Definition of "Left-Wing" in Rimward

Fri, 2014-02-07 08:58

#2

Smokeskin

It sounds to me like they

It sounds to me like they mixed up left and right. Us anarcho-capitalists are right-wing on economics and government (though I'd hate to get associated with most right-wing political parties who still wants a strong government and all sorts of market intervention to benefit the rich and the corporations). Many of us a left wing on social issues, and a common motivation for being ancap is a better life for the common man. It's not really an ideology that benefits the rich.

Fri, 2014-02-07 11:01

#3

LatwPIAT

"Left wing" and "right wing"

"Left wing" and "right wing" politics are kind of awkward when used about political ideals; they're useful terms for describing political tendencies within a parliament (Such as the French National Assemble after the French Revolution, where politicians with similar political ideals would sit together. The "right wing" sat on the right side of the assembly and the "left wing" sat on the right. Centrists would literally sit in the centre of the room.) For example, despite all being in favour of state socialism, the Communist Party in the early years of communist Russia were characterized by a "right wing" and a "left wing" that favoured different economic policies. Sometimes, it's possible to put several groups on different points along a left-right scale, but you'll often end up with groups that simply don't fit in; when the NSDAP was running for elections in Weimar Germany, they fit in neither with the traditional right-wing authoritarian parties that harked back to the days of the German Empire (being too radical), nor with the left-wing social-democratic parties (which the Nazis hated with a burning passion), and especially not with the extreme left communists, which the Nazis hated even more. Of course, it's entirely possible that, in the Autonomist Alliance political spectrum, the anarcho-capitalists are characterized by classical left-liberal (i.e. "freedom from government and to do business") policies while holding what is among the AA considered "right wing" social politics. If I were to make a guess, the "right wing" would then be individualist anarchism on the social spectrum. Of course, this means that the mainstream right-wing have policies characterized both by individualism [i]and[/i] collectivist economic policies, which doesn't seem supported by the text itself - and the left wing would be classically left-liberal social communists, which is also somewhat strange. Or it could just be a typing mistake like Smokeskin says. That makes more sense. (If anything, among the Autonomists I'd expect the anarcho-capitalists to be firmly left-wing; classical liberal economic policies and individualism, while the right wing would be the more traditional collectivist anarcho-communists/trade union/syndicalists. It's the [i]Scum[/i] who are strangely on the middle, with strong left-wing individualist anarchism while not holding the classically liberal economic ideals of the anarcho-capitalists. The democracies like the Titanians, meanwhile, are considered extreme right-wing; not only are they collectivists socialist, they're [i]state[/i] socialists.)

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Fri, 2014-02-07 12:49

#4

Wolfgar

LatwPIAT wrote:"Left wing"

LatwPIAT wrote:
"Left wing" and "right wing" politics are kind of awkward when used about political ideals; they're useful terms for describing political tendencies within a parliament (Such as the French National Assemble after the French Revolution, where politicians with similar political ideals would sit together. The "right wing" sat on the right side of the assembly and the "left wing" sat on the right. Centrists would literally sit in the center of the room.)

That is one of the things that makes it difficult, since their isn't a parliament as far as I can tell to base the distinction of left or right-wing on.

Fri, 2014-02-07 13:45

#5

Smokeskin

There certainly isn't a

There certainly isn't a parliament. Ancaps consider democracies worse than most organized crime organizations.

Fri, 2014-02-07 18:03

#6

Wolfgar

I was wondering if "left-wing

I was wondering if "left-wing" in this case might mean anything moving away from the Jovian Republic with the junta setting the tone for what's "right-wing" in the setting.

Fri, 2014-02-07 19:30

#7

Smokeskin

Absolutely. I'd say right

Absolutely. I'd say right wing is typically defined as Government (military, police): Big, strong mandate for use of force Government (other): Small Economics: Little regulation Social: Little redistribution of wealth, systems that maintain inequality Crime: Harsh punishments, punishment for deviant behavior Values: Conservative Left-wing is the opposite.

Sat, 2014-02-08 11:45

#8

Noble Pigeon Noble Pigeon's picture

Smokeskin wrote:Absolutely. I

Smokeskin wrote:
Absolutely. I'd say right wing is typically defined as Government (military, police): Big, strong mandate for use of force Government (other): Small Economics: Little regulation Social: Little redistribution of wealth, systems that maintain inequality Crime: Harsh punishments, punishment for deviant behavior Values: Conservative Left-wing is the opposite.

