Classical Liberalism vs. the CPC

[I miss Reagan]

Hey IMR...

Sure I support 'economic liberty', (I just wrote: "In the majority of matters, individual choice drives this most efficiently") . But I don't support it to the exclusion of situationally better methods of attaining objectives which individuals together may elect to implement.

I meant to get back to you about some other points. Watch this space...

-Law and Order policies of the CPC tend to be overly statist and class biased;

How?

Adding to police powers, increasing incarcertion, and having more things defined as crimes are all statist responses. Opposing rehabilitation, and reducing legal aid are class biased.

There are a lot of religious types in the party, but it is not the conservative agenda to go anywhere near abortion.

No, but it is the party of choice for private members who entertain such ideas.

-economic policies which favor (unmeritorious) entrenched interests at the expense of individual opportunity (to exercise merit);

I disagree, but what examples are you refering to?

Tories tend to seek to reduce the social benefits provided by government, are less likely to support public schools and other facilities, seek to leave more money in the hands of those who already have plenty, oppose taxation, and generally to stand against measures to alleviate economic disparity.

and

-a tendency to draw upon non-Reasonable criteria or analyses.

with respect to what?

Voodoo Economics, for example. Religion for another.

[I miss Reagan]

Sweal, why oppose penalties which protect our own liberties? Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death? Why not increase sentences for violent crime like rape and child abuse? Sure there is a place for rehabilitation but don't you think we are far too light on repeat offenders and violent offenders. I don't know, maybe it is just a philosophical difference, but unless someone is stealing bread for their family, I generally think the individual is responsible not society.

There are a lot of religious types in the party, but it is not the conservative agenda to go anywhere near abortion.

No, but it is the party of choice for private members who entertain such ideas.

Ya but so what? Aren't we tolerant of everyone's views even if we disagree?

Tories tend to seek to reduce the social benefits provided by government, are less likely to support public schools and other facilities, seek to leave more money in the hands of those who already have plenty, oppose taxation, and generally to stand against measures to alleviate economic disparity.

I'm all for helping out the less fortunate but Canada is out of control. At what point do we take care of ourselves rather than believing the government should change our diapers for us? I mean free daycare for everyone? It's insane. It's unsustainable.

I honestly don't think you are a classical liberal Sweal. To me you sound alot more in line with the NDP.

[Riverwind]

Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death?

Because they could be innocent. You can let someone out of jail and compensate them if you find out later that you made a mistake. Remember that Guy-Paul Morin was considered a 'monster' when he was accused.

Why not increase sentences for violent crime like rape and child abuse?  Sure there is a place for rehabilitation but don't you think we are far too light on repeat offenders and violent offenders.

The current definition of sexual assault is so broad that could include people who quite honestly believed the sex was consensual. People who fall in this category deserve some sort of punishment but they are a different kind of offender than the bernardo types. But I agree that rape as it is commonly understood needs a lot heavier penalties.

When it comes to child abusers there needs to be less concern about how the abuser was a victim (because most are) and more on protection of children. I am not convinced that longer jail time is the answer.

The biggest place I see for justice reform is property crime: most of it is done by drug addicts that are repeat offenders. The current system just enables them because their addiction is a mitigating factor in sentencing. An addict convicted of crime should be given one chance to go to a special 'drug rehab' prison that focuses on recovery. The conditions would be better but they would be tested constantly for drugs. If they fail a drug test because they managed to sneak something in then they go straight to regular prison for 5-10 years with no parole.

[takeanumber]

I'll bite.

Sweal, why oppose penalties which protect our own liberties?

Slavery is freedom.

Ignorance is strength.

Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death?

Letting them rot in prison is more just.

Why not increase sentences for violent crime like rape and child abuse?

coughs *Ramsay* coughs

I'll just point one thing here: when aboriginal women are sexually assaulted, conservatives tend to be remarkably silent. Just saying; it's an interesting point.

But indeed, why not increase penalties?

Sure there is a place for rehabilitation but don't you think we are far too light on repeat offenders and violent offenders.

Most violent crimes are one off offenses, done with passion...so...how do we tell which ones are going to repeat?

For me...the second time you do something, the penalty should be strengthened. By no means 'three strikes' rule, but two violent strikes...absolutely.

I don't know, maybe it is just a philosophical difference, but unless someone is stealing bread for their family, I generally think the individual is responsible not society.

Society plays a role, I think. If you have kids growing up in crushing poverty with no hope...what the hell do you expect to get out of it?

Cons don't want women having abortions, but they sure as hell don't want to give any of their hard earned money, 'their money--that they earned all by themselves without the help of anybody whatsoever', to allievate child poverty.

Meh -- it's a complex problem.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as 'lock the bastards up'.

QUOTE

There are a lot of religious types in the party, but it is not the conservative agenda to go anywhere near abortion.

No, but it is the party of choice for private members who entertain such ideas.

Ya but so what? Aren't we tolerant of everyone's views even if we disagree?

