| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration will allow you to join in the discussion which is amazingly free of personal rancor and trolls! We are currently looking for posters from both the left and the right who have a demonstrated capacity to discuss fervently without letting personalities get in the way. Is that you? We need more staff. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Mandatory Community Service | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 1 2007, 01:43 PM (1,283 Views) | |
| Post #21 Mar 8 2008, 09:45 PM |
|
| And I think it is unreasonable to oppose the state's ability to impose a punishment of community service for someone who broke the law. Frankly, community service is a kind alternative to being locked up. Plus, I am sure anyone can refuse to do the community service if they are willing to do the time. And, if one is not willing to do the time, one should not be willing to do the crime! |
Administrator
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
 
|
 |
| Post #22 Mar 11 2008, 12:38 AM |
|
I was under the impression that that wasn't your argument. As I have said before, I oppose offensively coercive acts such as rape, (non-retributive) forced labor, slavery and so forth regardless of whether the person committing the act is called a government or not. I do not doubt that the government can make all sorts of laws and use force to offensively attack people for any asinine reason. Any person or organization willing to offensively attack people can order people around and attack the people when the people do not obey. But I oppose it. When most people truly think about it, I think they generally oppose it too. I believe it is a quite reasonable and fair opposition. Hopefully, one day we will successfully defend ourselves from all of those who try to offensively attack us. You say, "If one is not willing to do the time, one should not be willing to do the crime!" That maybe true, but one can still oppose the forcing of "the time" on someone who is not offensively hurting others. In analogy, I could say, "If one is not willing to be robbed, one should not walk around in a dangerous neighborhood with expensive jewelry." One may know of the victimization tyrants will commit if one does not obey the tyrants' commands, but that does not stop one from opposing the tyrants' commands and the tyrants' infliction of the victimization--even if the victimization is avoidable by obeying the tyrants' commands. I leave you with a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #23 Mar 11 2008, 02:14 PM |
|
Then you might want to reread that sentence or reread my other posts. I have been absolutely consistent in my belief that the state not only has the right, but the responsibility, to punish criminals, including the use of community service. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #24 Mar 11 2008, 03:26 PM |
|
Well, then I suppose we have come to the conclusion of this discussion between you and I. As I have said, I oppose offensively coercive acts such as rape, (non-retributive) forced labor, slavery and so forth regardless of whether the person committing the act is called a government or not. I support "rightful liberty" as Thomas Jefferson described it in the quote above. Thanks, Scott |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #25 Mar 11 2008, 03:49 PM |
|
And, I have said before that community service is not slavery and to equate the two unconscionable! The state is not raping people nor enslaving people for crimes. If they were, you'd hear me screaming louder than you. They are however assigning community service. That's reasonable. Very reasonable. Particularly considering that, if one finds community service so intolerable, they can opt for jail or prison, both of which are starker suspensions of civil liberties than any measly community service sentence is. Society needs to be able to make reasonable laws and enforce them reasonably. However, it is not at all uncommon for those whose anti-social behavior becomes criminal to claim that it is the system that is the villain. However, once again, "If one cannot do the time, one ought not do the crime." Or, one can give up the social contract and live on a mountaintop and be their own jurisdiction. But, remember, there are consequences for living outside society. Someone else, living outside society, can exercise his jurisdiction all over you! |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #26 Mar 11 2008, 04:04 PM |
|
|
Oh, and I might add one more thing. It is something that I share with my students when they look at consequences, seeing them as unfair, rather than looking at their own actions and how those actions shaped future events. It is about what freedom really is. People often look at what happens to them in life and look for reasons outside themselves for those happenings. Psychologists call this "externalizing." It places blame, or gives credit, for a person's circumstances on the decisions/actions/values of others. It is the essence of giving others power over you. Internalizing, on the other hand, requires one to look inward when something undesirable happens, to ask, "What could I have done differently?" That empowers one by making him realize that he, more than anyone else, can take actions to affect his destiny. In the former case, one often looks for reasons why what happened should not have happened, often irrationally accusing others (or the anonymous "system") and finding scapegoats. In the latter case, the person grows and becomes more in control of his life. The former makes people scream for freedom. The latter actually helps one find freedom--because, only when one guides his own destiny is he truly free. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #27 Mar 15 2008, 12:47 PM |
