It makes no sense to give money to the poor if they don’t know how to use it.

Poverty does not equal incompetency…most poor people are equally capable of handling money responsibly…the vast majority of the poor are not poor because they are irresponsible, they are poor because our system is geared toward a pyramid structure…the further up you go the fewer positions and vacancies there are.

The structure, by necessity, requires a high volume of ‘ workers ‘ at or near the bottom of the pyramid…most of which will never be allowed to scale to the higher levels no matter how responsible or capable they are.

Very few of the wealthy got there without the labor of the working class…and/or the manipulation of the ‘ working poor ‘…
yes, the farmer deserves to reap the rewards of his labor…but…was it his labor, or the labor of migrant farm workers?

I believe a man who ‘ invests ‘ in a business deserves the lions share…he is the one who took the risk of losing his money on a potentially bad investment…he was the one who created the opportunities for employment for others…yes, he deserves to be well-off.

But…to what extent?

How much money is rationally fair compensation for that investment?

If a person invests ( risks ) $500.000…what ‘ reasonable ‘ return should he expect?

What if he made 6 bad investments prior to hitting the good one? Then, how much should he be compensated?

Should he be allowed to recoup his previous losses first, before reasonable compensation takes effect?

Whatever reasonable compensation comes into play…whatever is left should funnel downwards to those who helped him recoup his losses and achieve that return on his investment.

ie.
a person invests $500,000…has previous un-recouped losses of $600,000 on two other ventures…he hires 50 workers…these workers generate $23,000,000 in profits over the next 12 years…
the investor recoups his $600,000 losses…and his original $500,000 investment…and is $12,000,000 in the black…
$1,000,000 a year in clear profits…
a more than reasonable return on the original investment…
the plant then becomes employee-owned…
and those employees are now working to create profits for themselves.

The only problem with this scenario is….greed…

there, unfortunately, is never a place of having too much money.

Wrong. It costs more to keep them alive through constant appeals, lawyer fees, etc… than to put them in jail for life.
The cost is bore through trying to keep them alive not putting them to death. The actual cost of putting them to death is minuscule compared to the costs bore by a life sentence.

Wrong…most, not all, but most, hardened violent criminals are not productive members of society…better to give those jobs to the ones who really need them…the poor unemployed, the under-employed, and disenfranchised.

Been tried many times and some are still operating ‘ work farms ‘…and even a profitable work farm is a drain on the economy and lacks self-sufficiency because they are mismanaged and depend heavily upon government subsidies.

I would argue that the prison system we have used for the last 1500 years or more is archaic and should be abolished altogether. That putting someone in a cage for the rest of their life with others as violent or/and as cruel as themselves is in itself more cruel than putting a bullet in their head.
Of course these criminals don’t want to die…that’s just our survival instincts kicking in…but, as I said, we are all under a death sentence…every one of us…the only real difference is that we’d be determining when and how.

People die before their time all the time, the hospitals are full of people of every age on their death-bed…some people even know how and when they are going to die…I find it infinitely more unfair for an 8 year old to be dying of leukemia than putting a bullet in the head of someone who ‘ chose ‘ of ‘ their own free will ‘ to violate, brutalize, and rape someone.

I have no sympathy for those who ‘ chose ‘ of ‘ their own free will ‘ to brutalize or murder someone, for whatever reason that possessed them…my sympathizes lie with the victims and the potential future victims.

The ONLY argument that has any value against killing them is the argument that the odd innocent may die unjustly.
And with the safe-guards I suggested earlier being in place and enforced the amount of innocents being wrongly convicted of these crimes would be greatly reduced.

Then it becomes ONLY a matter of where one places their judgment…is the life of even one innocent’s rights worth more than the victim’s rights and the rights of those potential future victims.
And THIS is the only real argument.

The fact is that, demolishing the prison system, executing violent criminals, placing non-violent criminals into alternative correction, would greatly improve the general well-being of society, and greatly reduce the economic impact upon society.

