What is Government? can we live without it?

[MEZZANINE]

common sense

There is no such thing as common sense, not as it is commonly understood anyway.

If you ignore the rights of others, the right not to be robbed, beaten, raped, killed, then you lose your own rights. Thats British law, it's common sense since you dont want prisoners voting for whoever is most lenient on crime & punishment, and if the EU want to interfere and think democracy so important they should step up and have their own leadership elected, and let the people of every EU country vote on joining or leaving them. EU leaders are hypocrites.

They still have rights, by and large, the only rights they typically lose are those which present a clear and present danger to their correctional facility. Such as the freedom of speech, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms (in the US). Voting does not compromise the security of the correctional facilities, therefore there is no reason to deny voting rights. Not all inmates are created equal though, it could very well compromise the security of supermax or even maxsec prisons.

Yeah so which constituency would they vote in ?

People are selfish, when free they vote for whoever they believe will make their lives easier or make them better off, prisoners will just vote for whoever they think is most lenient on crime and likely to free them the soonest. Do you really want an MP being voted in on the basis of releasing prisoners early or lowering sentences ?

Also why should prisoners get the right to vote for 'law makers' when they havent respected the laws ?

[Jack]

Do you really think there are enough prisoners in your nation to sway the vote? If there are, then you have bigger problems than inmates voting.

[MEZZANINE]

Do you really think there are enough prisoners in your nation to sway the vote? If there are, then you have bigger problems than inmates voting.

Not to sway a national election result no, but if they vote in the constituencies the prisons are located in then yes they could sway the vote in that constituency if you have several thousand prisoners in a prison all voting for a MP promising to reduce the prison population through early releases. Many prisoners are homeless, their only address is the prison so I ask again what constituency will they vote in ?

[Jack]

Where their home is/was. If they were homeless when they went in or where the prison is located. Again, if you have that many prisoners that were formally homeless, then you have bigger problems than inmates voting.

[MEZZANINE]

Where their home is/was. If they were homeless when they went in or where the prison is located. Again, if you have that many prisoners that were formally homeless, then you have bigger problems than inmates voting.

They are not usually homeless when they enter prison, but they cant very well pay the rent or mortgage when locked up so many become homeless when convicted and are rehouses upon release.

Again it's not about the % of the population in prison, it's the fact prisoners are concentrated in large numbers in the area's where prisons are located.


I live in Cardiff 2 miles outside the City Center, there is a Prison in Cardiff City Center which contains more people than live in the housing of the surrounding area since it is mostly a retail & business area. Cardiff like most cities is divided up into constituencies for voting, Cardiff Central, Cardiff South / North / East / West. If the prisoners were allowed to vote as constituents of Cardiff Central they would have a majority and vote in who ever they wanted to that seat.

Damn why not just go the whole way and let prisoners stand as members of parliament, it's a ridiculous idea and a prime example of the EU stupidity that makes the majority of the UK not want anything to do with the EU.

[Jack]

Where their home is/was. If they were homeless when they went in or where the prison is located. Again, if you have that many prisoners that were formally homeless, then you have bigger problems than inmates voting.

[Brdavs]

I knew you would fall back to the same old tired argument of "there would be anarchy". i think that argument has absolutely no basis in fact.

What i think would happen without Govt is this...there would be uncertainty and some disorganisation (lets not argue about the level of disorganisation) but people would quickly start to organise for themselves and start to come together and work towards solving the problems communities would face, such as those outlined by MEZZ.
Personally, i think you guys underestimate human endeavour and resourcefulness.


Could we do worse than current Govt? i think not!

Government is hte embodient of our social contract. It exists to primarily monopolize the use of force in society.

Thinking that human society can exists without such a structure is extremely naive. Your town may come together to I dunno, care for your cubs or whatever, but sooner or later people figure out that in a world where rules arent enforced rules don't really matter, and where rules don't really matter its a case of might gives right.

Christ, plenty enough people have figured out it's already cost effective for them to brake the laws of civilized society with them being enforced.


Personally I think your idealism rivals that of Lenin. Dynamite on paper, brings a tear to ones eye, but in pracitce... homo homini lupus m8.

For all intents and purposes Somalia is a country without a government. It nominally has it but it's not effective. It doesn't do what governemtns are supposed to do.

I don' think it's turning out the way you expect it to turn out here over there. So as far "basis in fact" goes, you have a big fat zero on your scoreboard and the people crying "anarchy" tend to get a confirmatory notch on their belt every time a katrina style event hits somewhere.
It's not an issue that braking of social order wouln't necesserily bring out the best in some. Problem is it also brings out the worst in others. You either need a system of repression (which is by default what a "government" is) or you're indeed in a state of FFA aka anarchy.

