retarded because every single thing you own is a product of "the capitalist system" and I hardly think you'd classify any of it as valued above human life.

Also, the idea that a free market comes at the expense of human life is fucking retarded and defies literally centuries of consistent evidence that freer markets lead to wealthier, more prosperous, healthier, and happier citizens than does socialism, dictatorship, fascism, communism, or monarchy.

You fucking retard.

>>53186959

Why don't we exile and ship these criminals off to remote lands to colonize?

File: 1vVF1.png (131KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 500x500px

>>53195152
By which he means no, he doesn't actually have a source despite claiming "It's been proven time and again."

>>53195052
That it is vague, doesn't detract from the fact that is clearly intended a promise for the government to in some way assist and take care of the citizens. What form that takes is up for debate but my point that a government should assist its citizens is upheld by this. And it just makes fucking sense anyway i mean what the fuck, why would you want this monolithic powerhouse putting all sorts of limitations and restrictions on your way of life without doing anything for you?

>>53188654
>Explain the dissapearingly low recidivism rates of Scandinavian low security prison systems then.
Recidivism varies among social groups. Applying the same system to all people no matter how different they are, and expecting the same results while ignoring the individuals' character is madness, or ignorance.

File: 1355451955733.jpg (41KB, 720x401px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 720x401px

>>53195155
Y-yeah, but in free markets people actually profit when they voluntarily exchange with you, and my college professor who never worked a real job a day in his life said profit is evil.

>>53195128
>Despite the fact that in fact many countries do specify something to that effect in their constitutions (see>>53195025)
Already rebuked the example of the American Constitution, and some other countries simply have shitty constitutions. The Dutch Constitution forbids judges from testing government legislation on compliance to the Constitution for example, and the German Constitution prohibits parties who get less than 5% of the vote from entering the Bundestag, and Britain's constitution is whatever the judges want it to be. Constitutions aren't sacrosanct, they can be full retard.

>don't you think it's kind of shitty for such a massive and powerful organisation to exist and profit from the people without giving back to them?
So your options are
>Let them profit from the people and give back a little
>Don't let them profit from the people
You know that a state that spends less will have lower taxes, right? Your fancy unemployment benefits come from somewhere, they don't just fall out of the sky. This will only get worse with basic income being the "hip" thing to do.

You can instead subscribe to the classical liberal view of the state: it is a neccessary evil, which we will only allow to infringe on our right to property (through taxation) for absolutely neccessary reasons. These being internal security (police), external security (the army) and infrastructure, with a few gray areas here and there.

>>53195082
Disagreeing with a common belief held by modern feminists isn't equivalent to saying that women belong only in the kitchen. Theres a middle ground between the two, equally wrong extremes, of capitulating to one self-serving group or the other.

File: 1353103454922.jpg (60KB, 795x507px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 795x507px

>>53195184
Pretty much. Detractors love to point out the failings of capitalist societies - they are not perfect and nobody rational claims they are - while ignoring the massive gulf between their failings and the failings of every proposed alternative.

It's a little like being scolded for tossing out half a meal and being wasteful with food, meanwhile across town farmers are letting entire crops go fallow because claiming it on insurance and ag subsidy is actually worth more than the crop would be worth for sale.

>>53195196
> You know that a state that spends less will have lower taxes, right?
A state that spends less on its people doesn't necessarily spend less in total.

File: 1358273863674.png (670KB, 691x1483px) Image search: [Google]

670KB, 691x1483px

>>53195082
Because modern feminists claim they're about gender equality yet viciously attack anyone who acknowledges men's issues.

>>53195174
>That it is vague, doesn't detract from the fact that is clearly intended a promise for the government to in some way assist and take care of the citizens.
It does bruh, it really does. Especially when you combine it with the Federalist Papers, forcing us to accept a more broad meaning which more or less comes down to something like a vague guarantee that the state will guarantee safety of its citizens and generally proper governance. And I'm far from the only one who reads it like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause
>The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]
>These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general legislative power to the federal government.[13]

Trying to retroactively read some kind of obligation to create a Nanny State is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do. If all rules can be interpreted according to the whims of judges and legislators, all legal certainity is thrown out of the window.

>>53195236
Welcome to the electorate, please enjoy your civic duty of keeping an eye on the government and voting against abuse of power.
>B-But that's hard ;__;
Which is why I'm not in favor of universal suffrage, in its current form at least.

>>53195139
Right and I would agree with that. Contrary to what people seem eager to assume about me I am not at all in favour of state controlled capitalism, communism or socialism. My point is that if a government is not large or powerful then it would surely be ineffective and therefore why even have it all? To borrow an americanism, "go big or go home". And without drawing money from the citizens it would be unable to do fucking anything at all.

>>53195155
>ideally, voluntarily
Now this is the key sticking point. As you say I am of course using many things which i have purchased with money, earned through a job from which i receive a modest wage. However I didn't exactly have much of a choice in that regard did I? It's fucking impossible to extract oneself from this system due to its massive all encompassing nature so yes i think monolithic is an appropriate word. And while I was fortunate enough to be born into a position where that was possible, even easy for me to achieve, it is not so for many people. And often the way with especially free markets is that inequality spirals out of control with more and more people being born into those sorts of conditions which are hard to escape from while an elite effortlessly perpetuates itself on the backs of those. So I would hardly describe it as valuing human life and it's a joke to describe it as voluntary.

>>53195255
> Welcome to the electorate, please enjoy your civic duty of keeping an eye on the government and voting against abuse of power.
> B-But that's hard ;__;
> Which is why I'm not in favor of universal suffrage, in its current form at least.
Nice made up argument you got there.

>>53195282
So you're saying that you don't think it's difficult? So we agree then?

>>53195256
>My point is that if a government is not large or powerful then it would surely be ineffective and therefore why even have it all?
Not really, "big or small" refers to the scope of its competences. A state can be very small but very powerful in the competences it has. It can have a very effective policing body, an unmatched army and world-class infrastructure and still remain a "small and weak" government, while a third world shithole like North Korea has the example of a "strong and large" government.