You know…I find the people who are the most opposed to executing criminals are the ones who are the least impacted by them.
Set up a day release and half-way house for violent offenders on a street where several Senators or well-off businessmen/professionals live…
or…better yet, force them to live in a high-crime neighborhood for two years without all their alarms, guard dogs, fenced communities, and other safety features the well-off have the luxury of having…

and you will see how quickly their attitudes change.

………………………….

There is nothing practical about holding on to the present system or the death penalty under this system.

we need to rid ourselves of the archaic practice of putting people in prison…and focus on a more modern and successful approach that would be beneficial to society.

As I said:

I advocate:

1. the ‘ immediate ‘ execution of ‘ all ‘ major violent ‘ convicted ‘ criminals
2. the complete dismantling of the prison system
3. all minor violent infractions to be dealt with by fines/confiscation
4. all major non-violent crimes punishable by alternative methods
5. all minor non-violent crimes to be dealt with by fines/confiscation
6. a change to standards within the justice system
7. holding lawyers accountable for not doing their job
8. guaranteeing that all major violent crimes that are unclear ( as to guilt ) have the full use of modern technology at their disposal

…………………

Some things I’ve noticed over the years concerning those who oppose the Death Penalty…now…these are not true in every case, but certainly in most cases one or more applies…in some cases every one mentioned applies…

1. they do not live in or near a high-crime neighborhood…
2. they have never been in a high-crime neighborhood…
3. they are protected by both location and security which is not provided to those who do live in high-crime neighborhoods…
4. they do not live near a prison…
5. they would not allow a prison to be built in their neighborhood…
6. they would not allow a half-way house for violent criminals to be sanctioned in their neighborhood…
7. they do not live near a half-way house for violent criminals
8. they live in a gated secure community…
9. their children do not go to inner-city public schools…
10. their children do not have to go through a high-crime neighborhood to get to school…
11. they do not have gangs on their street corners…
12. they do not have dope dealers selling crack one block away…
13. they rarely, if ever, leave their automobile when going through even a moderate crime area…
14. they have never been the victim, or the potential victim, of a major violent crime
15. they would not themselves ever live in Compton, or any other high-crime neighborhood

they are, for the most part, dissociated and detached from living in or around crime…and people whose main association with high-crime areas is watching CSI on television or CBS news have the luxury of being generous in their compassion for violent criminals.

From a safe distance …of course.

……………………

the point is if we killed these criminals ‘ THEY ‘…the ones who have to deal with them daily…( not the people who don’t )….would have much safer lives for themselves and their children…and might actually be able to have the type of life that those other people who get their violence off of CNN take for granted.

They might actually be able to prosper and succeed and have an enjoyable and safer life if there wasn’t a crack dealer at every corner 7-11.

Like I said…it’s easy to be generous and compassionate toward the criminals when a person is not directly affected, when a person can avoid areas of high crime…and live in nice suburban safe neighborhoods…
when these criminals are released they don’t move into their neighborhoods.

Compassion should be for the victims…and there is a lot of victims…everyone living in these areas are victims…

and people whose main association with high-crime areas is watching CSI on television or CBS news have the luxury of being generous in their compassion for the violent criminals.

From a safe distance …of course.

…………………..

Bureau of Justice Statistics Reentry Trends in the U.S.: Releases from State prison

This does not include Federal prison …or the 100’s of thousands of criminals not in prison…

The vast majority of them move into poor undeveloped neighborhoods…creating an impossible situation for those who live there.

I suggest that they ( all the criminals who get released each year and all the criminals that are roaming the streets ) all be relocated to the neighborhoods of the well-off and rich…

within one year I will bet that, having all the criminals relocated, would create such an impossible situation for those who live there, that there will be a Bill being passed to start killing them.

It’s not about vengeance…or revenge….it’s about alleviating the burden we place on the poor by ridding them of the primary element that destroys any chance of their success…without having to deal with these criminals those neighborhoods can being to prosper…be safer…encourage growth…and create a sense of well-being that these neighborhoods desperately need.

