I've been reading and thinking a lot lately about how we live as a world and as societies. I am only twenty-four years of age, and in all honesty I haven't really lived much, at least according to my perspective. I'm more of an observer than a doer.
Still, I've been thinking.
I'm not sure how I should start this, so let me begin with stating a few thoughts.
I do not think that we should live in countries with borders. The world should be an open place and people should be free to go wherever they choose. Think of it as one extremely large country.
I do not think we should governed by governments. It is too broad. Let us all live in small distributed societies of our choosing, and govern ourselves. I believe each society will come up with its own necessary moral and civil requirements so everyone can live peacefully. It is possible for each combination of societies to have a representative cooperating body that maintains the minimal standards of peace between them, but leaves choices of how to live up to them. I don't believe in governments and highly disapprove of government enforced control on people. It becomes a slippery slope of a government serving the people and organizing laws and rules, and government suddenly serving its own interest and making life difficult for people to preserve itself. I don't think it's too hard for you to come up with so many modern day examples. Also, why should two million people living somewhere have a say in how one million somewhere else should live simply because they all live within some line placed on a map. It makes no sense. Let each community govern itself.
I do not think that we should live in large cities. They are an inefficient means of forming a society, compounded with an ever increasing problem of resources, availability of land and space, pollution, overcrowding, etc. The only reason people flock to cities to live in slums is because they have believed the myth of large crowded cities somehow being the center of the universe, and villages being unimportant. They've forgotten the importance of having small mostly self sufficient communities.
This also brings up the topic of crime and punishment. With small communities, there can't be jails. In any case I disapprove of the prison system. I think punishment should be either corporal or a fine (depending on the crime) and that's it. It's instantaneous. Wasting resources to keep a potentially productive individual behind bars is ridiculous. That person did a disservice to their society, and society shouldn't have to pay for it.
Of course I realize the potential counter arguments. But consider this, much of the world lived for the major part of history in adjacent communities and tribes that were self governing. Of course there was the occasional disputes and fighting, but definitely no more than our modern wars. In addition, I think we've reached a stage in human thought and philosophy, that we accept the need for peace and tolerance, at least for the most part and far more than ages past. So that could be part of some UN like agreement between societies for outside peace and tolerance. Beyond that, they are free to manage their internal affairs.
This isn't vastly different from our current world, only fairer. Similar, but at small scale relatively self sufficient societies. And no big governments that serve very little purpose and do that purpose very inefficiently.
I guess what I'm saying basically falls under Ivan Illich's theme of counter-productivity. That something can only grow so much before it becomes counter productive. He relates it to everything from disabling professions, medical care, schooling, speed of travel, farming, etc. The resources wasted on large scale bureaucratic governments far outweigh any benefit and do not really serve people. Think about it. How much of your daily life needs government and how much would just as easily be performed by a local individual or small groups of people who know and live in the community. A small community can do the same without wasting the same amount of resources at a much higher efficiency. The building of very large cities causes problems that outweigh any benefit (if there are any benefits to cities over smaller towns because I can think of none).
I realize this is vastly incomplete and there's so much more to say and read about on this topic. But these are some preliminary thoughts I had.
But then you won't have Internet, ease of traveling and the many comforts and luxuries of civilization, like theater, movies, restaurants... these things would never be cost-effective if not enough people visited. And you need cities to have enough people.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, locking up some people is essential (think rapists and child molesters). It is not just punishment but to actually protect the rest of us. But criminals should not be just locked up, they should be studied to try to understand why they became like this. It is more comforting to think these are not really people, but some form of "evil" or just a random event. I don't believe in "evil", but in screwed up people. My most disturbing thought is that the guy who raped and killed a little girl was a baby once. A cute cuddly baby that cried and played. I find that so disturbing. What happened on the way from A to B? I don't know if there is anyone out there answering that.