Big and strong isn't desirable when it comes to governments.

>>53195229
>>53195184

Capitalism is beneficial when you force it to be. It's like fire, a powerful tool if properly controlled, and destructive when it isn't. Compare Chile in the 1950s to the 1970s and 80s to today. The Pinochet regime let the free market run wild, and you saw the poverty rate rocket up from 18% to more than 45%. Then, after Pinochet was forced out and the Chilean government began regulating the market again, they were eventually able to bring the poverty rate back down to 14%.

A mixed market with regulated capitalism produces better results than either free market capitalism or socialism.

>>53186275
>rocks can't break rocks.

ONLY ROCK CAN BREAK ROCK

>>53195350
> A mixed market with regulated capitalism produces better results than either free market capitalism or socialism.

Wrong. It was Pinochet's shock reforms that allowed Chile to recover from decades of leftist misrule. The country was already in a death spiral when he took power, and he created a free market system that allowed Chile to recover. Now, it's a prosperous nation because of capitalism, not socialism.

>>53195196
>>53195255
>constitution rambling
So the constitution isn't sacrosanct and we should challenge it but wait we can't change it because it would be too "dangerous" and would throw out all legal certainty so we can't have any support for the citizens or we'll become a "nanny state". Make your mind up.

>welcome to the electorate...
So your answer is just suck it up and let the state get away with whatever it wants? Vote against abuse of power? LOL
I do agree with your weird self argument that we shouldn't have universal suffrage though. There should be a test of eligibility to vote so that only people who know what the fuck they're voting about can actually influence matters. Meritocracy is best -ocracy

>>53195381
>Make your mind up.
If you weren't being deliberately facetious you'd see exactly what I mean. A Constitution isn't sacrosanct and can be called into question, but it should provide legal certainity. This results in something incredibly obvious that's already present in many systems to a greater or lesser degree: Constitutions should be interpreted very restrictively, but they can still be changed, abolished or amended under certain circumstances. If you paid any attention to the elections in France, you'd realize one of the candidates had abolishing the current constitution as part of his program.

>>53195321
I'm not that guy but no it isn't difficult for us to live in this system. But you seem to vastly overestimate the power we have to influence matters. It seems like you just roll with a shitty situation because you can't find an alternative.

>>53195350
> B- buu- bu- Pinochet!
Marxists always trot this out to try to paint capitalism as evil, all while ignoring literally millions dying under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and every other marxist that has ever taken power. Marxism does not work. Stop trying to pretend it's anything but a giant powergrab.

>>53195401
>It seems like you just roll with a shitty situation because you can't find an alternative.
What alternative is there? Your precious socialist worker's paradise? That has literally never worked. It's not an alternative, so unless you have something else you should just sit down and shut up. The adults are talking.

>>53195400
But you seem to disagree with calling the idea of "general welfare" into question and whether the government should be assisting its people

>>53186071
Just enchant them to believe they've been in prison for their whole sentence.
That way you also don't have to pay for the storage of their bodies.

>>53195419
The general welfare means maintaining a free market system. That, more than anything else, is what produces a wealthy, prosperous society. If you want to promote the general welfare, then you should stick to the one system that has been proven by historical fact to be the best creator of general welfare in human history: the free market.

Government "assisting its people" is counter productive. It just spends money that would be more efficiently used in the free market if it wasn't taxed to begin with.

>>53195413
Typical dismissive bullshit. I have already stated I no more support state controlled capitalism/socialism than I do free market capitalism but you guys just love to shit on socialism/communism every chance you get. And then you get hysterical retards like this guy >>53195404 screaming about marxism like it's some kind of boogeyman just waiting to destroy our precious western values.

Talking of systems which literally never worked why is it acceptable to roll with the failures of capitalism but when any alternative has been tried and failed that automatically invalidates its entire ideology? The hypocrisy of you people is what really bugs me. If people put half as much effort into sustaining any of the alternative systems as the efforts that have been made to prop up the shambling wreck of capitalism maybe they would work just as well, if not better? People are just too scared to really commit to a new way of living and its just easier to lie down and take it as it is

>>53195477
> why is it acceptable to roll with the failures of capitalism
Name one. You're the one who wants to throw out literally the best economic system in all of human history when it comes to creating wealth and prosperity. Burden of proof is on you to provide a reason to do so and an alternative.

>>53195446
>Free market
>human history
Uhh anon? I think you might want to pay attention to the multiple previous millennia in human development before this very recent trend of free(ish) markets in the past few centuries. It is hilarious that you claim that as the thing which has driven us forwards when it has barely even existed.

>>53195477
> the shambling wreck of capitalism
> But don't worry guys, I'm not a Marxist! Honest!
Not fooling anyone.

>>53195500
Bro did you even read the fucking thread and how this entire argument started? Anyway it's pretty apparent that there are many failures, how about the vastly disproportionate ratio of people in poverty compared to people who are well off? People born into shit, work themselves to death and die in the same position or worse.

>>53195523
Not that guy but to play the devil's advocate, unbridled capitalism and unfettered communism aren't the only options. Hell, there isn't a single developed country that practices untainted Smithsonian capitalism, not even America (exhibit A: American competition law. To prohibit the rise of monopolies, certain powerful companies are simply limited in what they can or cannot do while smaller companies are allowed to do those exact same things).

>>53195517
> the multiple previous millennia in human development
More wealth has been created in the last two centuries of capitalism than in the twenty that came before it. Capitalism is the best creator of wealth and prosperity in human history. That is a simple fact. More people have been lifted out of poverty thanks to the free market than any other system ever devised.

>>53195536
> Anyway it's pretty apparent that there are many failures
Then it should be easy to name one. So name one.

> vastly disproportionate ratio of people in poverty compared to people who are well off
Disproportionate compared to what? Every other system features an even worse ratio of people in poverty compared to those with wealth.

> People born into shit, work themselves to death and die in the same position or worse.
What capitalist nation does this happen in?