Everyone living in these neighborhoods is a victim…except the criminals.

…………………….

I think where we differ in our evaluation of the problem is in the matter of death…

we are all sentenced to die the moment we are born…we are all under a death penalty…the only difference I see is that those we put down know when and how it’s going to happen…

and they make that choice the moment they commit a heinous violent act. We do not make that choice for them…they make that choice.

If we institute a law saying that all crimes involving heinous violent acts ( murder, rape, torture, maiming, molestation, pedophilia, aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc… ) will result in immediate death without appeal upon conviction…and someone commits one of these acts…that is a choice…

they made.

Our responsibility…would extend to ensuring that safeguards are in place so that everyone ( regardless of gender, status, race, beliefs, sexual-preferences, etc…) who is arrested for a heinous violent act receives a fair trial…and is allowed every opportunity in that trial to prove their innocence…including ensuring that they are well represented and have access to the latest technology.

Actually it refers to the number of Jews that will be resurrected…it does not include gentiles…

but I disagree with the last part…the number is actually, according to scripture, very small…no number is given to the gentiles so the number could be in the millions…but…still a small fraction of everyone who has ever lived…

ie. the road is narrow…

of course…if you see Christianity in light of reincarnation then…we presume that a finite number of lives exist…or can exist…which keep repeating…in which case that number of 144,000 Jews could represent millions of lives…

and there is evidence to support that early Christians believed in reincarnation, or a form of it

ie. John was Elijah come back from the dead.

What is right and What is wrong?

if I, as an example, pick up an apple and eat it…or enact a law that says all men are equal under the law…these things are right/good because they benefit…

if, on the other hand, I pick up an apple and whip it at someone’s head causing them injury…or enact a law that says all people are not equal and therefore one has a license to discriminate…these things, being harmful, are wrong/bad.

It however has nothing to do with morality…as in a moral code written by god or men…

it is very simply:

does this help us…or hurt us.

Judaism is not monotheistic …

the bible clearly states that god…was not alone in the beginning…and we can assume he was not schizophrenic or suffering from a multi-personality disorder when this god was referring to ‘ we ‘ or ‘ us ‘

like the Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu, and other god hierarchies the Jews believed in many gods…a supreme god and a collection of lesser gods which they called angels…

but as the saying goes:

a rose by any other name…

Judaism is monotheistic only insofar as they were mindful that lesser gods would be worshiped ( eg. Apollo ) if there was no distinction made…so they called their lesser gods angels to provide that distinction and avoid the polytheism of the Romans, Greeks, etc…

Palestine was named such by the Romans…if you’re talking about before the Roman occupation there was no ‘ Palestine ‘ per say…

but there was no ‘ Australia ‘ before ‘ Australia either…it was occupied by ‘ aboriginals ‘…same with North America…

the Arabs that live in Palestine have been there as far back as when it was called Canaan ( in fact some believe they are the descendants of the Philistines, the Phoenicians, and the Canaanites )…

when I talk about land ownership ( and I am speaking of only me ) I am not specifically referring to a ‘ Nation ‘ but primary occupation…the fact is the Palestinians, even though they have been invaded many many times, have always been the primary occupants…

eg. even the British surveys showed the population of Jews in the area to be minimal ( as low as 6% of the population ) during the Zionist movement.

As far as ‘ stolen ‘ read this:

Modern Timeline of Palestine

there is no other word to describe the systematic displacement of the people who lived there to accommodate the Zionist movement for a homeland.

In effect they displaced one people to give a homeland to a displaced people…committed an injustice to one group to satisfy the needs of another.

I am not opposed to a State of Israel…there is no doubt that the Jews needed a homeland…and Palestine was picked because of Judeo-Christian sympathies…

what I am opposed to is the injustice, and the continuing injustice, committed against the natural inhabitants of the area just to accommodate the fulfillment of a biblical ‘ religious ‘ right to ‘ the promise land ‘.

