The Star Destroyer BBS Political Survey

[Alphawolf55]

General:

What do you identify yourself politically as?
A deficit hawk who believes in social freedoms and strong social services.

What political party in the United States do you identify with the most?
I call myself a New England Republican but in almost any group in today's society I'd be labeled a Democrat

What political party in the United Kingdom do you identify with the most?
I don't know enough about them

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "He should be impeached" and 10 being "One of the best Presidents" how would you rate
About a 6. I'm very disappointed in him, I expected better from him especially in regard to the budget which is one of the main reasons I voted for him. Also I felt he would've done more to advance gay rights and health care.

What country other then your home country do you favour the most?
Canada, Ireland and sometimes Norway

What past politicians and political thinkers have influenced you the most?
Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and George H W Bush, Nixon, Johnson Abe Lincoln a much saner John McCain.

Note when I say influenced I don't always mean "Had a positive impact"
Foreign Policy

Do you support the US and Coalition Military Operations in Iraq?
I did at the beginning, but I was 13. Now I don't because it's a nightmare.

Do you support the US/NATO Military Operation in Afghanistan?
Parts of me say yes, but we really messed up the last 7 years but I think we can still win if we make the goals specific enough.

Do you support any sort of intervention in Darfur (Military, humanitaritan, etc,)?
I support aid for Africa as a whole but especially Darfur, humanitarian and military to protect the humaniatarian actions. But most of it wouldn't be needed if we seriously pursued the millieum goals.

What should be done with North Korea on the current nuclear crisis and the Cheonham sinking?
Talk to Russia and China, also treat them the same.

What is your opinion of the Dokdo dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Empire of Japan?
Don't know enough

What is your opinion of NATO and should it expand across Europe?
NATO should be made more as a more workable aspect of the UN in military but also humanitarian exercises.

What should be done about Zimbabwe?
Work on adjacent African nations to create a west berlin/east berlin effect to make them realize things could be far better with cooperation.

What should be done about the Mexican Drug Wars and should the US and other countries intervene?
Legalize the soft stuff, and go for rehab against the hard stuff. Nationalize the soft drug industry and tax it heavily.

Do you support the military actions against pirates in Somalia and do you think more action should be taken?
Piracy is a symptom that must be addressed both by instilling order but also companies should finance their protection.

Economy

Should there be Universal Health Care or if there is in your nation do you support it ?
Yes, we should have a single payer government system, but I'd willing to settle for a public option that does all what a single payer system does at a cost at 2300-3500 per person, since the main reason I'm heavily in favor of health care reform is the ridiculous amounts of money spent on it and single payer is merely the most efficient and cheapest system possible.

How should taxes be organized?
We should have a flat income tax of around 40-60% and a sales tax of around 30%. We can use greater social services like medicare, food stamps and welfare to make it up for poorer Americans while making sure everyone pays their dues. There's no reason why a family of 4 who makes 60,000 a year should pay 35% in taxes while 4 teenager living in an apartment who each make 15,000 a year should be taxed 15%.

I'd also lower corporate taxes in the hopes that a higher income tax would make sure that the top branch would get more heavily taxed, while getting some companies to relocate to the US, but if ended up netting less money I'd change my mind.

How should the recession be ended?
A combination of investing in green jobs, heavily fixing health care and using the freed up cash to invest in our country and to lower our deficits and debts.

Do you support the US Government's Economic Stimulus Plan?
No, no company should be too big to fail. I believed the money was spent in all the wrong places, especially since for the money spent we could've directly supported almost 15 million Americans for 9 years.

Should the automobile companies be bailed out by the US government?
No, they weren't the only automobile companies. Now I'm not against buying them up so we can create better energy efficient cars but that's because I'm heavily for getting away from foreign oil not to save jobs.

Is the minimum wage sufficent or not?
I'm conflict on this. On one hand, I've lived in NYC on 7.25 an hour and it's not enough, on the other hand some businesses really can't afford to pay extra. I'd rather have more social services that rely on collective taxing and thus place the cost on society as a whole, then a higher minimum wage that while won't hurt big business like Target and Wal-Mart might hurt the littler guys.

Social/Moral

Do you support abortion and what restrictions should be placed on it?
I support abortions up til the 3rd trimester.

Do you support gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Gay Marriage full stop.

