Non-Agenda-Oriented Solutions

Sloth · October 5, 2011, 9:38pm

[quote]ironcross wrote:
Okay, I have to post this for the lols. The real reasons why atheists aren’t all behind bars:
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/588-atheists-in-jail

Here is another source I found regarding prison inmate numbers by someone who wanted to investigate the original super-low percentage of atheists claimed by another source:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

These numbers look much less nice for our argument. It shows non-religious being the fastest growing group in the population and making up 31.5%. That may be about equal to the number of non-religious people in the general population over there but I don’t have that statistic handy. The bulk of that growth is amongst young offenders which makes sense and the non-religious prisoners have the shortest average sentences.

Page 16 is interesting. It shows a breakdown of that 31.5% as .1% agnostic, .2% atheist and the remainder simply not religious. So it is possible that we who are declared atheists tend to be more morally aware than those who just don’t give a damn about whether or not gods exist.

Anyway, if we can’t find a reliable source for this claim, we’d better stop making it. I would love to be able to back the claim up but until we can, we risk being called hypocrites for using hearsay to support our case while chastising Christians for believing an entire philosophy based on hearsay. So can anyone find a decent source? [/quote]

I’ve tried to explain that one simply can’t look at what religion a person chooses on prison forms (or any). You could be looking at a guy who hasn’t been to church since he was 6 years old, if ever. But he remembers grandma went to that baptist church, or whatever. So, his “ethnic” or “family” religion will reflect as much.

Church attendance has gone down the fastest for the less educated. You’re going to get most of your criminals from the less-educated. The longer this trend continues the less likely folks will bother even checking the ‘family religion.’ It will/has gone from, let’s say, “baptist (cause momma took me to the church she was raised in, once or twice),” to "christian (can’t remember what kind of church my great-grandmamma went to). Increasingly, as those labels fade further into the family tree, expect the checking of “none” to dominate. Specific, ignorant-specific, generalized, ignorant-genarlized, none.

kamui · October 5, 2011, 9:55pm

*LIFTICVSMAXIMVS’s definition of morality actually predate christianity by a few centuries. It’s the “at least do no harm” hippocratic principle applied to society. I don’t know how you do it in the US, but in France, we teach the ethics of the Greek philosophers in High School.

*most people (inmates included) are not philosophically or ideologically consistent.
They have opinions from various sources, multiple biases, external influences, internal impulses, etc. A patchwork of ideas.
For this reason, their good or wrong-doing as next-to-nothing to do with their religious or philosophical affiliations.

*being an absolutist doesn’t make you better per se. It only make you better at justifying your ethical principles in an intellectual debate. Not better at following them.

*thinking as a moral absolutist doesn’t even mean you will act as a moral absolutist. For example, many european catholics i know are way more “post-modern” and way more relativist than myself in their daily life.

*for the same reason, thinking a moral relativist doesn’t mean you won’t act in a fanatical or radical way. Many european leftists i know could make Torquemada look like an amateur.

*I would be curious to see the statistics for the religions claimed by incarcerated people at the time of their arrest. How many of these christians inmates have been (re)converted by religious missionnaries during the jail time ? (and how many of them claimed to be christians because they want to convince the legal institutions they have found God and thus redeemed themselves ?)

ironcross · October 5, 2011, 10:05pm

[quote]kamui wrote:
*LIFTICVSMAXIMVS’s definition of morality actually predate christianity by a few centuries. It’s the “at least do no harm” hippocratic principle applied to society. I don’t know how you do it in the US, but in France, we teach the ethics of the Greek philosophers in High School.

*most people (inmates included) are not philosophically or ideologically consistent.
They have opinions from various sources, multiple biases, external influences, internal impulses, etc. A patchwork of ideas.
For this reason, their good or wrong-doing as next-to-nothing to do with their religious or philosophical affiliations.

*being an absolutist doesn’t make you better per se. It only make you better at justifying your ethical principles in an intellectual debate. Not better at following them.