>>53195523
See this what I mean, the paranoia is real with these people. It's like McCarthyism all over again. If I were to label my particular brand of ideal society it certainly wouldn't be marxist, fuck that level of state control. For that matter, fuck the state. I guess AnCom would be closest to my ideal system, which I suppose would make me a Kropotkin-ist if you want a label to hysterically deride me with.

Yay, more pointless fucking /pol/shit on /tg/.

>>53195282
>> Welcome to the electorate, please enjoy your civic duty of keeping an eye on the government and voting against abuse of power.
to be fair, both major political parties in the US abuse power and are corrupt. i imagine the rest of them are the same, but just havent had the opportunity to prove it.

its kind of irrelevant though, the FPTP system means that alternative parties are practically irrelevant

>>53195537
> Not that guy but to play the devil's advocate, unbridled capitalism and unfettered communism aren't the only options.
No, but the people who bitch about "the shambling wreck of capitalism" and demand that we throw it out aren't somewhere in the middle. They are pretty much universally on the extreme left.

>>53195574
The American system wasn't designed with parties in mind, it's the parties that utterly ruin it (at least in their modern incarnation as near-monolithic blocks rather than loose alliances that can be entered and left on a whim). It is what creates a party hierarchy, tribalism and limits the freedom of expression of congressmen (imagine being a Republican who thinks weed should be legalized, or a Democrat who opposes gay marriage. You'd be booted out of your party, and not accepted by the other for not fitting in enough). If we could somehow abolish parties, then the district system and FPTP system would reveal just how well they work in concert.

Same in Europe, different systems but political parties still ruin everything.

>>53195574
>its kind of irrelevant though, the FPTP system means that alternative parties are practically irrelevant
No, the fact that no one votes for alternative parties is what makes them irrelevant. If people thought for a minute and voted third party instead of just following along like sheep and voting for the two-headed party of big government then we wouldn't be in this mess.

>>53186071
>I HAVE NO MOVING MOUTH AND I MUST SCREAM!

Either the mind of the petrified is stopped, which is no difference than death or it is still aware and becomes fucking insane, unable to move or do anything but to long for death

>>53195539
>more wealth
Ignoring the fact this is a gross simplification what makes you so certain that the recent trend towards capitalism is the cause of this? Lacking other examples of sapient species developing histories of their own we can't really say for sure how exactly a civilisation develops. We have a grand total of one data point. For all we know, the nature of scientific progress and how that ties in to societal development could naturally lead to a sort of exponential increase regardless of whether that takes place in capitalism or a fucking feudal monarchy. You are seeing causation where there is only correlation.

>>53188232
>how inhumane it is to violate bodily autonomy
And killing someone doesn't violate their bodily autonomy?

>>53192255
A shame you'd have to make a fort save everytime you look into those lovely emerald orbs...

>>53195628
There was another data point: Communism. It failed miserably compared to capitalism, just as every past system fails compared to capitalism.

>>53195588
And extreme left doesn't mean Marxist you retard. Did you not read what i said, I have no interest in state control.

>>53195641
> extreme left doesn't mean Marxist
> I have no interest in state control.
The extreme left does mean marxist because the left IS state control.
Right = more freedom.
Left = less freedom.

>>53195641
> And extreme left doesn't mean Marxist you retard
Name a tenant of the left that isn't marxist in nature.

File: black-or-white.png (257KB, 737x566px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 737x566px

>>53195256
>My point is that if a government is not large or powerful then it would surely be ineffective and therefore why even have it all?
"If you don't want big government, then you're an anarchist."

What the fuck kind of logic is that? I want a government that is competent and efficient and effective, but only at a minimum of things.

>>53195639
Can you even read? Capitalism is a blip on the historical spectrum as was the brief attempt at communism(though it is only fair to mention that capitalism has had much more time to grow and mature and iron out its kinks not to mention the backing of basically all the militarily powerful countries at that time, not exactly a fair comparison). I'm talking about global species wide development which we have obviously only one fucking example of.

QUESTS AND WEEKEND SMUT THREADS WERE MORE FUCKING ON TOPIC THAN THIS GODDAMN POLTARDATION CRAP.

>>53195477
That shambling wreck built everything we have today and sustains everything we hold dear. That shambling wreck did more to advance humankind than literally everything that came before it in all of human history.

Forgive us if we're a little clingy and averse to anything that smells like the communism/socialism/marxism box of ideologies, which killed a hundred million people in the 20th century alone.

>>53195654
Oh my god you really are retarded. State control can be entirely independent of what we call left wing and right wing. You get Authoritarian capitalist shitholes like China with heavy state control but hypercapitalist economies and you get stateless anarchist communities with left wing economic ideas like lack of capital, welfare/benefits,

>>53195654
The course to Marxism is always charted through massive governmental control and "redistribution"

With the Open Revolution, it is the party that seizes on the grounds of distributing it with a "fair hand."

With the Socialism route, it is an increasing tax burden until "equality" is achieved.

Under both, the selected friends of the party get exemptions and other bonuses that allow them to thrive while stamping out competition.

That is the ultimate outcome of every attempt to arrive in the Marxist Promised Land... Crony Capitalism.

>>53195690
Wrong. American detected. Just because your baby country recently sprang out of the earth doesn't mean we all did. Many great cities and societies were built long before your country even existed.

>>53195694
>You get Authoritarian capitalist shitholes like China with heavy state control but hypercapitalist economies
China is a communist state

> stateless anarchist communities with left wing economic ideas like lack of capital, welfare/benefits
If it's stateless, then that isn't left wing. Private charity without the need for state coercion is a right wing idea. The left uses the state to give out welfare/benefits using taxpayer money. If it's strictly voluntary, then it isn't leftist.

>>53195718
>china is a communist state
Mate come on you can't be that thick. I lived there for three years and I have yet to be in a country more consumerist than china. It is state capitalist pure and simple. It is communist in name only, much like the "democratic" peoples republic of north Korea isn't democratic at all.