That's the most impartial definition of right-wing if I've ever seen one. (not)

—

"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.” -Abraham Lincoln, State of the Union address

Mon, 2014-02-10 07:26

#9

Smokeskin

Noble Pigeon, what would your

Noble Pigeon, what would your own defitionion of right-wing? I think you define yourself as right wing and I consider myself right wing on many issues also, but you maybe have to come to terms with the fact that you're not the most extreme right wing person out there ;) Do you think the left-wing list where you take the opposite looks much better? Government (military, police): Small, no ability for military intervention, weak crime fighting mandate Government (other): Big Economics: Highly regulated Social: Large redestribution of wealth, little incentive to work Crime: Short punishments Values: Progressive

Mon, 2014-02-10 14:35

#10

Lorsa

The best definition of

The best definition of politics-split that I have seen is from: http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Basically it divides things on two axes, one for economic/social issues and one for authorative/libertarian issues. By the name I would guess anarcho-capitalism would end up in the bottom right corner of this chart whereas social-anarchism would be at bottom left.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Mon, 2014-02-10 16:22

#11

Smokeskin

I ended up in the middle on

I ended up in the middle on left/right and about 1/3rd towards libertarian. The politician I mostly resembled was Nelson Mandela, followed by Francis Hollande (French Prime Minister most well known for his 75% marginal tax law). Which doesn't seem to describe me at all.

Mon, 2014-02-10 16:49

#12

LatwPIAT

Smokeskin wrote:Do you think

Smokeskin wrote:
Do you think the left-wing list where you take the opposite looks much better? Government (military, police): Small, no ability for military intervention, weak crime fighting mandate Government (other): Big Economics: Highly regulated Social: Large redestribution of wealth, little incentive to work Crime: Short punishments Values: Progressive

The claim that you're misrepresenting the "right wing" is not really dismissed by then misrepresenting the "left wing" - two wrongs don't make a right, and saying that the left wing favours "little incentive to work", "short punishments" and a "weak crime fighting mandate" is incredibly biased and mischaracterizing.

—

@-rep +2 C-rep +1

Mon, 2014-02-10 19:04

#13

Lilith

Neat!

Lorsa wrote:
The best definition of politics-split that I have seen is from: http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Apparently I'm super-leftist (-9.50) AND a hardcore libertarian (-6.67)! Who knew!?

LatwPIAT wrote:
The claim that you're misrepresenting the "right wing" is not really dismissed by then misrepresenting the "left wing" - two wrongs don't make a right, and saying that the left wing favours "little incentive to work", "short punishments" and a "weak crime fighting mandate" is incredibly biased and mischaracterizing.

I have to agree with this. There's representing your side and then there's letting your biases show. As leftist as I apparently am, I certainly don't advocate crime going unpunished just because I prefer rehabilitation to punitive measures.

Tue, 2014-02-11 04:03

#14

Smokeskin

If you prefer rehabilitation

If you prefer rehabilitation to punitive measures, that literally means "short punishments". "Stop and frisk" and wiretaps without a warrant are strong crime fighting mandates. I'm against those things, and that means I'm in favor of a weak crime fighting mandate (I even think it has a positive ring to it, while "strong mandate for use of force" sounds scary). If you don't have welfare, you can get people to work around the clock in shitty jobs. If you have welfare, people aren't going to take such jobs. My reason for wanting welfare isn't just that people shouldn't starve, it is also that they should have an alternative to taking shitty jobs, and I'm not even very left-leaning. If you go far to the left and get welfare levels like Denmark, you can't even get people to take 37 hours a week jobs like cleaning and restaurant dish washer. Progressive taxes at the high end have similar effects, people work much less. A large redistribution of wealth literally means little incentive to work. A lot of these things are trade offs. You can't both give people a second chance and lock them up for 20 years. You can't both fight crime with all means available and respect civil rights. You can't both give people better alternatives to shitty jobs and expect them to work shitty jobs. If you want to make your own list where you word everything like both rightwing and leftwing is the perfect society, then go ahead.

Tue, 2014-02-11 09:15

#15

Lorsa

Smokeskin wrote:I ended up in

Smokeskin wrote:
I ended up in the middle on left/right and about 1/3rd towards libertarian. The politician I mostly resembled was Nelson Mandela, followed by Francis Hollande (French Prime Minister most well known for his 75% marginal tax law). Which doesn't seem to describe me at all.