|
|
I oppose (non-retributive) forced labor in addition to other forms of offensive coercion such as rape, regardless of whether the person or group committing the act calls themself a government. If you do not oppose one person or group using offensive coercion/violence (e.g. rape, non-retributive forced labor, robbery, battery, etc.) against another person or group, then that's that. If you want to oppose offensive coercion/violence with an exception, then I will not understand unless you explain that exception very fully. I do not see this social need you seem to be referencing--especially considering the social need is somehow supposed to apply to the national criminalization of marijuana. What is the exception? Is it only acceptable to you when the person committing the act calls themselves a government? Is it only acceptable to you when the group committing the act is a majority? Under what conditions do you find it acceptable for one person or group to use offensive coercion/violence against another person or group? Your explanation about internalizing/externalizing is good and informative, but does not change my point. I would recommend a women not walk around alone late at night in skimpy clothes, but I still oppose rape. I may recommend a pot-smoker do not smoke pot in front of an agent of a government that has outlawed it, but I still oppose the agent somehow offensively harming the pot-smoker. I may recommend that a person do not snitch on a mafia-man when the mafia has outlawed snitching, but I still oppose the mafia inflicting the penalty on the snitch.
Yes, it does seem the aggressive, anti-social people who attack non-violent pot-smokers are trying to blame their actions on the victim. Currently, the "system" may be one that consists of systematic acts of offensive coercion/violence. Some may use it as a scapegoat--of course, denying their claims about the system on that basis is usually an ad hominem circumstantial. But my aim is to help create a new system that will stop all acts of offensive coercion/violence. If and when that goal is reached, it will be the ones who do the attacking that will have the choice between jail and a mountaintop, not the ones being attacked. Simply put, my goal is to organize others to find ways to defend ourselves from those who commit acts of offensive coercion/violence even if they call themselves a "government." The government is most often the tool of the anti-social, I believe, and I oppose anti-social acts such as waging a war on non-violent drug users. Hopefully, we can put those anti-social people in a jail or send them to a mountaintop--or make them do community service to repay us for their attempted aggression. Besides, I believe winning the war on offensive coercion/violence is far less far-fetched than winning the war on drugs. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #28 Mar 15 2008, 03:50 PM |
|
|
To anyone who has committed a crime and has been punished for it, and then bellyaches about the punishment, I would have the following simple advice. Learn from your mistakes, grow up. and get over it. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #29 Mar 18 2008, 01:59 PM |
|
Those recommendations may or may not be correct or helpful to such a person. But the topic--as far as I am concerned--is on a government's (or other groups') choice of actions not on the choices of potential victims of the government's action. I joined this thread to discuss the merits, benefits, and drawbacks of possible policy choices by the government, namely the choice of mandating non-retributed labor in the form of forcing high-school students and pot-smokers to do community service. I believe this thread is made to make and explain our recommendations and judgments in regards to the government's policy choices (i.e. what the governors do), and it is a red herring to make recommendations or judgments about people who choose or choose not to do something that will make the policy affect them (i.e. go to graduate high-school or possess marijuana). In analogy, if we were to make recommendations to someone considering rape or judgments of somebody who commits rape, it would be a red herring fallacy for someone to defend the rape and rapists by making recommendations and judgments against potential victims of the rape. (e.g. "She shouldn't have put herself in a position to be raped!") So I ask you, do you oppose offensive coercion and offensive violence? If not always, then under what exception(s) do you not oppose a person or group using offensive coercion or offensive violence against another person or group? Or do you just not oppose offensive coercion and offensive violence at all? In this thread, I am not asking about your recommendations regarding the choices of people that may cause them to be or not be the victims of offensive coercion or offensive violence. Thanks, Scott |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #30 Mar 18 2008, 05:30 PM |
|
|
I don't see any "offensive coercion and offensive violence." I see complaining about community service. Geez, that's about as harmless as punishment for committing a crime can get!!! Again, to anyone who has ever committed a crime and been given community service, be thankful your butt ain't in jail! Of course, that's an option. One can refuse to do the community service and opt for jail instead. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #31 Mar 25 2008, 10:41 AM |
|
