Example of institution Norwegian gunman destined for exposes fallacy of Justice

[GodsProxy]

Of course, of course! If you can't even see the obvious fact that money is a wonderful invention, then how can one be commenting or deciding on the fate of others una Death Penalty?

I mean I knew that when I wrote it, you did too, obviously!!

Neil

Yet another patently false claim. Not an ounce of truth in it.

Money may be a tool but it is more often used for things other than economic slavery.

I use money for good things. So does the rest of my family. So do my friends.

For those who can only see the bad that is done with this tool called 'money'... perhaps a look into one's own heart might be revealing.

[CFTraveler]

When, where or how has this been done?

Here you go.
http://www.correctionsproject.com/corrections/pris_priv.htm
http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/html/PrisonsPrivatization.htm

[Siòn]

Interesting discussion.  I think this Danish terrorist is an extreme example of how we tend to conjure up and fight against against the worst part of ourselves.  Is this fighting demons?  This guy had an extreme hatred for Islamic terrorists  and their tactics in particular, and Islam in general.  But he uses the same hatred tactics of Al Qaeda when he blows up and murders innocents for "the cause."

[Rudolph]

Here you go.
http://www.correctionsproject.com/corrections/pris_priv.htm
http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/html/PrisonsPrivatization.htm

Did you just send me on a wild goose chase CFT?

As far as I could see, there was nothing in those links that would support your dubious claim about any "lobbying to criminalize things that shouldn't be crimes-like being the children of convicts, for example".

[CFTraveler]

No, I just found links to proof of existing privatized prisons.  I can find a link to the source of the other thing (that is, who is behind some of the lobbying for unconstitutional laws, such as the building of prisons for women and children of illegal immigrants), if you'd like.
By the tone of your question I wasn't sure if you wanted information on their existence or just were getting ready to try to argue against what I would post.  By your gratuitous use of the word 'dubious' I imagine it won't matter, but I will find the source I originally read it in.

[CFTraveler]

Here's the first one, it didn't take me long.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741
Although I'm sure you'll argue that NPR is not a credible source, even though it 'names names'.  Whatever, what you believe is not my concern.
Here are more excerpts from various sources:
"SB 1070 was drafted with help from the American Legislative Exchange Council, which helps the private sector write legislation for states. CCA, which is slated to receive $74 million for immigration detention centers in the 2010 fiscal year, helps fund the group.

CCA also has close, direct ties with Arizona lawmakers. Gov. Jan Brewer's deputy chief of staff formerly worked as a lobbyist for CCA — his wife still works as a lobbyist there — and Brewer's campaign chairman runs a lobbying firm that represents the prison corporation."



"As for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law on April 23, her spokesman, Paul Senseman, and her campaign manager, Chuck Coughlin, are both former lobbyists for private prison companies."

http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Private_Prison_Industry_Helped_Create_Anti_Immigrant_Law_in_Arizona_101101
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/07/jan_brewer_shills_for_russell.php

Sure, it's a coicidence.  I mean, why would anyone think that a private corporations group actually care for their own profits over anyone else's rights?

[Orion-]

But why did he do it? Is he just an evil man, is it all his fault? Or were his actions the result of brainwashing?

A case of nature vs. nurture. Nurture seems like the best option in my opinion. Our current society produces these people by brainwashing. Does he deserve 21 years, or not? Both are bad. Locking this man up is bad because it does not fix the problem, the problem being a person capable of doing this existing in the first place. Not locking him up will basically mean killing is lawful, and will result in total chaos. Both options are bad.

Building a society that does not breed people like him would be a much better option, but sadly this society does not exist here and today. Not yet at least. I feel sorry for the man himself, and all victims and relatives.

[Thread Killer]

Hey Rudolph,
                 I swear I'm not trying to be a f*cking douchbag, but why is it that anyone who holds opinions or beliefs contrary to yours are not merely mistaken or misinformed, but delusional, brainwashed, or whatever other hyperbole or histrionics you can conjure? Surely you could muster up some sort of condescending tolerance for people who lack your clarity and ability for trenchant analysis?
                                                                                                                                                      -Jim-

[Rudolph]

No, I just found links to proof of existing privatized prisons.  I can find a link to the source of the other thing (that is, who is behind some of the lobbying for unconstitutional laws, such as the building of prisons for women and children of illegal immigrants), if you'd like.
By the tone of your question I wasn't sure if you wanted information on their existence or just were getting ready to try to argue against what I would post.  By your gratuitous use of the word 'dubious' I imagine it won't matter, but I will find the source I originally read it in.

There was nothing gratuitous about my use of the word 'dubious'. I chose it specifically because it succinctly conveyed my doubts about the veracity of your claim, "lobbying to criminalize things that shouldn't be crimes-like being the children of convicts, for example". I have never heard of such a thing in our lifetimes and I am pretty sure that it simply is not true.