There's no reason why you wouldn't have the internet and ease of travelling. Living in smaller scale doesn't prohibit study of science or technological advances. The car and plane weren't invented by the government, and neither were movies. Internet is debatable, but I think we would still have come up with it even with it without the governments. We were pretty much on our way with the spread of phones and the personal computer.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that every large city has dozens of theaters, as far as economics go it won't make much of a difference if the there was instead dozens of towns, each with its own theater. Same goes for restaurants, schools, etc. I'm not saying we should all live in groups of fifty people, live in shacks, and take up herding and farming. Towns could be a few thousands and that works. I'm just saying 2 million pop. Cities aren't so great or needed. Even university towns are usually just a few thousand.
Anyway, as far as punishment goes, maybe for a few crimes you can get locked up, I don't know. But child molesters pretty much deserve the death penalty, so do serial rapists. I've no sympathy or respect for their lives because they forfeited it. No body is born "evil", but plenty of people are born in similar situations, and plenty become decent human beings. Besides that, crime rates in big cities is much higher than in smaller towns and suburbs (I looked it up in a few studies). In the US for ex., metropolitan areas have 79% more crimes than the rest of the US, and 300% more violence than rural towns. Some of the reasons including poverty in slums, anonymity, and lack of social support or a well knit community.
Ah don't get me started on the death penalty. I think it is a horrible lets hide the problem under the rug sort of thing. This person was a random event let's just erase him. Will yes, maybe he deserves it but did we achieve anything? More would be learned trying to understand what in our society or nature leads people to such behavior. We can study them to try to predict these events.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, my problem with the death penalty is not whether people deserve it or not (I personally don't think we should kill anyone), BUT the fact even if you kill a 1000 deserving criminals, if the 1001 is innocent and he's killed then it's murder. For that reason alone they should never apply it, because for there is nothing that's good enough for wasting one innocent life.
In any case, we could theorize all we want. The matter of fact is that countries that have the death penalty have absolutely no advantage at all over those that banned it. That's on-the-ground-hands-on proof for you that over time in a practical settings it does not work. People who are in the mental condition to kill or rape are in most likelihood not worried about the death penalty, more likely occupied with carrying out their crime.
And about statistics, these numbers just show association not causation. Maybe the kind of people who like to live in cities and in large groups are more prone to crime.
PS. about having theater, movies, restaurants in cities. In theory yes, people can travel to go to the theater but few do. A community of 2000 is too little for that sort of entertainment, it won't survive. If the next community is too far away, they can't support it either. So it has to be close.
ReplyDeleteAnyway these things appeared with cities. I do understand the appeal of a quieter life but I don't want to live it. Sometimes for brief periods I do but overall I love having a coffee in a cafe watching strangers I will never know pass by.
I don't think the death penalty is a better punishment because they prevent more crime. I just think it's a better punishment than a life sentence because prison basically becomes school for criminals, also the death penalty is less of a strain on society, and it matches the crime with the punishment, which is particularly fair to the victim who did nothing wrong and still ended up dead. Aren't we sweeping them under the rug? And don't you sweep crime under the rug by prisons? It's the same thing, out of sight out of mind. Besides, no one said you can't work to decrease crime if you have a death penalty, not to mention you will never completely eliminate crime even if you improve it, it's part of human nature. Some people will still commit crimes through no one's choice/fault except their own.
ReplyDeleteAnd as far as the one innocent in 1000 thing goes, so it's better to live 30 years in prison (with all the included bullying/horrors of it) and die in there? It's prison, both options are likely equally horrendous for an innocent person, I happen to think a death penalty is actually less horrible than a life sentence. Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in jails (besides drug overdose, homicides, etc.) and that only counts the ones successful at it.
Habib don't poop on my Utopia parade. Yes, I know one a$$hole will mess it up, but it can still be nice and pretty in my head :P
Although I still think it should be an option for some people. You should be able to choose whether you want to live under a government or not. It should be up to you. And I also, think the current way of goverment doesn't work very well. I don't know what would be a good alternative though.
Death penalty accomplished nothing, it's useless. And most of the countries that still apply it are the ones behind on so many social issues.
ReplyDeleteAnd who are we to decide if taking an innocent person's life is worse that making him spend 30 years in prison. Most people will choose the second. The first one just kills all hope.