>>53195707
And what did they accomplish? Nothing. Prior to capitalism, the total amount of wealth in the world was a paltry fraction of what is there now thanks to capitalism.

>>53195718
>charity is a right wing idea
Oh lord I have heard some shit in my time but this takes the cake.

>>53195730
"State capitalism" isn't capitalism, it's marxism. It's all still centrally planned, with the government controlling the economy instead of leaving it up to the free market.

File: 1354842885579.png (848KB, 937x1013px) Image search: [Google]

848KB, 937x1013px

>Free markets are evil mixed markets are teh future!!1

The opposite of a free market is an unfree market. If you're not in favor of a free market, then you're arguing only about how much freedom to rescind. Of fucking course people will object. Markets are, after all, just people. A market is based on voluntary interactions between private individuals. Restricting that is inherently discussing restricting individual liberty. You're shocked when people oppose your discussing how much of their individual rights you want to take away? You're a fucking retard, or you're being disingenuous and you know EXACTLY why people call you a commie and tell you to fuck off.

You rail about the failures of what you call the free market, but point to examples that arise in the exact kind of mixed-market you're advocating. You're pointing at today's failures and using it to advocate for status quo.

The evidence for free markets is overwhelming. Time, and time, and time, and time again, it has proven true that the freer the market, the freer the people. The freer the market, the more wealthy, happy, healthy, prosperous, technologically advanced, and faster-growing a country and its people are. This has been proven over, and over, and over again.

>>53195746
Voluntary charity is right wing.
Enforced charity is left wing.

Who do you think gives the most to charity? The limousine liberals sitting in big cities sipping on "organic" lattes? No. It's the churches in rural communities that give the most to charity. The left thinks that taxing other people and forcing them to give their money to someone else is enough, so they don't bother with things like charity. The right, on the other hand, values community and traditional values, such as charity. They understand that it is much more important that something be freely given than just taken by the state and handed out as free stuff.

File: 1355330232748.jpg (79KB, 866x1074px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 866x1074px

>>53195707
I am aware that history started before 1776 and I stand by what I said: Capitalism has done more to advance humankind than literally everything else that came before it.

>>53195736
Yeah you're right it's not like the entire technological and scientific development of mankind took place largely within that pre-capitalist period. All those massive cities with beautifully engineered buildings are meaningless it's not like we still use many buildings that are hundreds of years old. That "wealth" is what matters right? Gotta build more shopping centres and skyscrapers to be valid. That'll show those Romans and their empire that we're much better than them. God you'd be right at fucking home in China. They're almost all souless consumer drones just like you, desperate to increase "economy" while millions choke to death in their shitty factory job

>>53195787
See >>53195777
Capitalism is the reason why you're alive to complain about it. Otherwise, you would have probably died the year you were born, if you were even born at all.

I can't be fucked finding the posts to reply to but
>Hey educating prisoners has been proven to reduce crime rates
>NO YOU FOOL IF GOING TO PRISON PROVIDES SUCH A BENEFIT YOU'LL BE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO COMMIT CRIMES
Then just provide the "benefits" of being in prison to everyone.

>>53195777
Sure seems like everyone is keen to ignore my point that it you're seeing this correlation between capitalism and the uptick of society but where is the causal link? Who is to say we would not experience the exact same exponential growth in any other economic system? Correlation is NOT causation

>>53195777
> Capitalism has done more to advance humankind than literally everything else that came before it.
When it is forced to. When it is allowed to run wild you get something like Chile under Pinochet, more than doubling the poverty rate. A mixed market with government regulated capitalism produces superior results to unfettered capitalism.

>>53195605
>Same in Europe, different systems but political parties still ruin everything.
Debatable. Parties seem to generally work out fine with the caveat that you need to have parties that provide genuine alternatives, rather than two or three monolithic centrist parties that disagree on a few key issues but are more similar than different.

>>53195641
>And extreme left doesn't mean Marxist you retard

>Communism, socialism, call it what you like
>There's very little difference 'tween the two

Every extreme-left fucktard calls their snowflake variant of radical leftism something different. I don't give a fuck if you call it marxism, socialism, communism, leninism, trostkyism, maoism, social democracy, people's socialist republicanism, "socialist markets," planned economies, democratic socialism, owenism, anarcho-communism, or whatever other invented term you've come up with to describe something that is 99% identical in the basic core tenets of whatever your flavor of far-left radicalism is.

Nobody is fooled by this dumbass special-pleading. Everyone sees your horseshit for the same exact thing that killed a hundred million people in the 20th century. Most people across the globe, statistically speaking, have families that were devastated by socialism. My family, personally, fled to America because communists literally raped and pillaged their way through the old country. My direct ancestors are among the people murdered by your evil ideology, regardless of what mask it's wearing this week - just in case you wondered why some people seem to take your bullshit so personally.

Regardless of what you call it, it's a thoroughly discredited ideology that has done nothing but perpetuate suffering, evil, and misery.

Now ain't I right?

>>53195797
And the fact that you are just letting capitalism take credit for all of that when it is largely technological/scientific progress that brought these benefits makes me madder than anything i've read so far and i've read some shit today. Development has been happening just fine for thousands of years before capitalism and it may well have continued exactly the same without it, maybe even better!

>>53195817
>Chile under Pinochet
This argument has already been debunked. And I really don't think a leftist wants to get into a pissing match about tyrannical governments. Trust me, that's a fight you'll lose.

>>53195736
The amount of retardation in this post is so large that it's miraculous your skull hasn't imploded yet.

>>53195800
>Then just provide the "benefits" of being in prison to everyone.

ah yes, prisons shouldn't punish people for committing crimes

>>53195820
> Parties seem to generally work out fine
Only if your definition of "fine" features muslims being allowed to gun people down in the street, run them over with trucks, and rape women with impunity. Having dozens of parties won't help if they all favor importing millions of shitskins to replace the native population with animals who will support more government powergrabs.

>>53195608
No one votes for alternative parties because unless they have a realistic chance of winning, the voter loses what very little influence they currently have.