Liberalism IS secularlism.

That's the defining point of classical liberalism.

If you bring your definition of what God says (which, by the way, is totally twisted by the religiously 'fundamentalists'.), go ahead...but it always turns political debates into theological debates...and ultimately to war really.

It's something that religious conservatives just don't get...they can't win any religious debate because they're fundamentally wrong about religion.

I'm all for helping out the less fortunate but Canada is out of control. At what point do we take care of ourselves rather than believing the government should change our diapers for us? I mean free daycare for everyone? It's insane. It's unsustainable.

I honestly don't think you are a classical liberal Sweal. To me you sound alot more in line with the NDP.

1. I expect a hand up should I fall down.

Your portrait of Canada -- one in which nobody gets a hand up A-La-Klein, is frankly inhumane.

That said, I've read conservative logic on this board where because a few people abuse systems...(AISH), nobody should be able to get AISH.

For me: go after the fraudsters and these generations of families that live off the public purse...but leave the programs in place to help the people who really need the help!

2. I expect public utilities to be maintained.

Schools, hospitals, infrastructure.

Your portrait of Canada -- one in which everything is neglected A-La-Klein, is frankly irresponsible.

3. "I mean free daycare for everyone It's insane."

You mean a government program that doesn't benefit YOU?

That's UNTHINKABLE!!!

[I miss Reagan]

Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death?

Because they could be innocent. You can let someone out of jail and compensate them if you find out later that you made a mistake. Remember that Guy-Paul Morin was considered a 'monster' when he was accused.

Picton innocent? I'm not talking about becoming Texas. All I'm saying is why not put some of these people, who we know are guilty, to death.

When it comes to child abusers there needs to be less concern about how the abuser was a victim (because most are) and more on protection of children. I am not convinced that longer jail time is the answer.

Look at these people, they get paroled after a year or two and are out doing it again. I say two strikes then warehouse them for life. At the very least we should know who these people are in our neighborhoods.

The biggest place I see for justice reform is property crime: most of it is done by drug addicts that are repeat offenders. The current system just enables them because their addiction is a mitigating factor in sentencing. An addict convicted of crime should be given one chance to go to a special 'drug rehab' prison that focuses on recovery. The conditions would be better but they would be tested constantly for drugs. If they fail a drug test because they managed to sneak something in then they go straight to regular prison for 5-10 years with no parole.

I think this is the right path. However, if someone commits a violent offence while under the influence of drugs, they should be given no special treatment. I think DUI offences should recieve much harsher punishment. Today in Calgary, a chick who ran over 2 people got off with no jail time. That is a joke. It's offensive. And I say hold Judges accountable if people they let off easy go and commit crimes during the time which they would be in prison had the judge instituted the maximum.

[Riverwind]

The biggest place I see for justice reform is property crime: most of it is done by drug addicts that are repeat offenders. The current system just enables them because their addiction is a mitigating factor in sentencing. An addict convicted of crime should be given one chance to go to a special 'drug rehab' prison that focuses on recovery. The conditions would be better but they would be tested constantly for drugs. If they fail a drug test because they managed to sneak something in then they go straight to regular prison for 5-10 years with no parole.

I think this is the right path. However, if someone commits a violent offence while under the influence of drugs, they should be given no special treatment. I think DUI offences should recieve much harsher punishment. Today in Calgary, a chick who ran over 2 people got off with no jail time. That is a joke. It's offensive. And I say hold Judges accountable if people they let off easy go and commit crimes during the time which they would be in prison had the judge instituted the maximum.

I would agree that if someone gets seriously injured or killed because of drugs or alcohol the treatment would come after their sentence. But I am ready to bet that any addict involved in a violent crime already has a rap sheet for property crime so better treatment earlier would have prevented the crime.

Making judges liable for the their decisions would be a bad idea that would have all sorts on unintended side effects. For example, judges might be more likely to find someone innocent because they would only be responsible for people they find guilty.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Sweal, why oppose penalties which protect our own liberties?  Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death? 

Excellent questions. As a liberal, I must oppose over-punisment because I wish my society to be free of the practice. As a liberal citizen I realize that my best protection from being victimized is to eliminate victimization from my environment. (Of course, this reply leaves open the question of defining "over-punishment").

As for the death penalty specifically, the answer is a bit more complex. I submit that one of the fundamental elements of classical liberalism is a reliance on Reason to make choices. I submit that another liberal fundamental is the primacy of the individual. Reason tells us we and our organizations are fallible -- that we may convict an innocent man -- and that being so, no argument of near-certainty or expediency can overmatch the primacy of the individual.

That is the instrumental argument. There is also an institutional argument: a liberal society might determine that it places such value on each individual as a end in herself that it simply will not/does not give the state a power of life or death.

Why not increase sentences for violent crime like rape and child abuse?  Sure there is a place for rehabilitation but don't you think we are far too light on repeat offenders and violent offenders.