Did you read what the axes means? What is it that makes you feel it doesn't describe you? Were the questions somehow wrong?

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-02-11 09:21

#16

Lorsa

Lilith wrote:Lorsa wrote:The

Lilith wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
The best definition of politics-split that I have seen is from: http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Apparently I'm super-leftist (-9.50) AND a hardcore libertarian (-6.67)! Who knew!?

That's about where I ended up too. But then again I knew that. Unfortunately social-liberarianism is a political viewpoint that has been very under-represented, at least in Sweden. Makes it very tricky for me to find a party to vote for.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-02-11 09:27

#17

ORCACommander ORCACommander's picture

ya a lot of questions on that

ya a lot of questions on that quiz i find i disagree with how the question is worded none the less i find myself near centered between left and libertarianism. don't mind libertarian part but i always thought myself as more centrist as i only want something that will work.

Tue, 2014-02-11 10:24

#18

Smokeskin

Lorsa wrote:Smokeskin wrote:I

Lorsa wrote:
Smokeskin wrote:
I ended up in the middle on left/right and about 1/3rd towards libertarian. The politician I mostly resembled was Nelson Mandela, followed by Francis Hollande (French Prime Minister most well known for his 75% marginal tax law). Which doesn't seem to describe me at all.
Did you read what the axes means? What is it that makes you feel it doesn't describe you? Were the questions somehow wrong?

If I'm close to Francis Hollande, then there's certainly something wrong! The axis means this: The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed. And I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I'd expect me to be fully libertarian and fully right. I think the test has the problem that it has a strong democracy bias so it assumes that anything I agree or disagree with, I'd want to regulate. A few examples: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. Sure, but I'd not regulate it. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I'd say they're about the same, but I'd not control either. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea. Yes, but I'm not in favor of governments taxing people to force it through. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. Yes, but that's how it is, I'm not going to regulate it. And I'm certainly not going to bail them out when their gamble fails either. A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. That is a significant advantage. Look at China for example. That's just a factual observation that has nothing to with libertarian/authoritarian leanings, isn't it? Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. They should make it compulsory. That's my personal opinion and I'd prefer to send my child to such a school, but I'm not going to make it a national requirement. Did they mean "government should make..."? In a sense I understand why it places me where it does - I'm in favor of complete deregulation, but I think many people on the right sound just as wrong as many on the left. And while I believe anyone is free to do as they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, personally I'm a bit conservative in some areas. I guess the Poltical Compass didn't catch the meaning of Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Tue, 2014-02-11 11:50

#19

Undocking

Lilith wrote:

Lilith wrote:
Apparently I'm super-leftist (-9.50) AND a hardcore libertarian (-6.67)! Who knew!?

-5 to the left and beating out Lilith for hardcorest libertarian at -6.87.

Smokeskin wrote:
If you prefer rehabilitation to punitive measures, that literally means "short punishments".

No, rehabilitation does not mean short punishment in any sense. Rehabilitation is, literally, to restore to a good condition. There is no punishment involved. It is education and therapy for a criminal element to become non-criminal. If uncooperative, invasive psychosurgery is always an option (in EP)—and as a bonus they will have enjoyed the expeirence after the fact.

Tue, 2014-02-11 13:58

#20

Lorsa

Smokeskin wrote:If I'm close

Smokeskin wrote:
If I'm close to Francis Hollande, then there's certainly something wrong! The axis means this: The Economic (Left-Right) axis measures one's opinion of how the economy should be run: "left" is defined as the desire for the economy to be run by a cooperative collective agency (which can mean the state, but can also mean a network of communes), while "right" is defined as the desire for the economy to be left to the devices of competing individuals and organizations. The other axis (Authoritarian-Libertarian) measures one's political opinions in a social sense, regarding the amount of personal freedom that one would allow: "libertarianism" is defined as the belief that personal freedom should be maximised, while "authoritarianism" is defined as the belief that authority and tradition should be obeyed. And I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I'd expect me to be fully libertarian and fully right. I think the test has the problem that it has a strong democracy bias so it assumes that anything I agree or disagree with, I'd want to regulate. A few examples: If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. Sure, but I'd not regulate it. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. I'd say they're about the same, but I'd not control either. "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea. Yes, but I'm not in favor of governments taxing people to force it through. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. Yes, but that's how it is, I'm not going to regulate it. And I'm certainly not going to bail them out when their gamble fails either. A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. That is a significant advantage. Look at China for example. That's just a factual observation that has nothing to with libertarian/authoritarian leanings, isn't it? Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. They should make it compulsory. That's my personal opinion and I'd prefer to send my child to such a school, but I'm not going to make it a national requirement. Did they mean "government should make..."? In a sense I understand why it places me where it does - I'm in favor of complete deregulation, but I think many people on the right sound just as wrong as many on the left. And while I believe anyone is free to do as they want as long as they don't hurt anyone, personally I'm a bit conservative in some areas. I guess the Poltical Compass didn't catch the meaning of Voltaire's "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