If the system used priority based voting, where the voter selects their first choice, second, etc. and then victory is determined by elimination of lowest score repeatedly until one party has a majority rather than a plurality, it wouldn't be the case. Its a chicken/egg thing.

>>53195605
Yeah, parties shit up the Australian system too. The PM has no real influence, they're essentially a figurehead, its the party you're voting for. People keep forgetting this, and don't realize that Liberals and Labor both equally screw over their voters, using the PM as a red herring.

> Everyone's talking about how their economic system is the best.
> No discussion about elasticity of demand or supply, how regulation changes incentives to maximize public utility

Take an economics class everyone. It'll help.

>>53195834
>And the fact that you are just letting capitalism take credit for all of that when it is largely technological/scientific progress that brought these benefits
I trust you are of course discounting any technological or scientific progress that was developed in a capitalist market in expectation of profit, right?

Of course you are.

Right?

>>53195830
Sorry you come from some ex soviet shithole but the fact is there are differences, particularly with the one I mentioned due to the incredibly serious difference of lacking a state. You don't want to lend any legitimacy to anything its associated with because of your personal shit but frankly that's irrelevant. Marxism is about as close to anarcho-communism as it is to fucking free market capitalism.

>>53195848
Fun fact: With the rise of nationalism in European countries, many are changing the rules for representatives so that only the people in favor of importing millions can get elected.

Because when your electorate are increasingly concerned that their interests aren't being thought about, the best option is to disenfranchise them!

>>53195836
> This argument has already been debunked.
No, Pinochet more than doubled the poverty rate in Chile by letting the free market go unregulated. Then, after he was ousted, the return of government regulation in the market brought with it a massive decline in the poverty rate. A mixed market system regulated by a left-leaning government produced vastly superior results to an unfettered market under Pinochet.

>>53186428
you can correct any executional mistake at a later point, with death penalty you cant

>>53195862
Again, the core tenets of these extreme-left ideologies are 99% identical. They may express themselves in different ways, all of which free people must always be on guard for, but the basic ideas are the same.

>>53195862
That's because Marxism is pie in the sky idealism, dreamt up by a failure of a man who never worked an honest job in his life, even as his children were starving to death.

It has no relation to anything in reality, except possibly hand to mouth tribal villages in the deep dark congo.

>>53195850
> because unless they have a realistic chance of winning
BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM YOU IDIOT.

If people would vote third party, then they would have a chance at winning because more votes = win.

>>53195842
I'm not sure where you're getting that from my post.
Being imprisoned is already in and of itself a punishment because it severely reduces autonomy, by the way.

>>53195868
see

>>53195376
>Wrong. It was Pinochet's shock reforms that allowed Chile to recover from decades of leftist misrule. The country was already in a death spiral when he took power, and he created a free market system that allowed Chile to recover. Now, it's a prosperous nation because of capitalism, not socialism.

>>53195859
My point, if you actually used your fucking eyes, is that it has been happening without capitalism for millennia and would likely have continued had capitalism not developed. Yes, obviously for profit scientific institutions have made advances but how the fuck would you know if we wouldn't have made exactly the same advances if we still had a feudal monarchy or whatever fucking system. For all you know we could be even further ahead.

>>53195880
It's not even as hard as winning. Even presenting the POSSIBILITY of a spoiler vote forces major parties to accommodate their voters and, thus, their beliefs.

Republicans suddenly get a lot more libertarian if they think the Libertarian Party in a state or county or whatever might siphon enough votes to give the Democrat the victory.

Thus, even without actually winning many races and none at highest levels, the Libertarian Party is politically influential.

>>53195863
>Fun fact: With the rise of nationalism in European countries, many are changing the rules for representatives so that only the people in favor of importing millions can get elected.
Citation fucking needed. I've yet to see ONE news article even hinting at such change in any European country.

>>53195880
>BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM YOU IDIOT
>BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CHANCE OF WINNING YOU IDIOT
>BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM YOU IDIOT
>BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CHANCE OF WINNING YOU IDIOT
>BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM YOU IDIOT
>BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CHANCE OF WINNING YOU IDIOT

File: never change, tg.png (174KB, 1898x667px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 1898x667px

>mfw we've gone from petrification to Pinochet
amazing

>>53195886
>How do you know we wouldn't be equally prosperous without free markets?

Because free market societies are empirically more prosperous than "regulated" societies. This has been proven again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and can be seen for yourself by comparing nations by their economic freedom and by whatever metric of prosperity you value - lifespan, GDP, average income, whatever.

>b-b-b-but correlation doesn't-
Shut the fuck up. At least explain why such a consistent and strong correlation exists if it has nothing to do with economic freedom.

Come up with better, more persuasive evidence for the other side and then I'll har your making an unfalsifiable, disingenuous, and visibly bullshit argument about "we can't know for sure." You're right, we can't - so we must logically go where the evidence most strongly points, and the evidence most strongly points to a freer market.

>>53195884
> It was Pinochet's shock reforms that allowed Chile to recover from decades of leftist misrule.

This is wrong on several levels.

First, Pinochet had more than two decades in power. He ruled Chile as a dictator from 1973 to 1990. And in that time, he made the situation in Chile worse, not better. Things didn't get better until well after he was ousted and his "shock reforms" were undone.

Second, the left had only been in power in Chile for 3 years, and the situation under Allende for those 3 years was better than it was under Pinochet by numerous measures, including poverty rate, average income, and employment.

>>53186071
ITT; OP doesn't understand the point of prison, anons dont understand american prisons, and also some white guilt

>>53195817
Except that was dealing with the problems caused by the previous socialist governments. It got worse because it would have got worse regardless.

>>53195880
>> because unless they have a realistic chance of winning
>BECAUSE NO ONE VOTES FOR THEM YOU IDIOT.
...if you read what isaid, you'd realize that this is a chicken/egg type problem as >>53195891
said.

i also described exactly how the system could be reformed to solve this problem. learn to read

>>53195889
Agreed, that being said, I think their gracious and conscientious accommodations will start with the voting year, and end with the election, based on both parties track record.