As far as I am concerned to take land away from the Palestinians to give it to the Jews because of some ‘ religious expectation of a right to the promised land ‘ borders upon insanity.

To displace one people in order to fulfill a ‘ religious objective ‘ …to take land from one people and give it to another because the ‘ bible ‘ said it was theirs…

is absurd.

How so? If there is no god, no form of justice outside of man’s control, if a man can murder, rape, pillage to his hearts content without any fear if he can escape capture and punishment by men…then what makes your morality greater than another’s?

How do you know we’re not supposed to do whatever we want and only the best survive?

If someone decides to shoot his neighbor…god does not condemn him..nature does not condemn him…so who decides what is moral and what isn’t…the majority? Do we really need to review history on what great moral decisions the majority has made?

Your moral indignation is based upon what? Morality? What morality? Where exactly do you get your morality from? And why is it superior to someone else’s morality who may disagree with you?

It appears to me that you are displaying more religious notions than you care to admit.

Someone who does not believe in god, does not believe that justice follows man beyond his ability to control, should be of the mindset that morality is just a societal decision based upon the time they live in…rules to prevent chaos…
moral indignation shouldn’t even exist in that man’s heart…as he sees morality as just a tool.

eg. if we were all running around killing each other, nothing would get produced. It’s just a means to an end. Chaos simply…is not productive.

eg. if we are going to live together we need to set some rules…do not kill me and I promise not to kill you…

it is the ‘ religious ‘ who believe that it is more than that…that there is ‘ right ‘ and ‘ wrong ‘ ‘ good ‘ and ‘ evil ‘…

the ‘ religious ‘ are the ones filled with moral indignation.

The non-religious believe rules exist so that mankind can live together and be productive…there is nothing ‘ moral ‘ about it.

That really depends upon your definition of god.

The probability of a god along the lines of ancient societal gods is extremely unlikely …as many philosophers including Socrates thought they were ‘ ancestors ‘ not gods. Real men who founded societies turned into legends. But even though Socrates rejected the common gods of his time, in that they were in fact gods, he nevertheless did believe in something like a god.

The probability of a god along the lines of mainstream religion is extremely unlikely …as these gods are substantiated merely by their own sources…and have a history recorded in those sources of extremely violent and aggressive behavior…they are nothing more than a reflection of man…god in man’s image.

The probability of a god along the lines of a natural existing entity, that has some kind of design or purpose for man, and involves itself in man’s affairs is extremely unlikely, as there is no evidence to support this involvement.

The probability of a god along the lines of natural existing entity, along the lines of a ‘ master version of DNA or a ‘ master computer ‘ is extremely possible…but this type of entity would not be anything like any god we presently understand as a god. Likely it would be only concerned with the construction and maintenance of the Universe and not individual lives…I proposed this possibility many years ago and believe that eventually science will come to this or a similar determination….but science will call it something other than god.

God does exist…I met him once…it was in San Francisco around Market and Powell…he was standing on a milk crate dressed in homeless rags ( presumably to not look pretentious ) …and as I passed he bent down and said to me in a commanding voice…

‘ got any spare change for God? ‘

Now…who am I to deny God his rightful due…so I reached into my pocket and pulled out all the change I had and gave it to him…and he said

‘ bless you ‘

and with his blessing I made my way to the Bart subway system…and there, amazingly, a miracle before my eyes, another man appeared looking very similar, standing on a milk crate dressed in homeless rags ( presumably to not look pretentious ) …and as I passed he bent down and said to me in a commanding voice…

‘ can you spare a quarter for Jesus? ‘

Well…what can I say…I met God and Jesus on the same day…miracles really do happen.

OH, Jesus never got his quarter, I told him I gave all my change to God….but that should be OK seeing as he is or knows God.

………………………..

If god exists you know she’s got to have a sense of humor