I think there are a whole lot of wasteful stupidities and cruel ironies in our law enforcement, justice and correctional systems. None of the parties have especially appeaing policies in this regard because it is a very complicated problem and they don't 'do complexity'.

For completeness, I will note that I do think we hear numerous cases of under-punishment, at least as the media reports it.

I don't know, maybe it is just a philosophical difference, but unless someone is stealing bread for their family, I generally think the individual is responsible not society.

But the issue is more complex than simply assigning immediate 'responsibility'. Someone is convicted: found responsible. In sentencing we have to ask at least two more things: how 'morally bad' was her intention and what is the best thing for our society to do with her.

There are a lot of religious types in the party, but it is not the conservative agenda to go anywhere near abortion.

No, but it is the party of choice for private members who entertain such ideas.

Ya but so what? Aren't we tolerant of everyone's views even if we disagree?

No. As liberals we believe everyONE is entilted to HAVE their views, but we don't need to give play in public policy to any and all views just because someone holds them. Classical liberals are not trapped by moral relativism.

...I'm all for helping out the less fortunate but Canada is out of control.  At what point do we take care of ourselves rather than believing the government should change our diapers for us?  I mean free daycare for everyone?  It's insane.  It's unsustainable.

I honestly don't think you are a classical liberal Sweal.  To me you sound alot more in line with the NDP.

Easy now. Don't jump to conclusions about either what I actually support and what that would mean.

You ask: "At what point do we take care of ourselves rather than believing the government should ... ?"

Based on liberal analysis I'd say the government has a proper role for action where:

-individuals might otherwise be excluded from equality of opportunity ; and/or

-where the general welfare (as determined in our democratic institutions) can be improved without invidious harm to individuals;

ON THE Condition that the state action has a sensible prospect of being successful.

[Hugo]

Sweal, why oppose penalties which protect our own liberties? Why not sentence people like Picton, Homolka to death? Why not increase sentences for violent crime like rape and child abuse? Sure there is a place for rehabilitation but don't you think we are far too light on repeat offenders and violent offenders.

In Europe of the Dark and early Middle Ages, crimes were punished by restitution made to the victim. Steal a man's sheep, and you are sentenced to return that sheep and a sack of grain for his inconvenience. Then it became customary for the king to exact a small fee for the dispensation of justice, so the criminal might return the sheep and pay the sack of grain to the king. After that, it became customary for all the restitution to be made to the state, and none to the victim. Now, we have gone even farther down that road. Not only will the restitution not be payable to the victim in any measure, we actually make the victim pay for the imprisonment of the criminal through his taxes.

Rather than slapping band-aids on our (un)justice system, would it not make more sense to try and reform it in such a way that victims of crime receive some restitution for what has been done to them? I admit that it is difficult to place a value that can be repaid on what is lost to a rape or murder victim, however, the current system essentially claims that what these victims lose is worthless because they receive nothing.

Punishing repeat offenders more harshly makes no sense. If a victim was caught and punished once that should be enough for his crime - we start again with a clean slate. To say that we should punish more harshly for the second crime is to say that he was not sufficiently punished for his first crime and that we are carrying some punishment over to the second. We are also saying that, although we considered his debt to society repaid the first time he was punished, we now recant that and say that he does not start again tabula rasa at all!

Consider also that our justice system also violates its own principles. To compel a man to appear at his own trial and to imprison him before that trial violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Until his conviction a man should be regarded as innocent, but imprisoning him and coercing him to appear at his trial violate his rights as an innocent man. A judge may also hold a man in contempt of court, but that violates the rule that a man shall not judge his own case. In contempt of court, the judge is claiming that a man is not respecting his court. To uphold this principle, the case should be brought before a neutral judge for consideration. The way we do things now makes the judge victim, prosecution, judge, jury and executioner all in one.

Should a classical liberal not seek to address these problems first?

[The Terrible Sweal]

In Europe of the Dark and early Middle Ages ... Now, we have gone even farther down that road. Not only will the restitution not be payable to the victim in any measure, we actually make the victim pay for the imprisonment of the criminal through his taxes.

Something of an oversimplification, there. Institutionally we now have the criminal courts where society addresses violations of the public good, and civil courts where individuals can seek redress of private harms.

Rather than slapping band-aids on our (un)justice system, would it not make more sense to try and reform it in such a way that victims of crime receive some restitution for what has been done to them?

Like improving efficiency and access in the civil courts, perhaps?

Punishing repeat offenders more harshly makes no sense. If a victim was caught and punished once that should be enough for his crime - we start again with a clean slate. To say that we should punish more harshly for the second crime is to say that he was not sufficiently punished for his first crime and that we are carrying some punishment over to the second.  We are also saying that, although we considered his debt to society repaid the first time he was punished, we now recant that and say that he does not start again tabula rasa at all!

Well, that is true in regard to penalty considerations, and well put. In theory, however, a sentence calcultion involves elements other than punishment: deterence and prevention, rehabilitation, etc.