*thinking as a moral absolutist doesn’t even mean you will act as a moral absolutist. For example, many european catholics i know are way more “post-modern” and way more relativist than myself in their daily life.

*for the same reason, thinking a moral relativist doesn’t mean you won’t act in a fanatical or radical way. Many european leftists i know could make Torquemada look like an amateur.

*I would be curious to see the statistics for the religions claimed by incarcerated people at the time of their arrest. How many of these christians inmates have been (re)converted by religious missionnaries during the jail time ? (and how many of them claimed to be christians because they want to convince the legal institutions they have found God and thus redeemed themselves ?)

[/quote]

The original statistic used in the other thread was taken at the time of incarceration. I agree with what you’re saying concerning people’s tendency to act differently than they believe and I pointed that out in the thread concerning going to Church instead of community service.

The idea of treating others as you would prefer to be treated actually out dates philosophy as we know it and Christianity. Instruction of Ptah-hotep

orion · October 6, 2011, 6:48am

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Orion and SteelyD: I’m not defending governments as if such an institution has a better chance of bringing about the change we need, but I’m not as naieve as orion to think big business has the inclination to do this instead.
[/quote]

Well, they want my money.

If they do not solve a problem for me they do not get it.

Government takes it and if does a shitty job it takes more.

So, who will be more inclined not to fuck things up?

[/quote]

They will take your money by forming cartels, price-agreements, pushing-out the little guy, monopolise, use false advertising, lobby politicians for taxcuts and fewer regulations and if something blows up… fuck you.

You still think in a polarised way orion; as if there are two sides to this story. For someone as intelligent as you appear to be, I find that odd.
[/quote]

Well, what I find odd is this:

That you believe that they can actually form cartels or monopolies without a government. All this “predatory pricing” and undercutting the little guy is a myth. Not that it has not been tried, in fact it has been tried repeatedly, it just does not work.

Lobbying politicians and getting bailed out is of course also impossible without government.

So, pretty much all that you stated can only be done if you buy yourself some politicians, and politicians only have something to sell because they have their fingers into every aspect of our lives.

Finally, advertising. Well politicians would of course never do that, but you fail to see why they lie to you:

Because they cannot force you to do shit. YOU need to come to THEM. In the case of government THEY come to YOU, if you are unlucky with a SWAT team at 2 am.

So the very need for them to lie to you shows you who actually holds the power in that relationship, it is a good sign.

ephrem · October 6, 2011, 11:18am

[quote]orion wrote:

That you believe that they can actually form cartels or monopolies without a government. All this “predatory pricing” and undercutting the little guy is a myth. Not that it has not been tried, in fact it has been tried repeatedly, it just does not work.

Lobbying politicians and getting bailed out is of course also impossible without government.

So, pretty much all that you stated can only be done if you buy yourself some politicians, and politicians only have something to sell because they have their fingers into every aspect of our lives.

Finally, advertising. Well politicians would of course never do that, but you fail to see why they lie to you:

Because they cannot force you to do shit. YOU need to come to THEM. In the case of government THEY come to YOU, if you are unlucky with a SWAT team at 2 am.

So the very need for them to lie to you shows you who actually holds the power in that relationship, it is a good sign. [/quote]

Do you really think that, if there weren’t regulations in place against cartel forming or illegal price agreements, corporations wouldn’t form cartels and wouldn’t agree on setting prices?

orion · October 6, 2011, 11:50am

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

That you believe that they can actually form cartels or monopolies without a government. All this “predatory pricing” and undercutting the little guy is a myth. Not that it has not been tried, in fact it has been tried repeatedly, it just does not work.

Lobbying politicians and getting bailed out is of course also impossible without government.

So, pretty much all that you stated can only be done if you buy yourself some politicians, and politicians only have something to sell because they have their fingers into every aspect of our lives.

Finally, advertising. Well politicians would of course never do that, but you fail to see why they lie to you:

Because they cannot force you to do shit. YOU need to come to THEM. In the case of government THEY come to YOU, if you are unlucky with a SWAT team at 2 am.