So your problem is that you believe the world should ideally be a certain way but you don't want to do anything to make it happen? If I hadn't been sick I might have gone into a further discussion about how I think some of the things you say are contradictory but nevermind that now. The point I was trying to make by linking to the compass was that I thought it was much better to divide politics on more than one axis. So talking about "left-wing" and "right-wing" only really make sense when talking about economics but not about progressive/conservative values or how much control the state should have and the size of the military. There have certainly been left-wing countries in the world with large military forces and extremely harsh punishments. Basically, labeling anything as just left and right misses out on a lot of nuances. Perhaps it would be even better if we had a third axis as well to compose some sort of 3d graph but not sure what that one would be. Still, two is much better than one.

—

Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]

Tue, 2014-02-11 14:23

#21

Lilith

Undocking wrote:If

Undocking wrote:
If uncooperative, invasive psychosurgery is always an option (in EP)—and as a bonus they will have enjoyed the expeirence after the fact.

That is both hilarious [i]and[/i] horrifying. So pretty much EP in a nutshell!

Tue, 2014-02-11 16:36

#22

Smokeskin

Undocking wrote:Smokeskin

Undocking wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
If you prefer rehabilitation to punitive measures, that literally means "short punishments".
No, rehabilitation does not mean short punishment in any sense. Rehabilitation is, literally, to restore to a good condition. There is no punishment involved. It is education and therapy for a criminal element to become non-criminal. If uncooperative, invasive psychosurgery is always an option (in EP)—and as a bonus they will have enjoyed the expeirence after the fact.

I don't think anyone would be any happier if I had written "no punishment" :) A thought: I certainly don't think there's much to the idea of punishment for punishments sake. If we could develop psychosurgery that would allow is to "fix" criminals, there'd be no point in using prison to teach them a lesson or to keep them off the streets to keep everyone else safe meanwhile. But what about deterrence? If someone wanted to kill someone, and the only consequence of discovery was that you'd have your desire to kill removed psychosurgically, wouldn't you just do it? Wouldn't you need something to deter people from committing their first crime?

Tue, 2014-02-11 16:40

#23

Smokeskin

Lorsa wrote:

Lorsa wrote:
So your problem is that you believe the world should ideally be a certain way but you don't want to do anything to make it happen?

I want to do many things to make it happen, but I won't for example have people forced at gunpoint, which I think is what you want me to support?

Quote:
The point I was trying to make by linking to the compass was that I thought it was much better to divide politics on more than one axis. So talking about "left-wing" and "right-wing" only really make sense when talking about economics but not about progressive/conservative values or how much control the state should have and the size of the military. There have certainly been left-wing countries in the world with large military forces and extremely harsh punishments. Basically, labeling anything as just left and right misses out on a lot of nuances. Perhaps it would be even better if we had a third axis as well to compose some sort of 3d graph but not sure what that one would be. Still, two is much better than one.

I agree that two are better than one. I just think that even 2 axises are going to be oversimplifying things.

Tue, 2014-02-11 17:36

#24

sysop

Smokeskin wrote:But what

Smokeskin wrote:
But what about deterrence? If someone wanted to kill someone, and the only consequence of discovery was that you'd have your desire to kill removed psychosurgically, wouldn't you just do it? Wouldn't you need something to deter people from committing their first crime?