[Hugo]

Institutionally we now have the criminal courts where society addresses violations of the public good, and civil courts where individuals can seek redress of private harms.

The problem with any allegations of harm against "the public good" is that "the public" is a mythical thing that does not exist. It's just individuals, and the victims of crime are individuals. When you boil it down, "the public" effectively means "everybody except you". I personally take the stance that if there's no identifiable victim, there's no crime. This necessarily means that acts like selling or taking drugs, prostitution and gambling aren't crimes.

Like improving efficiency and access in the civil courts, perhaps?

Definitely. You could say that a good measure would be if we regarded every criminal conviction as a tort for which a civil suit should be filed.

In theory, however, a sentence calcultion involves elements other than punishment: deterence and prevention, rehabilitation, etc.

I don't know if punishment really works as a deterrent given the stupendous rates of recidivism. If we're trying to deter, maybe we ought to consider something other than prison. As regards prevention, once we're sentencing, prevention has failed. Prevention of crime isn't found in courts, it's found in police patrols, security guards, alarm systems, guard dogs, armed citizens, and so forth.

As to your last point, rehabilitation, once again the high rate of recidivism speaks for the failure of our justice system as a rehabilitative system.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Institutionally we now have the criminal courts where society addresses violations of the public good, and civil courts where individuals can seek redress of private harms.

The problem with any allegations of harm against "the public good" is that "the public" is a mythical thing that does not exist.

Yeah, yeah. Whatever.

I personally take the stance that if there's no identifiable victim, there's no crime. This necessarily means that acts like selling or taking drugs, prostitution and gambling aren't crimes.

I agree with that.

Like improving efficiency and access in the civil courts, perhaps?

Definitely. You could say that a good measure would be if we regarded every criminal conviction as a tort for which a civil suit should be filed.

Almost all crimes involving a real victim already provide grounds for a civil action. The problems of fully realizing this as a solution are the difficulty and expense of private litigation, and the frequent inability of defendants to pay damages.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Continued...

In theory, however, a sentence calcultion involves elements other than punishment: deterence and prevention, rehabilitation, etc.

I don't know if punishment really works as a deterrent given the stupendous rates of recidivism. If we're trying to deter, maybe we ought to consider something other than prison. As regards prevention, once we're sentencing, prevention has failed. Prevention of crime isn't found in courts, it's found in police patrols, security guards, alarm systems, guard dogs, armed citizens, and so forth.

Sorry, I used incorrect terms. For deterence I should have said general deterence, and for prevention I should have said specific deterence.

As for something better than prison, I think it is time we became more pragmatic about prevention.

As to your last point, rehabilitation, once again the high rate of recidivism speaks for the failure of our justice system as a rehabilitative system.

You identify an important consideration, but have framed it as a conclusion. Could we be a little more objective, perhaps? Say 'the rate of recidivism reveals something of the success or failure of rehabilitation in our justice system.'

[Hugo]

Almost all crimes involving a real victim already provide grounds for a civil action. The problems of fully realizing this as a solution are the difficulty and expense of private litigation, and the frequent inability of defendants to pay damages.

I agree, and this is a problem. We should not be satisfied with a system that deters the victims of crime from filing suit against criminals for losses incurred. For one thing, imprisonment makes it impossible for a criminal to make any financial restitution to an individual. Perhaps we might consider a parole/house arrest scenario where a convicted criminal will be closely monitored by the police, but allowed to live and work without going to prison, and his wages garnished for the victim. Of course, it would be a nonsense to allow criminals in this situation access to welfare. We should also consider the idea of transfers of this debt, whereby a victim could "sell" the debt to an enforcement company, who will give the victim the lump sum of their restitution (minus a fee for themselves, or adding an extra fee to be paid by the criminal) and make it their business to bind the criminal to repayment of this debt.

I think that if the system were reworked so that criminals had the ability to repay victims, or an increased ability, solutions for victims to be able to pursue criminals would be better. The increased likelihood that restitutions might be paid would probably lead to more "no win, no fee" legal services, particularly as an existing criminal conviction should provide a certain win in a tort suit over the same offence.

For deterence I should have said general deterence, and for prevention I should have said specific deterence.

OK. As regards general deterrence, I don't think it's consistent with classical liberalism to make a criminal into an example for other potential criminals. This, in effect, punishes the criminal for potential crimes committed by others. I believe that a man should be held responsible for his own crime, and if other people commit crimes, let them be punished when it happens.

As to specific deterrence, this interferes with the classical liberal idea of free will, speaking instead of determinism: that there is something that we can do (or fail to do) which will induce a criminal to reoffend. It is probably the case that a lot of violent offenders are just violent people, disturbed and with a desire to impose their will on others by force. Even somebody who is not generally violent but commits an out-of-character act (finds his wife in bed with someone else and shoots them both) obviously is capable of breaking down the mental barriers to antisocial behaviour. There may not be much in the way of deterrents for these people, since we are speaking either of people who are violent by their very nature, or people who commit violence without thinking of the consequences.