Isn't the issue whether or not we recommend the government mandate community service? Don't you agree that it is coercion for one person or group to force another person or group to do labor (i.e. community service)? Since it is not a form of rectification (i.e. making someone pay with money or labor for damages they offensively caused to someone else), then it is offensive; don't you agree? As I have said, I support the defensive use of force. So once again I ask you, do you oppose offensive coercion and offensive violence? If not always, then under what exception(s) do you not oppose a person or group using offensive coercion or offensive violence against another person or group? Or do you just not oppose offensive coercion and offensive violence at all? Though you may speak about them, I am not talking about who is or isn't whining. It is irrelevant to the topic I intended to join in this thread. The topic I am here to discuss is what the government is to do regarding community service policies not about what people who will be affected by its policies would be wise to do once the policies have been created and not about whether they are whining. Those are red herrings, as far I am concerned. |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| Post #32 Mar 25 2008, 01:36 PM |
|
|
Coercion is really the wrong word. It carries a connotation of wrongful application of force, of a disregard for the individual's rights. Sentencing someone for a crime, after judicious deliberation determines that the person is indeed a criminal does not exactly smack of coercion. However, if you insist on using that word to create the abusive impression that you seem to be bent on creating, I'll use it. Using your word: Sentencing someone to prison is coercion. Making someone pay a fine is coercion. House arrest is enforced through coercion. Revoking licenses requires coercion. And, assigning community service (in lieu of going to jail) requires coercion, but less than any of the above, since it is an alternative to jail or prison. Community service can be refused if one thinks that the government ought to be able to jail criminals but ought not allow them to remain free as long as they are willing to accept performing work in exchange for remaining free. If you choose to hyperbolize your case by using the overblown word "coercion," then I will simply say that all just punishment requires some level of "coercion" by the government. I mean, you don't expect that someone willing to break the law anyway is going to voluntarily punish himself, now, do you? If you say that the government, even after all due deliberation, should not be able to coerce criminals into community service, then, by extension, it is only logical to say that the government should not be able to coerce criminals into any punishment. And, that would be a silly thing to say. It is just as silly to say that government should not be able to offer a criminal community service as an alternative to jail or prison. So silly that I shall not waste another bit of bandwidth on this debate. Have the last word. I'm out. |
Administrator
|
|
|
|
| Post #33 Apr 3 2008, 06:34 PM |
|
|
You say: "Sentencing someone to prison is coercion." "Making someone pay a fine is coercion." "House arrest is enforced through coercion." Yes, yes, yes. It is all clear-cut coercion, as is any other way of hurting people, or forcing people to do something, against their will with violence or the threat of violence. In addition to what you mention, killing and battery are also major forms of coercion. I support the use of defensive coercion (e.g. defensive homicide, or forcefully stopping and detaining a murder), which to me also includes forcefully investigating and detaining people with probable cause until a speedy fair trail can be performed. By defensive coercion, I also mean to include forced rectification (e.g. making a vandal pay the repair costs for the window he broke). I oppose offensive coercion (e.g. murder, non-defensively punching someone in the face). Making a person do community service is offensive coercion when it is not a form of civil rectification (e.g. making the vandal pay for window repairs), even if the person smokes pot. Putting someone such as a pot-smoker in prison is also a form of offensive coercion when it is not done defensively (such as the case of putting a murderer in prison, or an alleged murderer in jail until a trail can be performed). I support defensive coercion because I oppose offensive coercion. Defensive coercion (e.g. defensive homicide) is used to stop offensive coercion (e.g. murder). To sum up, I support defensive coercion, and I oppose offensive coercion. This is why I oppose offensively coercing pot-smokers or anybody else. Though most people would probably see me as a radical for that, I think my simple position is the most agreeable political philosophy. I think it is best from a utilitarian perspective. And I think it will one day be the law of the land once the majority of potential victims of offensive coercion find and implement an effective way to defend themselves, thereby freeing themselves and others. I believe it will happen because not only is a free society desirable to most people, but also because large groups of diverse people can easily work together for a free society because one person's freedom is necessarily compatible with any other person's freedom--at least when we use my definition of freedom. Thanks, Scott |
Civilian
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| « Previous Topic · What is civility? · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
2:31 PM Feb 7