Speaking from a criminology point of view - deterrence actually doesn't work like that. Never has. Most 'deterrent' measures come more from a stance of exacting a 'punishment' on behalf of the victim than in addressing the root cause. Committing the vast majority of crimes is mostly a combination of poor judgement, poor impulse control, and/or great need. With a side slice of empathy lacking or criminally anti-social actors (most white collar or corporate crimes). Judgement is addressed with education. Impulse control with health care and reduced lead in the environment. Also by simply growing up, males age 16 to 23 have critical fault failures in brain development in both of these areas. It's a different range for female development, but I don't recall it off the top of my head because it seems to be more of a criminal issue for males in that age range. Great need is often directly related to poverty or an existing criminal element - much more complicated to address, but good urban planning and intervention programs can address those. Grand sum: Deterrence only works on someone who has the ability to exhibit good judgement and impulse control in the first place. They don't need the deterring for the most part. Edit: Rechecked the Compass (I do this every few years) as usual - somewhere well past Ghandi on that chart. (I got you all beat on the auth/lib scale. ;) ) It's worth noting on the Compass's own page that they go into details re: the connotations vs denotations of many of these labels in modern political climates and that may be playing into any confusion on the topic.

—

I fix broken things. If you need something fixed, mention it [url=/forums/suggestions/website-and-forum-suggestions]on the suggestions board[/url]. [color=red]I also sometimes speak as website administrator and/ moderator.[/color]

Tue, 2014-02-11 18:14

#25

Undocking

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I don't think anyone would be any happier if I had written "no punishment" :) A thought: I certainly don't think there's much to the idea of punishment for punishments sake. If we could develop psychosurgery that would allow is to "fix" criminals, there'd be no point in using prison to teach them a lesson or to keep them off the streets to keep everyone else safe meanwhile. But what about deterrence? If someone wanted to kill someone, and the only consequence of discovery was that you'd have your desire to kill removed psychosurgically, wouldn't you just do it? Wouldn't you need something to deter people from committing their first crime?

I thought it was a little funny, rorshach ink blots can be equatable to waterboarding ("WHAT DO YOU SEE?" "AN EXSURGENT!" "I ASKED YOU TO TELL ME WHAT YOU SEE!" "I SAID AN EXSURGENT!" "STOP LYING!" "FINE, MY MOTHER WITH A JOVIAN!" "How do you feel?" "Violated." "Let's talk about that."). With mandated psychosurgery for criminal reform, those who it would be preformed on would not need prison. Crimes would have to be judged on a scale of deviancy to come up with an acceptable standard for psychosurgery use. Rapists and child molesters would definitely need psychosurgery. However, crimes of passion or in self-defense (of the 1st or 3rd person) could use rehabilitation or elective psychosurgery. Deterrence of crime from severe penalties has not lead to a decrease in crime. Deterrence through likelihood of detection has seen more success: more officers in a district and extensive surveillence are examples of this. Several studies have proposed the idea of a 'deterable-offender' opposed to a 'non-deterable-offender'. Some people will commit crimes regardless of deterence, and this can be seen in countries with the death penalty. On the other side, there is an assumption that everyone who commits the crime rationally balances the risks of being detected and the judicial outcome. In addition, there are many people who do not commit crimes even if they could not be detected and deterence would be meaningless. In the scenario posited where psychosurgery exists and an ego is willing to kill another ego with full knowledge that his punishment is solely psychosurgery to remove the consideration or desire to kill, nothing could be done to deter that ego. There are people now who willingly kill knowing the consequence is prison or death. Yet, if psychosurgery, psychoforensics or good old police work could prove that the ego is a deviant criminal element who uses the penial system for benefit, then the ego would be put in dead storage.

Tue, 2014-02-11 18:22

#26

Smokeskin

I agree that those who get

@sysop: I agree that those who get caught showed poor judgment or poor impulse control - practically by definition due to the consequences of conviction. But if you remove the consequences, people with good judgment and good impulse control would turn to crime to a larger extent. I've had someone threaten my family and the cops couldn't do anything about it, and the only reason I didn't resort to violence is that I don't want to go to jail. And I'm fairly sure that if someone raped my daughter, there had to be some deterrence to hold me back. If I got a get-out-of-jail card, I can't decide if I'd start trading drugs on the side (I have zero moral issues with victimless crimes) or keep it in case I'd need it to defend myself in the future. And how many people wouldn't steal? I just googled it, and it also seems that there is some good criminology data that suggests that severity of punishment isn't important but certainty of getting caught is. It also seems to me that a lot of criminals go to great lengths to avoid capture, like avoiding to assault people under CCTV, conceal their identity, use untraceable weapons, and the really smart ones use cut offs and henchmen and codes to avoid implication. The risk of punishment seems to be something that is taken seriously.