I agree with that.

If we emptied our prisons of "criminals" who had convicted victimless crimes we would drastically cut their populations. In the US, more than half of inmates are being held for nonviolent "crimes". Just to eliminate the notion of victimless crime would solve a great many of the problems facing our justice system.

I think it is time we became more pragmatic about prevention.

What do you mean? Personally, I think that it is a real problem that we have removed the right of citizens to defend themselves. As one professor noted in the 1970s, for instance, those who advocate gun control laws are safe in well-policed suburbs and secure apartments, and don't think of people who have to live in parts of town that the police have abandoned to the gangs. It's noteworthy that crime in neighbourhoods with high gun ownership is less, to a burglar, it's generally not worth getting shot over. Career criminals are opportunists and will simply move on to a less risky proposition. This is why car alarms work, not because they can prevent theft (given enough time, a good career thief can steal any car), but because they make the car less appealing than unprotected vehicles.

You identify an important consideration, but have framed it as a conclusion. Could we be a little more objective, perhaps? Say 'the rate of recidivism reveals something of the success or failure of rehabilitation in our justice system.'

Yes, we can say that. If the objective of rehabilitation is lack of reoffence, and the objective (or one objective) of the justice system is rehabilitation, the fact that almost three-quarters of convicted criminals will offend again does not speak well of the success of this system. It also seems that the justice system has not made headway against this problem. If recidivism were around 90% fifty years ago, we could say that while the situation was bad, we were at least making progress. However, no progress seems to be evident. If it is the case that punishment and rehabilitation are at odds and one cannot achieve both, then it is pointless trying to pursue both.

I would like to speak to the fact that prisons generally become training camps for criminals, where felons in their late teens can go and learn the tricks of the trade to become master criminals upon their release. My father is a social worker dealing with youth crime and tells me that if you want to learn how to be a successful criminal, the best place to go is prison. This, again, would be a problem best solved with keeping criminals out of prison, letting them live on parole and making restitution, in my opinion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

For one thing, imprisonment makes it impossible for a criminal to make any financial restitution to an individual. ...

I think that if the system were reworked so that criminals had the ability to repay victims, or an increased ability, solutions for victims to be able to pursue criminals would be better.

Some interesting ideas there. Worth considering.

For deterence I should have said general deterence, and for prevention I should have said specific deterence.

OK. As regards general deterrence, I don't think it's consistent with classical liberalism to make a criminal into an example for other potential criminals.

Good point. I concur.

As to specific deterrence, this interferes with the classical liberal idea of free will, speaking instead of determinism: that there is something that we can do (or fail to do) which will induce a criminal to reoffend. It is probably the case that a lot of violent offenders are just violent people, disturbed and with a desire to impose their will on others by force. Even somebody who is not generally violent but commits an out-of-character act (finds his wife in bed with someone else and shoots them both) obviously is capable of breaking down the mental barriers to antisocial behaviour. There may not be much in the way of deterrents for these people, since we are speaking either of people who are violent by their very nature, or people who commit violence without thinking of the consequences.

I think you've verged into rehabilitatin there. Specific deterence includes the physical containment period as well as the incentive to avoid more severe punishment. I don't see any element of determinism.

If we emptied our prisons of "criminals" who had convicted victimless crimes we would drastically cut their populations. In the US, more than half of inmates are being held for nonviolent "crimes". Just to eliminate the notion of victimless crime would solve a great many of the problems facing our justice system.

Amen.

I think it is time we became more pragmatic about prevention.

What do you mean? Personally, I think that it is a real problem that we have removed the right of citizens to defend themselves. As one professor noted in the 1970s, for instance, those who advocate gun control laws are safe in well-policed suburbs and secure apartments, and don't think of people who have to live in parts of town that the police have abandoned to the gangs.

The problem with that as a solution is it's bandaid-ness. As a liberal I believe everyone should be permitted peaceable possession of firearms, and if gun ownership works to reduce crime, that's fine too. But as a citizen I would prefer not to be confronted with the need to hazard my safety in gunfights, so I would prefer other solutions. Start with elimination of victimless crimes and the reallocation of resources. Then recognize that statistically criminals tend to be the rootless, the ignorant, the desperate, the abused, the unempathic, the selfish, and work to decrease these influences in our society.

You identify an important consideration, but have framed it as a conclusion. Could we be a little more objective, perhaps? Say 'the rate of recidivism reveals something of the success or failure of rehabilitation in our justice system.'

Yes, we can say that. If the objective of rehabilitation is lack of reoffence, and the objective (or one objective) of the justice system is rehabilitation, the fact that almost three-quarters of convicted criminals will offend again does not speak well of the success of this system.

For completeness, you need to recognize the difficulty of the task and the possible contribution of other factors.

[Hugo]

I think you've verged into rehabilitatin there. Specific deterence includes the physical containment period as well as the incentive to avoid more severe punishment. I don't see any element of determinism.