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?
I think that they should be mostly in world cultures class. The thing is though that any truly good education involving evolution would inherently teach to children the flaws of Creationism and Intelligent Design.

Do you think broadcasting, publishing etc. should be regulated for violence, profantity, sexuality etc.?
Fuck no

How do you think birth control should be regulated?
Pretty much available to everyone

Do you support prayer in schools and if so how much (voluntary or required?)
No.
What is your opinion of capital punishment and which crimes should it be applied to?
It's wrong.

How much should firearms and other weapons be regulated?
I'm pretty pro-second amendment but I do believe in mandatory gun training (not just for owners but for everyone)

History

Was the United States right in going to war against the secessionist Confederate States in the Civil War?
Yes.

Was the United States justified on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima?
Possibly, I've heard too many conflicting sides of the story to make a statement.

Was colonialism or at least parts of it justified?
No

Was the American Revolution justified?
It matters on the definition of justified.

[Simon_Jester]

I love how Teleros, British conservative, is so close to being a flaming liberal by American standards.

Clear ether, Teleros!

[Samuel]

Think about it. Assume that blacks accused of murder are sometimes (or often) executed, while whites are never executed. This is proof of strong racial bias in the judiciary. That bias is, realistically, not limited to choice of sentencing. It also affects the reliability of convictions- with the effective standard of evidence being lower for blacks than for whites. This makes it more likely for an innocent black to be convicted (and executed), or for the wrong black to be convicted (and executed). Even if the murder was committed by a black, the lower standard of evidence increases the risk that the wrong black will be convicted (and executed).

All of which encourages blacks, especially those already living on the edge of the law, to view the judiciary as so hopelessly biased against them that it hardly matters whether they commit crimes or not, because they're doomed anyway if simple bad luck comes up against them.

While you can get people who think the system is so biased that they believe it doesn't care about innocence, I find it hard to believe they believe that it will execute people people for murder when no one is killed. You seem to think the police are so cartoonishly evil they are arresting people for murder regardless of wheter people are being killed.

It can be, if the body is found in a ditch or something.

I meant that, unlike robbery where if people start protecting one section better criminals will transfer elsewhere, murders aren't generally refocused. You want a specific person dead, not killing for the sake of killing. The exceptions are people who are unlikely to be detered by punishment anyway.

The theory that punishing every criminal terribly even for minor crimes will deter them has been tried over and over for millenia. It's likely as not to create a class of desperate criminals who will do anything to cover their tracks; remember "might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb?"

We are talking about people who have already commited murder, which is a life sentance crime. Unless you want to make it only a couple decades in order to make them less desperate.

Since when did racists care about the truth? A "justice" system that is highly racist in terms of sentencing is going to be racist in all sorts of other ways as Simon_Jester points out. Almost as important in terms of keeping order, people are going to believe that such a blatantly racist system does that sort of thing even if it doesn't, and act accordingly.

I'm going to have to show out the algebra involved, aren't I?

[Simon_Jester]

While you can get people who think the system is so biased that they believe it doesn't care about innocence, I find it hard to believe they believe that it will execute people people for murder when no one is killed. You seem to think the police are so cartoonishly evil they are arresting people for murder regardless of wheter people are being killed...

A judiciary that will kill a vaguely suspicious black man for each murder is useless, because it deters nothing, because it will so often kill the wrong man. Punishing someone for a crime accomplishes nothing, unless you get the right person reliably enough that the person who actually does commit a crime has more to fear than the person who doesn't. Enough so to overwhelm their desire to commit the crime, which in the case of murder is often a very great desire.

The fact that a court executes someone only for murders that are committed is irrelevant if it can't catch murderers because it's too lazy to look past the first black man it sees. It's not even effective at deterring black criminals, let alone white ones. I mean, do you honestly think collective punishment can work when you only choose one person to kill for each crime? "Don't kill someone, or we will semi-randomly kill one of you?"

There's a reason that occupying armies that want to make reprisals work kill on a ten to one or twenty to one basis; they need to. Otherwise, you don't get a communal incentive to prevent the killings, not to a degree sufficient to make them prevent whatever is getting them killed in reprisal.

Since when did racists care about the truth? A "justice" system that is highly racist in terms of sentencing is going to be racist in all sorts of other ways as Simon_Jester points out. Almost as important in terms of keeping order, people are going to believe that such a blatantly racist system does that sort of thing even if it doesn't, and act accordingly.