Also why should prisoners get the right to vote for 'law makers' when they havent respected the laws ?

Because they're still part of society? If there is enough people incarcerated due to laws that would be changed if those people could vote then most likely there is an inherit issue with those laws.

Laws are supposed to be, amongst other things, a reflection of the society they govern - not the other way around.

[[KMA]Avenger]

I knew you would fall back to the same old tired argument of "there would be anarchy". i think that argument has absolutely no basis in fact.

What i think would happen without Govt is this...there would be uncertainty and some disorganisation (lets not argue about the level of disorganisation) but people would quickly start to organise for themselves and start to come together and work towards solving the problems communities would face, such as those outlined by MEZZ.
Personally, i think you guys underestimate human endeavour and resourcefulness.


Could we do worse than current Govt? i think not!

Government is hte embodient of our social contract. It exists to primarily monopolize the use of force in society.

Thinking that human society can exists without such a structure is extremely naive. Your town may come together to I dunno, care for your cubs or whatever, but sooner or later people figure out that in a world where rules arent enforced rules don't really matter, and where rules don't really matter its a case of might gives right.

Who said there would be no rules?

Also why should prisoners get the right to vote for 'law makers' when they havent respected the laws ?

Because they're still part of society? If there is enough people incarcerated due to laws that would be changed if those people could vote then most likely there is an inherit issue with those laws.

Laws are supposed to be, amongst other things, a reflection of the society they govern - not the other way around.

Miscarriages of justice and innocent people locked up aside, the point of having a jailing system is to segregate law breakers from society. if a person is in jail they broke the law and as such have forfeited ANY and ALL rights until there time is up, including being part of a "community". otherwise what's the point in punishing someone but you don't really punish them? IMHO, you want these people to feel that they have been segregated from society as part of the punishment...isn't that the point of locking them up in the 1st place?

[Legendary Apophis]

Miscarriages of justice and innocent people locked up aside, the point of having a jailing system is to segregate law breakers from society. if a person is in jail they broke the law and as such have forfeited ANY and ALL rights until there time is up, including being part of a "community". otherwise what's the point in punishing someone but you don't really punish them? IMHO, you want these people to feel that they have been segregated from society as part of the punishment...isn't that the point of locking them up in the 1st place?

+1

[MEZZANINE]

Miscarriages of justice and innocent people locked up aside, the point of having a jailing system is to segregate law breakers from society. if a person is in jail they broke the law and as such have forfeited ANY and ALL rights until there time is up, including being part of a "community". otherwise what's the point in punishing someone but you don't really punish them? IMHO, you want these people to feel that they have been segregated from society as part of the punishment...isn't that the point of locking them up in the 1st place?

+1

+2


Point of imprisonment

1) To Punish, provide consequences for law breaking and thereby create a deterrent for others who would commit crime.

2) To rehabilitate, to provide a forced or heavily incentivised teaching of a work skill to be used on release, and get prisoners into the routine of getting up, working and earning their privileges.

3) To segregate and separate from society until the punishment and rehab have been completed, so they dont commit more crime during the punishment and rehab.

The very fact these people are incarcerated, have their movements and freedoms removed and extra non-civil rules enforced on them means they have already lost civil rights, losing civil rights is an essential & inseparable part of imprisonment, and losing the right to vote ( especially for those that might buy votes with promise of leniency / early release ) is one of the civil rights they lose.

[[KMA]Avenger]

Off topic...

@MEZZ, man i wish i could structure my arguments and posts the way you and others do...even if it's something i disagree with (not in this case, but others).

[MEZZANINE]

Off topic...

@MEZZ, man i wish i could structure my arguments and posts the way you and others do...even if it's something i disagree with (not in this case, but others).

lol cheers *takes a bow*

TBH I hate long paragraphs, I tend to skim them instead of reading properly so I assume others do the same and try to break things down into shorter step by step, or bullet points.

I dont get the same depth or detail as your posts, but I think it gets simpler points across effectively

[Lithium]

the Pirate World was a pure domocracy without the need of the govs, simple rules and fair.

[[KMA]Avenger]

the Pirate World was a pure domocracy without the need of the govs, simple rules and fair.

It was a brutal system based on fear tactics, murder and greed....not the kind any of us want to see again

[Lithium]

the Pirate World was a pure domocracy without the need of the govs, simple rules and fair.

It was a brutal system based on fear tactics, murder and greed....not the kind any of us want to see again

that is how it was served to farmers. do some research how the Pirates were organized.

also we are living in a worse system. Im sure u know how the western countries are preparing to hit the eastern.
To hit syria or iran u need oil reserves, so lets wipe north africa cuz we have not enough, then lets raise the prices to threat ppl lifes then after we can strike.