So the very need for them to lie to you shows you who actually holds the power in that relationship, it is a good sign. [/quote]

Do you really think that, if there weren’t regulations in place against cartel forming or illegal price agreements, corporations wouldn’t form cartels and wouldn’t agree on setting prices?

[/quote]

Of course they would and they would fail, like they always did when they tried it.

The video I posted was a one hour lecture about why that does not work and how people who tried failed miserably.

Look ye here:

If it does not show: xxxhttp://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia#p/u/18/mBYopktmL6Y

remove the first three xs

ephrem · October 6, 2011, 12:26pm

I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.

ironcross · October 6, 2011, 2:21pm

[quote]ephrem wrote:
I’m not going to watch the lecture orion. No doubt it’ll be as onesided as your viewpoints.

Please give me an example of a failed monopoly or cartel when relevant regulations to prevent them were absent.[/quote]

I’m also interested in this.

groo · October 6, 2011, 2:25pm

Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.

Sloth · October 6, 2011, 2:34pm

Don’t do/spend what you can’t/aren’t willing to pay for. Not original, just abandoned.

pat · October 6, 2011, 2:48pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]ironcross wrote:
What original solutions do you have for the problems that exist in our society? [/quote]

What if the solution is already known?

Don’t hurt people. Mind your own business.[/quote]

What’s that a solution too?
[/quote]

It is a commandment for government and people to obey that solve the problem of aggressive violence and coercion.

It brings about peace, freedom, trade, and subsequently, prosperity for those willing to cooperate in society.[/quote]

Yeah, your dealing with humans. You have to much faith in human nature. Give man a situation and we will find a way to fuck it up.[/quote]

Man is not inherently violent. He learns to behave this way based on his environment.
[/quote]
Bullshit. The only way to get rid of violence is to get rid of fear. Unless you can zap everybody’s amygdala or drug it away, man is going to be violent at some point.

Again this is fear driven. Though being social creatures it is our nature to be attracted to similarities and fearful of differences. People are attracted to that which is similar and fearful of differences. This is at the heart of tribal mentality. It’s also the core of racism. “They don’t look like me, they are bad and dangerous until proven otherwise.”

[quote]
Even still, individual on individual, localized violence is much easier to deal with than invading government armies. Government on government violence is the worse kind because it creates chaos for many who have nothing to do with government or the decisions it makes on our behalf. There are only victims and no victors with government on government violence.[/quote]

Governments are run by people. Some are more flawed than others, but the above rules apply universally. The only thing that makes government violence worse is resources. If not for resources, it’s mano a mano…

I am all for liberty to a fault. I am all for the my right to swing my fist ends where somebody else’s nose starts. But idealic, Utopian it will not be. There are good people and evil people. So long as there are evil people there will be problems galore. Humans have no power over evil. Our solutions to evil render us evil. We just become the problem.

I love the whole drop acid, smoke pot and love one another, but that shit just ain’t realistic.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · October 6, 2011, 2:51pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

So you managed to demonstrate what happens when people fight over a power structure. Now prove that a government would be better in its place.

I’ll wait.

pat · October 6, 2011, 2:53pm

[quote]groo wrote:
Do we think the libertarian wet dream of Somalia is really that successful? I think its pretty easy to see what happens when there really is as little government as completely possible.[/quote]

This is an excellent point. This actually plays in to Thomas Jefferson’s notion that revolt and revolution is inherently good. This is a prime example that he’s wrong. That a strong central government is good, not bad. If the revolution is at the hands of evil men, it’s not just bad, it’s horrific, tragic and abominable. The child rapes, murders gang rapes, atrocities of all kinds, are proof that there is no hell hot enough, no punishment sufficient to apply these assholes. Bullet’s are to kind. Perhaps, slow roasting them in a suite of armor is sufficient.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · October 6, 2011, 2:53pm