I don't know. It did accomplish a punishment, and got rid of a criminal.
ReplyDeleteAnd "We" are the society that made a mutual agreement to each other to preserve each individual's right to live and not be attacked. If someone violates that, then they forfeit the agreement and are no longer in society's protection. You get to live in this society if you don't kill other innocent people with premeditation. You kill innocent people, society has no longer has an obligation to protect you, let you live for free, or have your hope.
"I don't know. It did accomplish a punishment, and got rid of a criminal."
ReplyDeleteTell that to the dead innocent guy and his family.
The mistake argument doesn't wash. No system is ever going to be perfect because humans aren't perfect, society tries to do its best. You'll never 100% prevent mistakes. Victims never deserve to die, but it happens. Innocents aren't supposed to blamed for a crime but it happens, and they'll get punished no matter what the punishment is (death or prison). You can't plan things based on a 1 in 1000 mistake. It makes more sense for a society to plan for the 999 in 1000, otherwise let's punish nobody, because what if we made a mistake.
ReplyDeleteStatistically speaking, a person is much more likely to be murdered than to be accused wrongfully of a murder and put on death row (0.0068% versus an average of 0.0000014% from 1976 to 2009 in the US, although the vast majority of the wrongful accusations occurred prior to DNA discovery and implementation, they were overturned once DNA exonerated them, so the ones killed were not the wrongfully accused). The likelihood of being killed after being wrongfully accused and afforded a due legal process in reality is even far smaller than the above percentage.
You're more likely to die tomorrow from a car crash. It is a risk that we take in society and we make the laws as best we can, constantly improving the numbers with new discovered scientific techniques. It's like going to surgery, there's a 1% chance you'll die, but there's a significantly much larger chance you'll have a better life. Most people take that chance.
Yeah but in one case we can completely prevent it, so we should. Not say sure they'll be dead people on the way but ah they're statistically insignificant. This is even more true since this particular activity of killing people has no advantage. One has only to look at countries who engage in it and those who don't.
ReplyDeleteIf capital punishment has no advantage, I think life sentences have even less.
ReplyDeleteAnd there are similar amounts of "third world" countries with no death penalties who are not up to par socially, as there are with the death penalty. There are also a bunch of "first world" countries with the death penalty, including U.S., Japan, South Korea, etc. The world is not divided into the E.U., Canada, U.S. and everybody else. Plenty of people out there.
Also the E.U. isn't necessarily better than other countries, as they have their own social problems and injustices. Capital punishment itself is irrelevant to how "good" a country is.
I guess we should probably just agree to disagree o_o
Although just one more comment back on topic..
ReplyDeleteNobody ever had a utopia phase? No influencing college philosophy class or some Plato book or U. Le Guin stories?
You guys are so jaded :| I feel lonely over here in my idealist world view :P
You're defending killing other people (even if it is for crime)?
ReplyDeleteNothing is as precious as life.
You're not alone but you will soon realize that an ideal world or life is boring to death.
Yes. I've absolutely zero problem with defending the killing of premeditating murderers, serial killers, and the like. Life is extremely precious. That's why ending one in a premeditated manner unquestionably to me deserves the ultimate punishment. Otherwise, an innocent victim's life automatically becomes of less value than the murderer's.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, you're trying to convince me of the other side by saying human life is valuable and we shouldn't kill. At the same time, you say that yes you have no respect or value to murderers but we shouldn't kill them because their life has value? Which one is it? All I see at this point is a contradiction.
If we are allowed to kill in self defence, or in wars when we are being attacked, then that means the killing is allowed under certain circumstances. The whole argument of no killing falls apart there. What we disagree on becomes not, is killing allowed under no circumstances (because clearly it is), but does a murder criminal qualify. I think they certainly did their best to qualify.
In any case, capital punishment has been practised in virtually every single society in the entire human history. From large nations to small primitive tribes. The death penalty has only been removed in some societies in modern years, and that by itself has not been shown to offer any particular advantage to societies over capital punishment. What's more important has been the improvement of education, social support, a fair police force, improvement of governments etc.