Tue, 2014-02-11 18:31

#27

Smokeskin

Undocking wrote:

Undocking wrote:
In the scenario posited where psychosurgery exists and an ego is willing to kill another ego with full knowledge that his punishment is solely psychosurgery to remove the consideration or desire to kill, nothing could be done to deter that ego. There are people now who willingly kill knowing the consequence is prison or death.

I don't agree. There are people who would commit crime regardless, and there are people would kill if they had a good reason and where sure not to be punished. I think the last group is much larger than the first (and if you look at less severe crimes, it is absolutely huge).

Quote:
Yet, if psychosurgery, psychoforensics or good old police work could prove that the ego is a deviant criminal element who uses the penial system for benefit, then the ego would be put in dead storage.

Now that is a good point. The people who would respond to such a deterrence are exactly the sort of people I'm worried would commit crimes if there wasn't deterrence. Quite elegant :) We could probably tone it down from dead storage though. No need to be excessive with the punishment.

Tue, 2014-02-11 19:27

#28

Undocking

Smokeskin wrote:

Smokeskin wrote:
I don't agree. There are people who would commit crime regardless, and there are people would kill if they had a good reason and where sure not to be punished. I think the last group is much larger than the first (and if you look at less severe crimes, it is absolutely huge).

I do not disagree, as I mentioned:

Undocking wrote:
Several studies have proposed the idea of a 'deterable-offender' opposed to a 'non-deterable-offender'. Some people will commit crimes regardless of deterence, and this can be seen in countries with the death penalty.

But if someone was intent on commiting the crime and did not care about any deterent (a non-deterable-offender) then there would be nothing you could do to stop them.

Smokeskin wrote:
Now that is a good point. The people who would respond to such a deterrence are exactly the sort of people I'm worried would commit crimes if there wasn't deterrence. Quite elegant :)

Thank you kindly ^-^. I figured I'd provide some sort of deterence available to those possessing psychosurgery to change the minds of some deterable-offenders. Even now MRI scans show when someone is lying, psychosurgery or psychoforensics could provide more indepth information about the contexts and reasons involved for making criminal choices.

Smokeskin wrote:
We could probably tone it down from dead storage though. No need to be excessive with the punishment.

Fine, put them all in an airgapped virtuality where they relive their crime at 1 million times normal speed for 1 year. In hindsight, that seems excessive as well XD. I dunno, something clever with virtuality. Maybe toss all the deviant criminal elements in the same virtuality and let them have at it.

Tue, 2014-02-11 21:57

#29

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

Undocking wrote:Lilith wrote:

Undocking wrote:
Lilith wrote:
Apparently I'm super-leftist (-9.50) AND a hardcore libertarian (-6.67)! Who knew!?
-5 to the left and beating out Lilith for hardcorest libertarian at -6.87.
Smokeskin wrote:
If you prefer rehabilitation to punitive measures, that literally means "short punishments".
No, rehabilitation does not mean short punishment in any sense. Rehabilitation is, literally, to restore to a good condition. There is no punishment involved. It is education and therapy for a criminal element to become non-criminal. If uncooperative, invasive psychosurgery is always an option (in EP)—and as a bonus they will have enjoyed the expeirence after the fact.

After all, who doesn't enjoy Tahiti? (It's a magical place.)

Tue, 2014-02-11 23:40

#30

Lilith

Blueberry Hill

Kremlin K.O.A. wrote:
After all, who doesn't enjoy Tahiti? (It's a magical place.)

All this talk of psychosurgery and criminals brings [url=http://youtu.be/ew3R2KPzMyg]this movie[/url] to mind...

Wed, 2014-02-12 14:42

#31

Kremlin K.O.A. Kremlin K.O.A.'s picture

I was thinking of an older

I was thinking of an older film. Steampunk Citrus, or something like that.

Wed, 2014-02-12 17:50

#32

Libertad

It should be taken into

It should be taken into account that the 'left-right' spectrum is very simplistic and does not have hard and fast rules. Additionally, Europe and the United States have very different definitions of what is "left-wing" and what is "right-wing." Personally I feel that Eclipse Phase adheres to the European definitions, where anarchism is a far-left ideology for radical egalitarianism, while the Jovian Republic is far-right for being totalitarianism and adhering to a strong sense of the nation-state. Even that is a simplification of things, of course.

—

[img]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65pmc5Pvh1r0iehwo6_r1_400.jpg[/img] [img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/Erdrick/anarc_userbar.jpg[/img] "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." ~George Bernard Shaw, 1856-1950