I'm going to have to show out the algebra involved, aren't I?

If the algebra proves what you think it proves, I strongly suspect that you'll have made flawed assumptions to set it up.

I hope I'm wrong, and that racist judiciaries actually do reduce crime. It would make the Texan death row so much less of a senseless waste of human life and marginally less of a perversion of the notion of justice.

I just have trouble believing it.

[Lord of the Abyss]

While you can get people who think the system is so biased that they believe it doesn't care about innocence, I find it hard to believe they believe that it will execute people people for murder when no one is killed. You seem to think the police are so cartoonishly evil they are arresting people for murder regardless of wheter people are being killed.

Since people are always being killed, that situation isn't likely to come up.

[Samuel]

A judiciary that will kill a vaguely suspicious black man for each murder is useless, because it deters nothing, because it will so often kill the wrong man.

As long as it doesn't always catch the wrong man, it will have a deterence effect, just alot less than what it should be.

Punishing someone for a crime accomplishes nothing, unless you get the right person reliably enough that the person who actually does commit a crime has more to fear than the person who doesn't.

Since there is less than one murder for a hundred thousand people, this generally holds true.

The fact that a court executes someone only for murders that are committed is irrelevant if it can't catch murderers because it's too lazy to look past the first black man it sees. It's not even effective at deterring black criminals, let alone white ones. I mean, do you honestly think collective punishment can work when you only choose one person to kill for each crime? "Don't kill someone, or we will semi-randomly kill one of you?"

We are making different assumptions. You are assuming the police are flat out incompetant. I'm assuming that they handle the finding a suspect phase normally (except when there are white and black suspects in which case they prefer the black ones) and than procede onto prosecution, where they always convict if the defendant is black.

If deterence is based upon odds of conviction and execution than it is based on being caught times conviction times sentanced to death.

ca*co*sen
As long as ca remains unchanged, raising the other two values will increase the deterence effect unless your justice system is so good that the only people not being convicted at that point are the innocent.

I hope I'm wrong, and that racist judiciaries actually do reduce crime.

It isn't rascist judiciaries that do- it is convicting more people. If you lower the standards of evidence you have a larger deterence effect- you just end up getting more innocent people. At some point you are executing more people than you are saving by detering crime, which these places may have passed.

[darthdavid]

The Star Destroyer BBS Political Survey

General:

What do you identify yourself politically as?: Democratic Socialist, Secular Humanist

What political party in the United States do you identify with the most?: The Democrats

What political party in the United Kingdom do you identify with the most?: Labour

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "He should be impeached" and 10 being "One of the best Presidents" how would you rate President Barack Obama of the USA so far?: 7

What country other then your home country do you favor the most?: Canada

What past politicians and political thinkers have influenced you the most?: Voltaire, Locke, Jefferson (there are others too but I'm kinda lazy right now, might edit some in as I think of 'em)

Foreign Policy

Do you support the US and Coalition Military Operations in Iraq?: Never should have went in in the first place, we should leave in good order as soon as we can responsibly do so.

Do you support the US/NATO Military Operation in Afghanistan?: While our initial reasons for going in were good I feel that given the conditions on the ground and the history of the country we could keep wasting men and material for a hundred years and not be done there. We should leave as soon as we can and wash our hands of the whole fucking mess.

Do you support any sort of intervention in Darfur (Military, humanitarian, etc,)?: Yes; humanitarian aid for sure, peace-keeping forces if it looks like they'd help.

What should be done with North Korea on the current nuclear crisis and the Cheonham sinking?: There's not much to be done that we already aren't doing short of full scale war...

What is your opinion of the Dokdo dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Empire of Japan?: Insufficient knowledge.

What is your opinion of NATO and should it expand across Europe?: Yes, NATO should take any member who wants in and isn't going to fuck with the rest of us.

What should be done about Zimbabwe?: keep up the shunning, be ready to offer aid if needed.

What should be done about the Mexican Drug Wars and should the US and other countries intervene?: Legalize all currently illegal drugs, have strict controls and easily available treatment for the dangerous/highly addictive ones. With reasonable taxes not only will everything be safer, easier to get and more reliable, it will be cheaper than current black market prices as well. There will be no area that dealers can compete in and within a few years (almost) no one will bother trying to sell illegally. Treat unlicensed production/sale the same way moonshine is handled today. With their income ripped away the gangs will fall apart in short order. Offer aid to Mexico as necessary.