Sorry about that. In response to this I would say that physical containment only seems to work as long as the subject is physically contained, and unless we're going to start locking people up for the rest of their natural lives as a response to every crime all we are doing is delaying the recidivism.

As to an incentive to avoid more severe punishment, you may have something there. However, I'd ask you to consider that having your wages garnished is quite a strong incentive not to reoffend, after all, restitution for a further offence would probably push the criminal below the poverty line. A criminal's resort to bankruptcy notwithstanding I would think this would be a good deterrent, especially if the criminal were being monitored by parole officers and thus very likely to be caught should he reoffend.

The problem with that as a solution is it's bandaid-ness. As a liberal I believe everyone should be permitted peaceable possession of firearms, and if gun ownership works to reduce crime, that's fine too. But as a citizen I would prefer not to be confronted with the need to hazard my safety in gunfights, so I would prefer other solutions.

Of course. I don't think any law-abiding citizen wants to be placed in the situation where they have to draw a weapon in defence of their life or property. However, I think you'd agree that you would want that ability and right as a last resort. I know that if I were a woman facing a rapist or a frail senior citizen facing a burglar I would much rather have a gun in my hand than not. I would also rather not be afraid to use my gun for fear that I would be harshly punished for defending my rights against aggression.

Then recognize that statistically criminals tend to be the rootless, the ignorant, the desperate, the abused, the unempathic, the selfish, and work to decrease these influences in our society.

Well, there's a lot of factors here. It's not going to surprise you that I blame government for most of these. Ignorance may be a factor, but it's statistically proven that every time the length of mandatory school attendance goes up, juvenile crime also goes up. Forcibly educating the ignorant causes crime to increase. A lot of pressure is put on the poor by taxes, which since the 1930s have hit the poor harder than the rich, and by collusion between government and big business which has slowed or prevented development of poor neighbourhoods and denied opportunities for work and entrepreneurship to poor people.

For instance, minimum wage laws create a disproportionate amount of unemployment amongst blacks and teenagers. The poverty and hopeless that this inflicts upon them may well be a factor in causing increased crime, with legal avenues to material well-being closed off, they are more inclined to try illegal avenues. The path to lucrative jobs is through entry-level jobs, and minimum wage laws destroy entry-level jobs and deny people a chance to get work experience that will make them worth considering to a better-paying employer. Similarly, big businesses have succeeded in having government put licensing requirements and anti-peddling laws into effect which deny the entry of poor people into the entrepreneurial class. It does not matter that most small businesses will fail, the fact that a person has at least the hope of becoming rich without crime is an incentive not to commit crime.

I suspect, however, that the denizens of American and European ghettoes have long given up hope that education and legal work will ever bring them to material comfort. The more that government does to try and help these people, the worse it gets.

For completeness, you need to recognize the difficulty of the task and the possible contribution of other factors.

Sure, but whatever the difficulty and the other factors, the current justice system is not tackling them adequately. I think we can objectively establish that by "rehabilitation" we mean, at the very least, no recidivism and an entry into legitimate, productive life, and we can objectively say that not only does our current system not achieve this in any great measure, it is not even making any progress towards greater achievement.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I think you've verged into rehabilitatin there. Specific deterence includes the physical containment period as well as the incentive to avoid more severe punishment. I don't see any element of determinism.

Sorry about that. In response to this I would say that physical containment only seems to work as long as the subject is physically contained, and unless we're going to start locking people up for the rest of their natural lives as a response to every crime all we are doing is delaying the recidivism.

Well, to be completely calculating about it, the longer we lock someone up, the fewer chances he gets to screw up outside. There is also some suggestion that after early adulthood recidivism in most categories declines sort of automatically.

As to an incentive to avoid more severe punishment, you may have something there. However, I'd ask you to consider that having your wages garnished is quite a strong incentive not to reoffend, after all, restitution for a further offence would probably push the criminal below the poverty line. A criminal's resort to bankruptcy notwithstanding I would think this would be a good deterrent, especially if the criminal were being monitored by parole officers and thus very likely to be caught should he reoffend.

I'm interested in any workable alternatives to prison. But there is a difficulty with economic punishment. The harder the state makes participation in the legitimate economy the more incentive there is for individuals to resort to the illicit economy. I think part of being a criminal is that you don't really live in a space where garnishments and bankruptcies hold as much importance in one's day to day existence. It's pretty hard to garnish a smash-and-grab.

The problem with that as a solution is it's bandaid-ness. As a liberal I believe everyone should be permitted peaceable possession of firearms, and if gun ownership works to reduce crime, that's fine too. But as a citizen I would prefer not to be confronted with the need to hazard my safety in gunfights, so I would prefer other solutions.

Of course. I don't think any law-abiding citizen wants to be placed in the situation where they have to draw a weapon in defence of their life or property. However, I think you'd agree that you would want that ability and right as a last resort. I know that if I were a woman facing a rapist or a frail senior citizen facing a burglar I would much rather have a gun in my hand than not. I would also rather not be afraid to use my gun for fear that I would be harshly punished for defending my rights against aggression.