File: 1353105765577.jpg (222KB, 595x381px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 595x381px

>>53195916
Not him, but you're fucking retarded. Not only are you wrong, but even if we accept every conclusion you're drawing as 100% sound, where does that leave you?

>Capitalism is evil! Pinochet!
Meanwhile
>Every single time communism, socialism, marxism etc has been tried in a nation, it was disastrous
>Every
>Single
>Time

Take your command economy and shove it up your ass. Capitalism has a better success rate than literally anything else you can name. Finding a single, unique, and flawed anecdote where you hold it didn't work and claiming it disproves the free market is fucking stupid.

>>53195928
Wasn't he also dealing with leftist disruption, violence, and Soviet espionage the entire time?

>>53195916
It was Pinochet's rule that laid the foundation for Chile's growth in the 90s and 2000s. They are what saved Chile from the downward spiral that the left had created. And no, it wasn't just Allende. The left had dominated Chile for decades even before Allende and they had never done anything but tread water. Pinochet shocked the country out of the stagnant mire that the left had created.

>>53186753
Norway has ~20% recidivism. Though, Norwegian prisons are hyper focussed on rehabilitation, and they don't have enough the whole "inner city" problem that the US has, because they are an effectively isolated monoculture.

>>53195558
>> People born into shit, work themselves to death and die in the same position or worse.
>What capitalist nation does this happen in?
All of them. Just because you don't like to think of all the poor bastards stuck in retail/food service hell literally unable to afford to take the time and debt needed to get an education that lets them not have to spend their free time finding ways to stretch their shittyass minimum wage to get them food and rent for the month doesn't mean they aren't there.

File: Why+do+you+all+hate+capitalism+so+much+Unlike+socialism+_30eb4dfd6b1e50a102de0dbb5b664ff0.png (479KB, 1436x1580px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1436x1580px

>>53195770
this

>>53195936
No one here is advocating Marxism, merely regulation of the market. Capitalism produces the best results when combined with government regulation to tame its worst aspects.

>>53186753
Also Japan only has a 39.5% recidivism rate, bit, again, isolated monoculture. Ever watch COPS, the reality TV show, from Japan? They spend 30 minutes on a minor traffic accident between a vehicle and a guard rail.

>>53195958
having worked retail/food service...
No, they aren't working hard, at all.

They're putting in a paycheck, then burning it (and their free time) off on various (legal or not) recreational drugs.

Instead of learning additional options and skillsets that would enable them to earn more.

>>53195958
>All of them
Actually, social mobility is significantly greater in relatively free market areas such as Hong Kong compared to "mixed economies", so called "regulated capitalism," such as in the United States.

It's patently unfair to blame the government-induced failures of regulation, high taxation, regulatory-backed monopolies, bailouts etc on capitalism and use it to argue for the very regulations that cause these failures.

>>53195969
>Capitalism produces the best results when combined with government regulation to tame its worst aspects.
No, it doesn't. A freer market across all nations is decisively correlated with more wealth and prosperity.

>>53195946
> It was Pinochet's rule that laid the foundation for Chile's growth in the 90s and 2000s
Pinochet had more than two decades to deliver results. He didn't. He made the economic situation even worse by numerous measurements. After two decades of his "shock reforms" Chile had a poverty rate more than double what he started with. It was after his reforms were undone that Chile began to improve. Chile is where it is today in spite of Pinochet, not because of him. Chile today bears a much closer resemblance to Chile under Allende than under Pinochet.

>>53195969
>repeating this lie even though it's been debunked time and time again
see >>53195184

>I'm not advocating marxism, just central planning and restraining evil capitalists to prevent them from profiting too much-
Yeah, everyone sees through that. Get fucked, commie.

>>53196003
> I'm not advocating marxism, just central planning and restraining evil capitalists to prevent them from profiting too much-
> Yeah, everyone sees through that. Get fucked, commie.

So you either favor an unrestricted market, or you're a communist?

>Across human history the rise of capitalism is strongly associated with skyrocketing wealth, prsoperity, living standards, development, and innovation
WELL C-CORRELATION DO-DOESN't EQUAL CAUSATION HOW DO YOU *KNOW* WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT ANYWAY

>Pinochet's rule correlated with economic problems
SEE GUYS UNAMBIGUOUS PROOF FREE MARKETS ARE EVIL

>>53196015
Yes. See >>53195985
Wanting to make the market less free means that you want a poorer, less prosperous nation simply in the name of more government control. That makes you a marxist.

>>53196015
You're either in favor of a free market, or an unfree market.

Those are, indeed, your only two options. Arguing a petty difference of "Actually, my unfree market is slightly more free than their unfree market..." is transparent.

There is no "Free market but with limits." Then it is, by definition, not a free market, and the only discussion to be had is how much liberty to remove.

>>53195975
Social mobility also significantly higher in the extremely mixed economies of northern europe.

>>53195999
Bzzt. Wrong. Pinochet's shock reforms are what put Chile on the road to prosperity. Repeat your lies as much as you like, no one is buying them here.

>>53196031
> Social mobility also significantly higher in the extremely mixed economies of northern europe.
No it isn't. It's much higher in free market areas like Hong Kong, Singapore, and Switzerland.

>>53196030
>There is no "Free market but with limits." Then it is, by definition, not a free market, and the only discussion to be had is how much liberty to remove.
Then where in the world is there a "free" market?

>>53196061
Nowhere. There's no such thing as "free market" except in propaganda.

File: 1452729814249.jpg (73KB, 397x509px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 397x509px

The worst part of threads like this is that I legit can't tell if you people are just trolling because this is 4chan or if you legitimately believe the shit you spew out.

In any event carry on, it will be interesting reading when I get back from work.

>>53196031
The only "mobility" northern europe has is the ability to be bent over by the rapefugees that they are importing by the boatload.