Do you support the military actions against pirates in Somalia and do you think more action should be taken?: Give the navy more leave to hunt them down. Possibly form an international task-force.

What should the solution to Israel/Palestine be?: Use international pressure to relocate, integrate etc..., the Palestinian refugees (once they're not living in squalor anymore there won't be near as many desperate young men ready to throw their lives away against Israel in the hope that their families will be compensated), stop letting Israel's many enemies make a farce of the UN so that when Israel actually does something shitty (like attacking a humanitarian aid convoy in international waters ) they won't be able to lump the criticism in with all the bullshit they take on a regular basis.

Economy

Should there be Universal Health Care or if there is in your nation do you support it ?: Yes. The Health-care 'reform' bill was epically retarded, but at-least it (maybe) got a foot in the door for real progress (I hope).

How should taxes be organized?: Close the loopholes, actually tax the wealthy and businesses. Stop raping the middle-class and for Odin's sake, adjust the poverty line to a sane, realistic level for our times.

How should the recession be ended?: Regulate the shit out of the financial industry. Have hefty strings attached to any further bail-outs. If your company is important enough to be bailed out and you fuck up badly enough to need a hand from Uncle Sam you should expect to have to pay it back and you should be ready to have the government tell you what you need to do (because if you knew how to do your fucking job right you wouldn't need the bailout in the first place you useless twats).

Do you support the US Government's Economic Stimulus Plan?: Parts of it. Should have been more infrastructure focused.

Should the automobile companies be bailed out by the US government?: Yes, but again, no free money.

Is the minimum wage sufficient or not?: Not really, but this economy isn't the one to raise it in.

Social/Moral

Do you support abortion and what restrictions should be placed on it?: Yes. It should be as simple and easy to get one as is possible up until the little chest-burster gets a decent amount of brain-activity (except if the mother's life is in danger)

Do you support gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships?: Call a spade a spade. Marriage for everyone. Fuck the bigoted douche-bags who oppose it.

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?: Yes. In social studies or whatever when they talk about religion. Don't get your religion in my science though, unless you want me to go to your church and start talking about evolution.

Do you think broadcasting, publishing etc. should be regulated for violence, profantity, sexuality etc.?: No. Shows should be rated, and if a show broadcasts something outside of it's rating the network should be punished, but between parental controls and responsible parenting you should be able to control what your kid sees just fine. There's just no good reason to limit what adults can see on TV in this day and age.

How do you think birth control should be regulated?: Available to all.

Do you support prayer in schools and if so how much (voluntary or required?): Fuck no. If you want to pray nothing's stopping you, and if you have special needs (Muslims praying to mecca or other such things) the school should make allowances for you, but the school shouldn't promote any kind of prayer or set aside any time for religion. If you want to pray with a group go to church, school's for learning and as an instrument of the state should be free from religion in any event.

What is your opinion of capital punishment and which crimes should it be applied to?: No. Life in prison is perfectly adequate and in any event you can release a person from prison if they turn out to be innocent later. A Posthumous pardon really doesn't do much for the innocent dead guy...

How much should firearms and other weapons be regulated?: You should need a license (part of which would be mandatory gun safety training, a thorough back-ground check and as well as a psych eval to make sure you're not going to go nuts). Pretty much everything up to and including machine guns should be legal, but there should be different classes of license the requirements getting more stringent as the lethality of your hardware goes up.


History

Was the United States right in going to war against the secessionist Confederate States in the Civil War?: Yes

Was the United States justified on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima?: Yes

Was colonialism or at least parts of it justified?: Parts yes, but the question is so vague as to be basically useless.

Was the American Revolution justified?: Not really. Britain spent a shit ton of money defending the colonies in a war they (the colonies) basically started (the French and Indian war) and it was only reasonable to expect the colonies to pay for it with some taxes. Most of the revolutionaries had their own (somewhat selfish) reasons to rebel and seized on several misunderstandings to whip up the populace and justify rebellion. While I do feel that our independence turned out (mostly) to be a force for good that can't retroactively justify a rebellion founded of false claims...