This isn't necessarily an argument at this point. I am open minded, which is why I am asking for your sources rather than simply stating outright that you are wrong. And I will admit my surprise at learning this new thing if it does indeed turn out to be true. I mean, if someone out there really is trying to make it a crime to be a child of a convict -- that would be something else. (But again, I am pretty sure it simply is not true).

[Rudolph]

Hey Rudolph,
                 I swear I'm not trying to be a f*cking douchbag, but why is it that anyone who holds opinions or beliefs contrary to yours are not merely mistaken or misinformed, but delusional, brainwashed, or whatever other hyperbole or histrionics you can conjure? Surely you could muster up some sort of condescending tolerance for people who lack your clarity and ability for trenchant analysis?

I guess it won't hurt to repeat myself;

I have no problem with differing opinions or beliefs.

It is flat out false statements that I will often challenge (especially the destructive, politically motivated kind).

[Rudolph]

Here's the first one, it didn't take me long.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741
Although I'm sure you'll argue that NPR is not a credible source, even though it 'names names'.  Whatever, what you believe is not my concern.
Here are more excerpts from various sources:
[....]

Perhaps you need to take a little longer. Those quotes still do not support your dubious claim.

Again, there was nothing in those links that would support your claim about any "lobbying to criminalize things that shouldn't be crimes-like being the children of convicts, for example".

[Stillwater]

Here's the first one, it didn't take me long.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130833741
Although I'm sure you'll argue that NPR is not a credible source, even though it 'names names'.  Whatever, what you believe is not my concern.
Here are more excerpts from various sources:
"SB 1070 was drafted with help from the American Legislative Exchange Council, which helps the private sector write legislation for states. CCA, which is slated to receive $74 million for immigration detention centers in the 2010 fiscal year, helps fund the group.

CCA also has close, direct ties with Arizona lawmakers. Gov. Jan Brewer's deputy chief of staff formerly worked as a lobbyist for CCA — his wife still works as a lobbyist there — and Brewer's campaign chairman runs a lobbying firm that represents the prison corporation."



"As for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law on April 23, her spokesman, Paul Senseman, and her campaign manager, Chuck Coughlin, are both former lobbyists for private prison companies."

http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Private_Prison_Industry_Helped_Create_Anti_Immigrant_Law_in_Arizona_101101
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2011/07/jan_brewer_shills_for_russell.php

Sure, it's a coicidence.  I mean, why would anyone think that a private corporations group actually care for their own profits over anyone else's rights?

I have to agree, CFT. The primary problem is clear to see: when private companies are running the prisons, you now have corporate groups which have a vested interest in having as many people in their prison system, for as long as possible. I think it should be obvious why that is a conflict of interests. You now motivate companies to lobby for unecessarily harsh and lengthy punishments. I could not think of many things more costly and detrimental to society as a whole, and to the rights of individuals.

[Rudolph]

"I could not think of many things more costly and detrimental to society as a whole, and to the rights of individuals."

I can. Income and property tax. Pure tyranny.

What a racket. I mean... you're telling me that I have to fork over $2000.00 to the government for the right to live in my house?!

The prison system problem could have been solved overnight had the Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House simply legalized marijuana...

... but they didn't.

They didn't even try.

Take Nevada for example. They do not have State Income Tax there. Gambling and prostitution are legal. It is just another business that is taxed. They operate the state budget off of vice/sin tax.

Legalize all drugs and the tax revenues alone would soar. State costs would drop because they would have a huge drop in prisoners to take care of. Law enforcement could be reduced because there would be a huge drop in Laws being broken. Gang violence would drop because there would be nothing to fight over anymore.

The minor problems that might crop up as a result are minuscule in comparison to the huge problems created by tyrannical government laws invading the most detailed corners of our lives.

[Stillwater]

I can. Income and property tax. Pure tyranny

Property taxes are indeed out of hand. It is difficult to argue against income taxes though; the government does need revenue afterall, to carry out all the programs that are necessary for the safety and productivity of society. I am far from saying everything the government does makes sense, is cost effective, or is necessary. But very much of what it does IS necessary, and it needs funding to do that. But then if you were against income taxes, why would it not be a big deal to you that corporate interests are lobbying to fill their prisons, which will be funded with tax money?

The prison system problem could have been solved overnight had the Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House simply legalized marijuana...

... but they didn't.

They didn't even try.

Yeah, the whole "war on drugs" thing is rather silly. The government should stay away from controlling substances which do not pose a danger to society if used moderately, and whose very prohibition directly generates other, far more serious crimes. Your argument there makes undeniable sense to me.

[Rudolph]

"But then if you were against income taxes, why would it not be a big deal to you that corporate interests are lobbying to fill their prisons, which will be funded with tax money?"

Corporations are regular corrupt. The government is hugely corrupt and rotten to the core. I fear the government wayyyyyy more than I do some prison business that likes seeing an increase in the number of prisoners.