>>53196061
>>53196071
Market freedom is a spectrum, and if you do not consistently want a market to move in the direction of greater freedom, then you don't want a free market and any disingenuous horseshit about "free market with limits" or "regulated free market" is revealed for theobvious hypocrisy it is.

Of course, I'm explaining something you already know. Leftists are nothing if not disingenuous.

>>53196030
By this logic a 'free market' has never existed on an appreciable scale at any point in history.

>>53196074
>I'm not going to take a stand, just coming by to smugly wank myself about how superior I am to all of you
Can we all just agree this type of reply is infinitely more pathetic than the other side of this argument? At least they're bringing an argument, good bad or otherwise. This guy is purely, solely here to wank himself.

>>53196077
>Markets are either free or not
>Market freedom exists on a spectrum
Which is it?

>>53196085
Nothing wrong with a pre-work wank. Now argue some more, I'm nearly finished~

>>53196079
>>53196071
>>53196061
Nowhere in that post does it actually claim a truly, perfectly, 100% free market exists.

Nowhere has anybody in this thread claimed such a thing exists.

It's obvious to the rest of us that a market can be more, or less, free.

>>53196091
Leftists are nothing if not disingenuous.

Those two greentexts are not contradictory. It is correct that markets are either free or not. The posts you're replying to, disingenuously trying to pigeonhole a perfectly logical and consistent stance into some kind of self-contradiction, clearly state that freedom is a spectrum. Any market that is not a free market is, by definition, an unfree market, and the people lying about wanting "regulated capitalism" or whatever euphemism they mean are simply advocating for a less-free market, which is in defiance of the overwhelming evidence both real and theoretical in support of the simple fact that the freer the market, the better.

>>53196077
Saying you want a mixed market isn't
> disingenuous horseshit about "free market with limits" or "regulated free market"
It's a mixed market. Not free, but regulated. Not marxism, but also not a free market. A market where the power of capitalism is present, but also restrained to prevent its worst aspects from running out of control.

Yes, how much you regulate the market is a spectrum. But, as shown with Chile, the answer is not simply to push all the way to one end without thinking. Applying some restraints produces a superior outcome, as shown by the fact that poverty was substantially lower both before Pinochet's coup and after his ouster.

File: 0386224.jpg (28KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x399px

>>53196091
Psst.

What you're failing to grasp is that not all not-free markets are equally not-free.

That doesn't make them free markets. If you stuck a paraplegic and a quadriplegic next to one another, one is clearly less disabled than the other, yet they are both disabled. Same logic applies.

File: 1285885699239.png (234KB, 432x480px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 432x480px

>>53196123
Is it obvious to anyone else that this faggot keeps bringing up Pinochet because he has no answer to literally every other example in the fucking world disagreeing with him?

Nobody gives a fuck about your one-sided misrepresentation of Chilean history. Nobody is fooled by it. Its flaws have been exhaustively explained several times. Zoom out a little and look across all nations and you will find, decisively, that more economic freedom = more wealth, success, and prosperity.

>>53189801
Are petrified subjects aware of the passage of time? Wouldn't be much of a punishment otherwise, IMHO.

>>53196038
>Chile was fine before Pinochet, went to shit during him, got better after him

>b-but it was the LEFTIES that ruined everything and he fixed it.
Shit was looking fine before he showed up broseph, unless you've got some citations for it not being his fault.

>>53196075
Well done! You've correctly discerned that Sweden is, indeed, located in Northern Europe! With a few more years of education you might even realize that there's more to Northern Europe than Sweden!

>>53196148
Yeah, there's also Norway and Finland and, depending on your definitions of "Northern" and/or "Europe" maybe the UK, Iceland, the Baltic states, and Denmark.

Sweden's just the easy target.

File: 1355338463147.gif (328KB, 1000x753px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1000x753px

>>53196160
>Yeah, there's also Norway and Finland and, depending on your definitions of "Northern" and/or "Europe" maybe the UK, Iceland, the Baltic states, and Denmark.
I'd still rather live in Singapore or Hong Kong.

>>53196124
>>53196130

All markets fall on a spectrum. The question is where the ideal point is. It's clearly not all the way at the maximum central planning side, as shown by the failures of various communist states in the 20th century. But it's also apparently not at all the way to the other side either, as shown by the failures of the Pinochet regime.

That's the reason why Pinochet is brought up. It is an example of what happens when you veer too far toward the "free" side of the economic spectrum and just let the market run wild. It produces inferior results, as shown by the fact that the more regulated systems that both preceded and followed Pinochet both had vastly lower poverty rates.

The point is that reality is a lot more complicated than just saying "more free = better" with regards to the market.

>>53196110
>the simple fact that the freer the market, the better.
Define "better". For whom? In what sense?

File: Jesus Christ How Horrifying.jpg (864KB, 800x4200px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 800x4200px

>They just need to be regulated!
Yeah, there's surely no problem with that approach. Not like they end up passing regulations that benefit them, distort the market, eliminae or reduce competition, and thus create worse problems than they solve.

>>53186071
Have you never played Dragon Quest VII? The stone eventually wears down and you can no longer bring back the person.

File: NIpuKZ.png (59KB, 700x1069px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 700x1069px

>>53196197
>Regulations will fix it

>>53196184
> The point is that reality is a lot more complicated than just saying "more free = better" with regards to the market.

Name a single example where making the market more free was worse. And don't say Pinochet again because that's already been debunked a dozen times in this thread alone.

>>53192255
this made me rock hard

>>53196222
We were worse off when producers of gasoline were free to add tetraethyllead to their product.

>>53196140
To bring things back on topic.

From this thread we seem to have half of the thread saying it's unfit for purpose and half saying that they think it's just as unethical as just killing the prisoners for all parties involved anyway.

Apart from the few anon's who think that they'd prefer petrification to being sharia'd, I think the answer to Op's question >>53186071
Is "no".