[Simon_Jester]

A judiciary that will kill a vaguely suspicious black man for each murder is useless, because it deters nothing, because it will so often kill the wrong man.

As long as it doesn't always catch the wrong man, it will have a deterence effect, just alot less than what it should be.

The deterrence effect doesn't have to be much less than it should be before the process of executions becomes nothing but a senseless exercise in butchery.

We are making different assumptions. You are assuming the police are flat out incompetant. I'm assuming that they handle the finding a suspect phase normally (except when there are white and black suspects in which case they prefer the black ones) and than procede onto prosecution, where they always convict if the defendant is black.

The problem is that they will prefer black suspects (even ones who are accused on the basis of flimsy evidence) to white suspects.

Grabbing all the suspects for a murder and killing one at random is a vile policy, and one that won't work worth a damn. And that's what this amounts to. When racial prejudice is used as a substitute for evidence, so that slightly suspicious blacks (who probably did not commit the crime) are being accused in preference to very suspicious whites (who probably did), the system is failing badly.

If deterence is based upon odds of conviction and execution than it is based on being caught times conviction times sentanced to death.

Yes. And in an unreliable justice system, this combined probability can become so low that your probability of being caught and sentenced to death for a given murder is lower than the risk of dying of natural causes. At which point a potential murderer is unlikely to be deterred.

It isn't rascist judiciaries that do- it is convicting more people. If you lower the standards of evidence you have a larger deterence effect- you just end up getting more innocent people.

You cannot count on a larger deterrence effect, because no criminal is afraid of the prospect that some random person might die.

[Lord of the Abyss]

A judiciary that will kill a vaguely suspicious black man for each murder is useless, because it deters nothing, because it will so often kill the wrong man.

As long as it doesn't always catch the wrong man, it will have a deterence effect, just alot less than what it should be.

No, it won't. Numbers aren't important here, perception is. And a system that is grossly racist is going to be perceived as one that will let whites go in order to persecute blacks. People aren't going to be using numbers and statistics to figure out whether to commit a crime or not.

The fact that a court executes someone only for murders that are committed is irrelevant if it can't catch murderers because it's too lazy to look past the first black man it sees. It's not even effective at deterring black criminals, let alone white ones. I mean, do you honestly think collective punishment can work when you only choose one person to kill for each crime? "Don't kill someone, or we will semi-randomly kill one of you?"

We are making different assumptions. You are assuming the police are flat out incompetant. I'm assuming that they handle the finding a suspect phase normally (except when there are white and black suspects in which case they prefer the black ones) and than procede onto prosecution, where they always convict if the defendant is black.

That is unrealistic; racist systems don't neatly confine their racism to only one area of their job. And, again, a system that executes blacks and only blacks is going to be perceived as systematically racist at all levels, and that perception is what people will base their actions on.

[Samuel]

No, it won't. Numbers aren't important here, perception is. And a system that is grossly racist is going to be perceived as one that will let whites go in order to persecute blacks. People aren't going to be using numbers and statistics to figure out whether to commit a crime or not.

Your confusing the effect where the community stops cooperating with the police with deterence. If you know that if the police suspect you, they are going to throw you in prison, it makes a strong deterent.

That is unrealistic; racist systems don't neatly confine their racism to only one area of their job.

I'm assuming it will show in black on white or vice versa crime- white on white they should handle normally and black on black... well, it depends if they care.

And in an unreliable justice system, this combined probability can become so low that your probability of being caught and sentenced to death for a given murder is lower than the risk of dying of natural causes. At which point a potential murderer is unlikely to be deterred.

That holds true for reliable ones as well.

You cannot count on a larger deterrence effect, because no criminal is afraid of the prospect that some random person might die.

They don't look at that- they look at the odds of them being convicted and executed are higher.

[Lord of the Abyss]

No, it won't. Numbers aren't important here, perception is. And a system that is grossly racist is going to be perceived as one that will let whites go in order to persecute blacks. People aren't going to be using numbers and statistics to figure out whether to commit a crime or not.

Your confusing the effect where the community stops cooperating with the police with deterence. If you know that if the police suspect you, they are going to throw you in prison, it makes a strong deterent.

Not if you think that the only reason they suspect or don't suspect someone is their skin color. Among other things, deterrence requires a belief among the deterred that the police care about actual guilt.