I agree. I also think almost anywhere in Canada we can trust a properly chosen jury not to convict someone in a reasonable case of self-defence. Yes, even in pansy-ass Toronto.

... Ignorance may be a factor, but it's statistically proven that every time the length of mandatory school attendance goes up, juvenile crime also goes up. Forcibly educating the ignorant causes crime to increase.

Or maybe it's warehousing them rather than educating them. Or maybe it's something in the water these days. Or bad parenting. Or religious mal-education ... crowds of clean cut mormon missionaries rampaging in our streets!

Anyway, yes. A lot of factors.

For instance, minimum wage laws create a disproportionate amount of unemployment amongst blacks and teenagers. The poverty and hopeless that this inflicts upon them may well be a factor in causing increased crime, with legal avenues to material well-being closed off, they are more inclined to try illegal avenues.

Indeed, though the causitive connection to minimum wage laws is uncertain at best.

[Hugo]

I'm interested in any workable alternatives to prison. But there is a difficulty with economic punishment. The harder the state makes participation in the legitimate economy the more incentive there is for individuals to resort to the illicit economy.

This is very, very true. There is a twofold attack by the state upon economic activity: firstly, the outlawing of perfectly acceptable business e.g. prostitution, drugs, liquor (in Ontario, anyway, the state monopolises it), gambling, medical services (except the state's own monopolists), etc. Then there are the attacks via licensing laws and regulations upon businesses regarded as legitimate, for instance, the difficulty in operating a taxi or bus line, or any kind of business in which you employ other people.

There's a saying that nobody ever got rich working for someone else, which is mostly true unless you're someone like Steve Ballmer, but the state has made it very difficult to go into business for yourself and condemned the vast majority of people to be employees for life.

I agree. I also think almost anywhere in Canada we can trust a properly chosen jury not to convict someone in a reasonable case of self-defence. Yes, even in pansy-ass Toronto.

One would hope. It depends upon whether the jury is inclined to listen to their morals or obey the letter of the law, because technically, if a woman shoots a would-be rapist on the streets of New York or Toronto she has violated strict laws that forbid carrying a concealed (or unconcealed) firearm, and the evidence is the bleeding rapist lying in front of her, so the only way she can escape conviction is if the jury decides to ignore the law in favour of their personal ethics - which doesn't go over too well with judges and the judicial system as a whole.

These laws only punish the law-abiding. Criminals don't respect gun restriction laws, so all these laws do is disarm potential victims.

Or maybe it's warehousing them rather than educating them. Or maybe it's something in the water these days. Or bad parenting. Or religious mal-education ... crowds of clean cut mormon missionaries rampaging in our streets!

If forced schooling does cause more juvenile crime, then that speaks for itself. If it does not directly cause it, the fact that more schooling cannot prevent coincidental increases in the juvenile crime rate shows that it is not an effective countermeasure.

Indeed, though the causitive connection to minimum wage laws is uncertain at best.

Connecting unemployment to crime certainly requires more than I have provided here. However, the connection between minimum wage laws and workers paid at the lower end of the market clearing range is borne out in theory and in empirical evidence, and it's a fact that groups such as blacks and teenagers are overrepresented in the ranks of these workers. Correlating unemployment and crime is the argument that "the Devil makes work for idle hands", that unemployed people (especially young, single males) may be bored or desperate enough to turn to crime.

Without getting too much into the causes of and correlations between unemployment and crime, I think we can agree that it's better to be law-abiding than not (assuming the laws are just, anyway) and better to be gainfully employed than not. Minimum wage laws stand in the way of at least the latter.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Okay, let us take up the topic of minimum wage laws from a liberal perspective.

Prima facie, from a liberal point of view, individuals should be free to tender and accept employment at whatever remuneration they choose to in the market.

In order to support a minimum wage law, I must justify it to myself on the criteria is outlined earlier for when the government has a proper role for action. Where:

-individuals might otherwise be excluded from equality of opportunity ; and/or

-where the general welfare (as determined in our democratic institutions) can be improved without invidious harm to individuals;

ON THE Condition that the state action has a sensible prospect of being successful.

Before getting down to cases, do these seem like acceptable criteria for government action to you?

[Hugo]

Before getting down to cases, do these seem like acceptable criteria for government action to you?

Sadly, no. Neither is acceptable from a classical liberal perspective. The problem is that you are approaching the problem from the wrong side.

Instead of thinking that government can address inequality of opportunity where possible, think instead that in doing so the government must necessarily issue dictates to an employer that he may not exercise his own free will in employing whomsoever he chooses. For instance, to require that women be paid the same as men for the same work dictates that an employer shall not exercise any personal views he may have on the relative productivity of female employees, which is incompatible with classical liberalism since it holds that a man may make or refuse contracts that pertain to his own body and property without restraint from third parties, even if such contracts may seem unfair or unjust to outsiders. This idea is actually put forward in the New Testament, of all places.