>>53196184
The problem is, we have literally dozens of examples of socialism's failures, and really only one that, sigh, you are insistent on bringing up as an example of capitalism's failures, despite the myriad unaddressed or under-addressed objections to your dumbass example. So fine, let's roll with that, because fuck you, I don't need Pinochet to demonstrate that markets > whatever retarded bullshit you advocate.

Go down a list of countries ranked by economic freedom. From it, build a list of economic success - by GDP, by GDP per capita, by average income, by infant mortality, by literacy, by social mobility, frankly, pick any reasonable metric of human development.
>>53196188
The above paragraph answers your question too. Any reasonable metric of human development.

I guaran-fucking-tee you that you will find a graph that looks much like this one: >>53195184

>>53195946
Quite curious how the effects didn't come into place in the decades he was in power.

>>53196204
>not supporting free market on political influence
What are you, a communist?

If free markets are the tits, why do people get so angry about foreigners 'stealing their jobs' (i.e. out-competing them in a free labour market)?

>>53196025
By that definition, every single first world nation is communist.

File: 1353566398680.jpg (71KB, 960x621px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 960x621px

>>53196204
This is how "regulated capitalism" works.

>>53196244
I don't support the government having the power to interfere with voluntary exchanges between private individuals (as individuals or as groups such as partnerships, firms, or businesses).

>>53196232
If it weren't for government regulation squashing competition, those producers would have been driven out of business by better alternatives. Try again.

>>53196233
It really depends on the kind of petrification - what its perameters are, whether degredation happens, how easily reversible it is, and of particular import, whether consciousness and memory are retained. In a worst case scenario it's inhumane, in a better case (leaving the prisoner effectively unconscious and immortal) it's not only humane, there are reasonable arguments that it may be voluntarily done as a means of de facto forward-only time travel.

Beyond that it depends on what the objective of the prison is. Containment? It's pragmatic. Rehabilitation? Not really. Punishment? Depends on the above.

>>53196222
The easing of restrictions on bank mergers in the 1980s and on their conduct in the 90s allowed for the creation of larger and larger banks that used increasingly risky strategies, setting the stage for the financial collapse in 2008.

File: ScreenHunter_01 Nov. 22 01.13.jpg (132KB, 605x435px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 605x435px

>>53196273
>this bullshit again

Companies do not get "too big to fail" without governments propping them up with favorable regulations and a revolving-door industry <-> regulators system.

>>53196256
Wishful thinking.

>>53196273
The 2008 crisis was caused by government regulations that force banks to lend money to people who had no business buying homes and by government guarantees of a bailout if the banks failed. If the market had been freer, the financial crisis would never have happened because the banks would never have made such risky loans, and any bank that did would have been driven out of business by a superior competitor.

File: 1319921942256.png (91KB, 1869x343px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1869x343px

>>53196292
this

>>53196273
> still buying into the ebil banker meme
It was government regulations that caused the financial crisis. Shitlibs wanted Jamal and Tyrone to get homes even though they didn't work a day in their lives and couldn't afford it normally. So they just forced the banks by law to give out loans that were never going to be repaid. Eventually the whole thing blew up, and the shitlibs used it as an excuse for EVEN MORE government regulation to "prevent the next crisis" that the government caused.

>>53196291
No, just plain reality. The fact is that if you look at every economic catastrophe of the last century, every time you find government regulation at its heart.

>>53196273
>>53196284
>>53196292
>>53196294
>>53196308
Get BFTO shitlib.

>>53196291
Explain why it's wishful thinking to point out that these banks got into such risky businesses not just because the government forced them to (as like three or four people have explained to you) but also because the government bailed them out - thus reducing their risk?

In an actually free market there'd be no incentive to get so heavily into high-risk lending markets and also no way to offset that risk at taxpayer expense.

>>53196335
The person you're replying to is talking about energy companies, not banks.

>>53196292
>government regulations that force banks to lend money to people who had no business buying homes
Which regulations would those be?

>>53196318
Alright, I'll humor you.

Where would the impulse to sink money into alternatives for leaded gasoline come from?

How long would it take?

In what sense would it be "better" to have people suffering from acute lead poisoning, nerve damage and decreased IQs (leading to an uptick in crime) while waiting for Gasoline Producer X to somehow profitably out-compete a proven, effective fuel additive?

>>53196335
Banks don't make decisions. People make decisions. The people who were making the decisions chose to engage in risky behavior because it produced immense short-term profit, albeit at the expense of the bank's long-term survivability. But for the people making the decisions, the corporate officers in charge at the banks, it was an acceptable tradeoff because it would allow them to rake in massive bonuses based on that short-term profit. They would then jump ship when the bank imploded under the weight of all of their toxic debt.

It wasn't because government forced them to behave in that way, in fact the banks worked to conceal just how risky they were behaving from government regulators at the time. It also wasn't because they were guaranteed a bailout. They were not, nor were the people at the banks thinking in terms of the survival of the bank. That wasn't what they cared about. What they cared about was their own compensation, which was based on short-term profit.

>>53196245
Because all free market models are simplified and do not take account of external inputs like immigration and trade. Government subsidies and support are important in maintaining international competitiveness of domestic industry and full employment. They do not factor in the social elements and impact of people from other cultures that disrupt the market by their lack of comprehension of existing system and introduce their own, often foreign ideas that undermine it.
Cultural homogeneity is vital in sustaining a stable society and that is reflected in the economic success that can occur because of stable base.

>>53196256
When have corporations EVER done anything to lessen the damage done to the environment or people without governments pushing them to do so?

>>53196373
So free markets are only the tits if they're restricted to a single nation? How very free indeed.

>>53196376
Small, local worker coops tend to be more concerned with their environment. After all, they're owned by people actually living in that environment.

>>53196376
Literally the entire logging industry. You think business wants to clear cut everything? Of course not. Sustainable logging practices were invented by private corporations because they wanted to ensure that they would always have trees to profit from.

The idea that corporations are these horrible polluters who gleefully dump toxic waste into rivers while twirling their mustaches is a myth invented by hippies to try to fool people into funding their "causes."

>>53196392
So you're saying things work out when the workers own the means of production?