That is unrealistic; racist systems don't neatly confine their racism to only one area of their job.

I'm assuming it will show in black on white or vice versa crime- white on white they should handle normally and black on black... well, it depends if they care.

I find it much more likely that they'll find a black to blame for crimes involving white people; when they aren't just persecuting black people with no actual crime having occurred.

[Simon_Jester]

No, it won't. Numbers aren't important here, perception is. And a system that is grossly racist is going to be perceived as one that will let whites go in order to persecute blacks. People aren't going to be using numbers and statistics to figure out whether to commit a crime or not.

Your confusing the effect where the community stops cooperating with the police with deterence. If you know that if the police suspect you, they are going to throw you in prison, it makes a strong deterent.

A deterrent against what? Breathing while black? A system where "is a black person" is halfway to being convicted before they're accused of anything isn't going to be reliable about jailing black criminals either. It just jails black people, not criminals. The criminals may get caught, but at a greatly reduced rate, which makes the deterrent effect stupidly dilute.

Look, why don't you just show us the damn algebra?

I'm assuming it will show in black on white or vice versa crime- white on white they should handle normally and black on black... well, it depends if they care.

Bad assumption. They're like as not to pick a black scapegoat for a crime a white committed, if there are black suspects. Or even black potential suspects, in the sense of "we can pretend he did it."

That holds true for reliable ones as well.

So... what, does it not matter whether the system is reliable about arresting the right fucking person? Samuel, this makes no sense; you're smarter than this.

They don't look at that- they look at the odds of them being convicted and executed are higher.

Do they? Really? Empirically? I'd like a look at your algebra, since you claim to have it.

[Samuel]

Not if you think that the only reason they suspect or don't suspect someone is their skin color. Among other things, deterrence requires a belief among the deterred that the police care about actual guilt.

No, deterence requires the belief that if you commit a crime, the police will arrest and punish you. It doesn't require the police to care about guilt- if they executed all their suspects they would still have a deterence effect.

I find it much more likely that they'll find a black to blame for crimes involving white people; when they aren't just persecuting black people with no actual crime having occurred.

Are you seriously saying they would never prosecute a white person?

Breathing while black? A system where "is a black person" is halfway to being convicted before they're accused of anything isn't going to be reliable about jailing black criminals either. It just jails black people, not criminals. The criminals may get caught, but at a greatly reduced rate, which makes the deterrent effect stupidly dilute.

It is good at jailing people for being "resonably suspicious". As long as the guilty party is within reasonably suspicious most of the time, they will get the criminal most of the time.

Look, why don't you just show us the damn algebra?

I already did. Odds of being found times odds of prosecution times odds of death sentance is what gives you deterence. If the system is completely stacked, the last two values are both 1. Assuming they are normally .5, that means you can convict the wrong person up to 4 times as often and still have the same deterence effect.

They're like as not to pick a black scapegoat for a crime a white committed, if there are black suspects. Or even black potential suspects, in the sense of "we can pretend he did it."

That would require them to not care about protecting white people though. Is there any reason to think that this would be a large problem?

this combined probability can become so low that your probability of being caught and sentenced to death for a given murder is lower than the risk of dying of natural causes.

So... what, does it not matter whether the system is reliable about arresting the right fucking person? Samuel, this makes no sense; you're smarter than this.

Simon, you were talking about something completely different, namely the fact that death isn't a good deterence for people with a low life expectancy. As it is, any criminal justice system will jail and punish innocent people. They are imperfect, not all criminals are idiots, not all cases are clear, etc. The goal is to run the system to get as few innocent people as possible while detering/taking of the street as many guilty people as possible.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Not if you think that the only reason they suspect or don't suspect someone is their skin color. Among other things, deterrence requires a belief among the deterred that the police care about actual guilt.

No, deterence requires the belief that if you commit a crime, the police will arrest and punish you. It doesn't require the police to care about guilt- if they executed all their suspects they would still have a deterence effect.

Um, no they wouldn't because getting executed would have nothing to do with whether you commit a crime or not. Because if they don't care about guilt then they aren't going to be trying to arrest the guilty, and will arrest the innocent. That doesn't deter crime; it just convinces the victimized group to avoid the cops, innocent or guilty.

I find it much more likely that they'll find a black to blame for crimes involving white people; when they aren't just persecuting black people with no actual crime having occurred.