On the second notion, the problem is firstly that "general welfare" is far too vague a term for the majority to ever agree on any kind of useful definition, and thus no democracy could ever determine what "general welfare" meant or how it could be improved, and what would happen instead is that the democratic government would "increase welfare" according to the views of various minority groups - which, in effect, is exactly what we have in modern Western democracy, where lobbyists and special interest groups can pull government every which way except in favour of the general populace, whose interests are invariably served by a lack of government action. Witness our hordes of economists and professors, each of whom has some kind of Plan Guaranteed to Increase the General Welfare If Only the Government Would Follow It, and which are invariably at odds with the plans of other intellectuals.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It looks like you've leapt ahead to specifics before we've settled the criteria.

Why do you say my criteria are not classical liberal? What do you think the criteria should be, to be classical liberal?

[Hugo]

The only position on government consistent with classical liberalism is not to have one, because governments only act with coercion, and classical liberalism is completely averse to coercion.

Basically, government action in favour of equality or general welfare will consist of overriding freely-made contracts in favour of dictates imposed by the threat of violence. This is not classical liberalism. Even in areas where government intervention appears to be anti-coercive, such as in policing, one must consider that government exerts a monopoly over these services, protected again by the threat of violence. Look at anything government does and somewhere, there will be violence or the threat of it involved and vital to the process.

The only government compatible with classical liberalism is one that does not force consumers to buy what it offers (law, policing, etc) and allows competition from other providers, but then, that's a description of a private company, not a government at all.

The problem with a utilitarian approach to classical liberalism is that, through countless compromises, it ends up destroying the entire philosophy because it is governed not by consistent principle but merely by expediency, and such expediency is not in the aid of liberty as an end unto itself (as apart from natural-rights libertarians such as myself), but as a means to a vague "general welfare" which, as I've said, is subjective and thus impossible to arrive at. The only welfare pursuable is individual welfare in the judgement of the individuals which will enjoy it, and the only way to pursue it is to leave those individuals as free to pursue their own idea of welfare as possible. Perhaps "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" should read "life, liberty and the pursuit of your own happiness." Regardless, the utilitarian approach to liberalism ends in tyranny because it will accept coercion, and because the goals it will pursue will be those of an ever-shrinking number of people at the expense of the rest.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The only position on government consistent with classical liberalism is not to have one, because governments only act with coercion, and classical liberalism is completely averse to coercion.

No no no. You're confusing classical liberalism with your breed of anarco-libertarian-objectivist-whateveryoucallitism.

Classical liberalism is the movement that gives us social contract theory.

The problem with a utilitarian approach to classical liberalism is that, through countless compromises, it ends up destroying the entire philosophy because it is governed not by consistent principle but merely by expediency, and such expediency is not in the aid of liberty as an end unto itself

Hooey.

(as apart from natural-rights libertarians such as myself),

Is that what you call it. Unfortunately even as you describe it, natural-rights is merely a philosophy of wishful thinking.

"general welfare" which, as I've said, is subjective and thus impossible to arrive at.

No, think of 'welfare' in terms of it meaning in economics. Welfare is a value provided to the market in general.

Regardless, the utilitarian approach to liberalism ends in tyranny because it will accept coercion,

Your natural rights notion must accept coercion as well, if you intend to defend 'property' against 'theives' for example.

[Hugo]

No no no. You're confusing classical liberalism with your breed of anarco-libertarian-objectivist-whateveryoucallitism.

Classical liberalism is the movement that gives us social contract theory.

And that is its self-contradiction. To be consistent as a classical-liberal is to reject the state. To accept the state requires a concession on at least one liberal principle, and as a libertarian once said, then it stops being a principle and becomes a guideline, then a goal, then finally, a lie. Compromise once and it becomes far easier to compromise again. We are, after all, dealing with human beings here.

No, think of 'welfare' in terms of it meaning in economics. Welfare is a value provided to the market in general.

All value is purely subjective, and once again, we're back at the problem of deciding who will evaluate what "welfare" means in the utilitarian-liberal society.

Your natural rights notion must accept coercion as well, if you intend to defend 'property' against 'theives' for example.

"Coercion" is the initiation of force or fraud, or to put it another way, aggression. A thief is the coercor, even if I am violent towards a thief, because in doing so I am not aggressing against him.

[The Terrible Sweal]

No no no. You're confusing classical liberalism with your breed of anarco-libertarian-objectivist-whateveryoucallitism.

Classical liberalism is the movement that gives us social contract theory.

And that is its self-contradiction. To be consistent as a classical-liberal is to reject the state.

Don't you really mean that in your opinion classical liberalism is inconsistent?

[Hugo]

Don't you really mean that in your opinion classical liberalism is inconsistent?

Sure. Strictly speaking, in my opinion the earth is round and orbits the sun, gravity causes things to be pulled back to the ground, 2 and 2 make 4, and you are being evasive.