That worry is practically a non-problem compared to the problems created for nearly every citizen by our government.

The private prison lobby problems would be almost inconsequential if the government stopped writing so many stupid laws. And with the invention of the ankle bracelet, simple restitution payment and house arrest for a period of time would further reduce prison populations, for non-violent offenses.

Government corruption is probably the single biggest problem we all face on a daily basis. Giving them more money just makes it worse.

[GodsProxy]

I concur.

And then how can we send a man away for life, for an "oversight" on the government's part, visa vee, legalization of drugs? Love each other? By then it is way too late, and our love is just an afterthought.

Yeah, the whole "war on drugs" thing is rather silly. The government should stay away from controlling substances which do not pose a danger to society if used moderately, and whose very prohibition directly generates other, far more serious crimes. Your argument there makes undeniable sense to me.

[CFTraveler]

The private prison lobby problems would be almost inconsequential if the government stopped writing so many stupid laws. And with the invention of the ankle bracelet, simple restitution payment and house arrest for a period of time would further reduce prison populations, for non-violent offenses.

Government corruption is probably the single biggest problem we all face on a daily basis. Giving them more money just makes it worse.

I absolutely agree with this, and it gets worse every day.
I remember when I was younger (maybe I was naive, Idk) there used to be an idea of integrity, and I thought it was what separated our government from others.  I grew up seeing how other governments were so corrupt that life was a living hell for most citizens, but not here- because regardless of what party you voted for the idea was that the government was for the people, by the people, and capitalism was about reaping the benefits of honest labor, and competition was based on merit- fair and simple.

But somewhere along the line it became as bad as other countries- where the people has almost nothing to say about who gets elected, and those who get elected, no matter what party they run for or by what platform, will do whatever those who pay them off want, without regard towards citizens- without regards even towards members of their own families.  There is no concept of truth or loyalty, or nothing.  Just trying to get a piece of the pie and to hell with anyone else.  We reward greed and give the worst positions of power, because the worst are the ones who can take those positions- because it doesn't matter anymore who is in charge, they are somehow going to find a way to do the most harmful thing possible.

I remember back in the sixties and seventies when Americans hated Russians because of their government- a government who took away everyone's power, reduced them to poverty, and told then what they were allowed to do to survive.  They had no individual value as people, and no rights, even though they were constantly told they were important.
Now, we're in a similar situation- Americans get someone other who they voted for, and see their freedoms taken away one by one, and are constantly being indoctrinated with the ideas that it's ok if they lose their right to privacy, right to choose what to eat and what to do for their own safety- even told what lightbulbs they're allowed to buy- their identities are bought and sold and they find themselves powerless to stop it- because at this point, we're so used to being lied to (by advertising, politicians and the media- all of it, right and left wing, it's all propaganda anyway) that we expect to be lied to, regardless of who is doing it.
We are now the 'russians' of the sixties, hated by the rest of the world because of what the government does, even though we don't seem to have much we can say about it, because no matter who runs, they're going to do the same thing once they're elected- pass legislation that benefits whoever is lining their pockets.  And we'll pay for it, if not by taxes, we'll pay for it by becoming sick, or becoming enslaved in one way or another.

It makes me sad, because that naivete is gone, and when it's gone, it never comes back.  I hope there is something that can be done to reverse some of these trends.

[CFTraveler]

Stillwater, I apologize because I think it's my fault this thread went this way.

[Stillwater]

Don't apologize. The first post introduced a lot of ideas, and many of them were somewhat controversial. There were a lot of jumping off points, and new on-topic points are being introducted constantly (and I sort of like it when my topics go sideways and derail, since it shows the relationship between certain ideas, and feeds dialectic discussion- there need to be alternative viewpoints bombarding you, or people just become complacent in their own views and don't question or develop them).

[Rudolph]

We are now the 'russians' of the sixties, hated by the rest of the world because of what the government does, even though we don't seem to have much we can say about it, because no matter who runs, they're going to do the same thing once they're elected- pass legislation that benefits whoever is lining their pockets.  And we'll pay for it, if not by taxes, we'll pay for it by becoming sick, or becoming enslaved in one way or another.

Well, it is nice to see that some are beginning to see through the veneer of faux-decency and truly sense the deception that the present leadership is so adept at pulling off. Although it should have been obvious during his campaign speeches when he would do things like go to the midwest and talk about freedom of religion and the Bill of Rights and then fly off to San Francisco the next day and crack jokes about those hicks clinging to their guns and bibles....

The present Liar in Chief was completely transparent on the campaign trail but the deep denial Liberals and Progressives looked straight past it, all ga-ga over their Obamassiah. The Lamestream media ushered in the anointed one and the Left was jubilant.

So now their chickens come home to roost. Nowwww they start to get a clue. 

November 2012 is fast approaching. Those with the insight and wisdom to recognize that smaller government is better will know what to do. 

[GodsProxy]

Love is all there is.