Are you seriously saying they would never prosecute a white person?

Probably not "never"; but they'd be much, much less likely to.

[PKRudeBoy]

General:

What do you identify yourself politically as?: Ethical egoist, Libertarian political realist.

What political party in the United States do you identify with the most?: The Republicans, for the sake of primary voting.

What political party in the United Kingdom do you identify with the most?: Tory.

On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being "He should be impeached" and 10 being "One of the best Presidents" how would you rate President Barack Obama of the USA so far?: 3. Disagree with most policies on a fundamental level, but still better then W.

What country other then your home country do you favour the most?: Bermuda seems nice, although it doesn't quite count as a country.

What past politicians and political thinkers have influenced you the most?: Machiavelli, Nietzsche, Bismark, Kissinger, Friedman, Hayek and Goldwater were the most influential.

Foreign Policy

Do you support the US and Coalition Military Operations in Iraq?: With what I knew then, yes. In hindsight, it was handled extremely poorly and based on the flimsiest of pretexts, so no.

Do you support the US/NATO Military Operation in Afghanistan?: Yes, in principle, but if history has taught us anything, Afganistan is the graveyard of empires.

Do you support any sort of intervention in Darfur (Military, humanitaritan, etc,)?: Humanitarian, limited military, supplying the south with weapons for self defense.

What should be done with North Korea on the current nuclear crisis and the Cheonham sinking?: I would like an assassination of Kim Jong-Il and preemptive strikes on artillery positions and potential nuclear targets, but I have a feeling the South Koreans wouldn't approve of that, so I would say follow their lead. They're the ones most at risk, and they should be able to call the shots on this one.

What is your opinion of the Dokdo dispute between the Republic of Korea and the Empire of Japan?: Don't know enough about it or particularly care about a few dozen acres that has virtually nothing to do with us.

What is your opinion of NATO and should it expand across Europe?: It served it's use, but now could possibly lead to more harm than good due to unnecessarily provoking Russia.

What should be done about Zimbabwe?: Fuck ZANU, they did it to themselves. They had one of the better economies on the continent and turned it into an absolute shithole. Mugabe blatantly violated the Lancaster House Agreements, and the UK let it happen. Zimbabwe is a kleptocracy devoted to enriching Mugabe and his close supporters. Regime change would be nice, but it's not the US's responsibility.

What should be done about the Mexican Drug Wars and should the US and other countries intervene?: Legalize all drugs, and we will see the cartels go the way of bootleggers and moonshiners.

Do you support the military actions against pirates in Somalia and do you think more action should be taken?: Yes, but armed merchantmen would also be an acceptable solution.

What should the solution to Israel/Palestine be?: Israel should have made the return of the Sinai conditional on Egypt taking Palestinian refugees. A two state solution would be nice, but I don't see it happening.

Economy

Should there be Universal Health Care or if there is in your nation do you support it ?: I'm against it in principle, but the reality is that the current system is so broken that single payer may be the only viable option.

How should taxes be organized?: I'm a proponent of the Fairtax, which would replace the income tax on all levels with a national sales tax.

How should the recession be ended?: The economy seems to be bouncing back, so more action may not be needed.

Do you support the US Government's Economic Stimulus Plan?: TARP may have been necessary, the stimulus package no.

Should the automobile companies be bailed out by the US government?: No

Is the minimum wage sufficient or not?: Considering that only about 1% of workers earn it, and most of them are young workers at their first job, its rather irrelevant.

Social/Moral

Do you support abortion and what restrictions should be placed on it?: Yes, during the first trimester, restricted to health reasons after.

Do you support gay marriage or civil unions or domestic partnerships?: Yes.

Do you think Creationism or Intelligent Design should or should not be taught in school?: No

Do you think broadcasting, publishing etc. should be regulated for violence, profantity, sexuality etc.?: No

How do you think birth control should be regulated?: Shouldn't be.

Do you support prayer in schools and if so how much (voluntary or required?): No

What is your opinion of capital punishment and which crimes should it be applied to?: Yes, in theory, but in practice it just ends up being more expensive. However, for some cases, it would be well worth it.

How much should firearms and other weapons be regulated?: Background checks, sould be available to all but violent felons and the seriously mentally ill.

History

Was the United States right in going to war against the secessionist Confederate States in the Civil War?: Yes

Was the United States justified on dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima?: Yes

Was colonialism or at least parts of it justified?: Nations should and will act in their best interests. Morality has little to do with it.

Was the American Revolution justified?: Yes

No hate groups (to include the boy scouts) permitted to organize, recruit, meet, or demonstrate (to include the wearing of t-shirts, uniforms, pins, etc.) on school grounds.

Fuck you for including the BSA as a hate group. It's a private organization that provide beneficial services to the community. While the national organization as a whole has problems, considering that it's pretty much run by the LDS church, the local organizations are very independent of National. I work at a BSA summer camp, and where I am the rules concerning gays and athiests are not even given lip service. I know at least a half dozen staff members who i work with are openly gay, and at least that number, including myself, who are athiests.

[Simon_Jester]

No, deterence requires the belief that if you commit a crime, the police will arrest and punish you. It doesn't require the police to care about guilt- if they executed all their suspects they would still have a deterence effect.

If they execute one suspect, the deterrent effect drops: they suspect four people and kill one; what are the odds that you're the unlucky one? And in a real judiciary system it drops farther, because the odds of your actually being identified as a suspect and charged and convicted and executed are really low.

I find it much more likely that they'll find a black to blame for crimes involving white people; when they aren't just persecuting black people with no actual crime having occurred.

Are you seriously saying they would never prosecute a white person?

Samuel, for crying out loud, think past "if the police kill someone when a crime occurs it will deter criminals." This isn't all-or-nothing. It's about probabilities. You know, the ones between 0 and 1?

If black people are automatically suspected when a crime is committed, then unlucky black people get grabbed along with white suspects. Unless the white murderer is found standing over the body clutching a bloody implement and muttering "they had it coming... they had it coming..." the effects of racism in the judiciary still increase the chance that a black will be charged and convicted for a white's murder.

Which greatly reduces the effect of the deterrent- a deterrent you can't avoid by not committing crimes is no deterrent at all.

Breathing while black? A system where "is a black person" is halfway to being convicted before they're accused of anything isn't going to be reliable about jailing black criminals either. It just jails black people, not criminals. The criminals may get caught, but at a greatly reduced rate, which makes the deterrent effect stupidly dilute.

It is good at jailing people for being "resonably suspicious". As long as the guilty party is within reasonably suspicious most of the time, they will get the criminal most of the time.

Again, you're smarter than this. Say that any black person is half way to "reasonably suspicious." There are three black suspects for a crime. The odds that one (as opposed to zero) of them is guilty go down, because blacks are being arrested more readily and on flimsier evidence than whites. And the odds that the guilty one will be convicted also go down, because nobody bothers putting up a strong legal defense for the blacks.

Remember, innocent people going to prison equals guilty people getting away. A system that is not reliable and careful about avoiding punishment of innocents isn't just hurting innocents, it's degrading its own deterrent power against the guilty.

Look, why don't you just show us the damn algebra?

I already did. Odds of being found times odds of prosecution times odds of death sentance is what gives you deterence. If the system is completely stacked, the last two values are both 1. Assuming they are normally .5, that means you can convict the wrong person up to 4 times as often and still have the same deterence effect.

Adjusted, of course, for the perceived chance of being punished for doing nothing at all because you were innocent. And bearing in mind that the deterrent effect has to be really fucking intense to have an effect on the target demographic.

So... what, does it not matter whether the system is reliable about arresting the right fucking person? Samuel, this makes no sense; you're smarter than this.

Simon, you were talking about something completely different, namely the fact that death isn't a good deterence for people with a low life expectancy.

I'm talking about a combination of factors. I'm talking about the perception of risk, I'm talking about the ability of the guilty to get away with being accused of murder because a scapegoat was grabbed in their place, I'm talking about keeping the total risk of being executed for a crime large without automatic convictions that make the judiciary useless because it no longer bothers to separate out the innocent from the guilty.



As it is, any criminal justice system will jail and punish innocent people. They are imperfect, not all criminals are idiots, not all cases are clear, etc. The goal is to run the system to get as few innocent people as possible while detering/taking of the street as many guilty people as possible.[/quote]

[Samuel]

I'm going to bow out due to the desire to see if I can get some of the games on my system to run. Er, sorry. If you want we can start a new thread about this in a couple of days.