Harsher Punishments

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

Crime won't stop if the punishment given isn't as brutal as the crime committed
A Paki rapes & decapitates infants and he gets to sit in a corner facing a wall for the rest of his life
Dosen't make any sense at all right? Displays of brutal punishment are the only way to stop such brutal crime
The Paki should be strung up nude, emasculated, & disemboweled in the middle of the city

 

[Dirlewanger333]

This leads to more revolt against the state itself rather than civil discontentment since there are people who will do things at all costs. The state should and will be abolished since it it is a coercive power which infringes on natural right

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

This leads to more revolt against the state itself rather than civil discontentment since there are people who will do things at all costs. The state could be abolished since it it is a coercive power

Only retards would go & attempt to commit anything after witnessing that punishment

 

[Dirlewanger333]

Only retards would go & attempt to commit anything after witnessing the punishment

If you must do something but the state refuses to allow you to do so, you must rebel. People without absolute desire will hope that you win. Coercive forces cannot survive under competitive pressures against other states which are more free with internal dissatisfaction in the former state. Freedom of action is more efficient at fulfilling desire. Coercive power can never lead to a more efficient and robust system.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

If you must do something but the state refuses to allow you to do so, you must rebel. People without absolute desire will hope that you win. Coercive forces cannot survive under competitive pressures against other states which are more free with internal dissatisfaction in the former state. Freedom of action is more efficient at fulfilling desire. Coercive power can never lead to a more efficient and robust system.

Coercive power dosen't infringe on any natural rights of any species. Its quite literally the most Fundamental Part of maintaining order in complex groups ( I.e Homo-Sapien ) in Nature. Where would a tribe be without the dominant members enforcing rule through strength, threat, or punishment? Where would an ant-colony be? Study an Ant Colony; You'll find that humans have much in common.
A state where everyone free to jerk off, kill, rape, & steal from eachother without any harsh repercussion isnt getting far at all.
A state were satisfaction is the ultimate goal. people are bound to become indulged with satisfaction & pleasure wont go anywhere in life.
There needs to be set parameters; Law. Thats the only way a state is gonna have any form of order.

 

[nuisance]

If the state practices the same barbarity it condemns, it forfeits moral authority and invites an endless cycle of vengeance rather than justice.

 

[Dirlewanger333]

Coercive power dosen't infringe on any natural rights of any species. Its quite literally the most Fundamental Part of maintaining order in complex groups ( I.e Homo-Sapien ) in Nature. Where would a tribe be without the dominant members enforcing rule through strength, threat, or punishment? Where would an ant-colony be? Study an Ant Colony.

Peter Kropotkin described it best:

We know that Europe has a system of railways 175,000 miles long, and that on this network you can nowadays travel from north to south, from east to west, from Madrid to Petersburg, and from Calais to Constantinople without stoppages, without even changing carriages. This result might have been obtained in two ways. A Napoleon, a Bismarck, or some other potentate, having conquered Europe, would from Paris, Berlin, or Rome draw a railway map and regulate the hours of the trains. The Russian Tsar Nicholas I dreamt of taking such action. When he was shown a rough draft of railways between Moscow and Petersburg, he seized a ruler and drew on the map of Russia a straight line between the two capitals, saying, "Here is the plan." And the railroad was built in a straight line, filling in deep ravines, building bridges of a giddy height which had to be abandoned a few years later at the cost of about £120,000 to £150,000 per English mile.

This is one way. But happily things were managed differently. The railways were constructed piece by piece. The pieces were joined together, and the hundreds of diverse companies to whom the pieces belonged came to an understanding concerning the arrival and departure of their trains and the running of carriages on their rails from all countries without unloading merchandises or passes from one network to another. All this was done by free agreement, by exchange of letters and proposals, by congresses in which delegates met to discuss certain special subjects — but not to make laws.

After the congress, the delegates returned to their companies not with law, but with the draft of a contract to be accepted or rejected. There were certainly obstinate men who would not be convinced, but a common interest compelled them to agree without invoking the help of armies against the refractory members. This immense network of railways connected together, and the enormous traffic it has given rise to, no doubt constitutes the most striking trait of our century. And it is the result of free agreement.

If a man had foreseen or predicted it 50 years ago, our grandfathers would have thought him idiotic or mad. They would have said, "Never will you be able to make the shareholders of a hundred companies listen to reason. It is utopia, a fairy tale. A central government with an iron director can alone enforce it."

And the most interesting thing about this organization is that there is no European central government of railways — nothing: no minister of railways, no dictator, not even a continental parliament, not even a directing committee. Everything is done by contract.

How do European railways manage without a unifying force then? How do they continue to convey millions of travelers and mountains of luggage across a continent?

If companies owning railways have been able to agree and if Petersburg-Warsaw Company and that of Paris-Belfort can act in harmony without giving themselves the luxury of a common commander, why, in the midst of our societies constituting of groups of free workers, should we need a government?

 

[SubSigma]

You need some level of rehabilitation. If someone gets out of jail, chances are they will be a repeat offender. They need marketable skills so they can blend back into society.

//SubSigma

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

If the state practices the same barbarity it condemns, it forfeits moral authority and invites an endless cycle of vengeance rather than justice.

I'm not seeking barbarity i'm seeking proportionate deterrence and protection of the people
And what does it look like for a state to respond to the rape & torture of a child with mild punishment like
Spending a couple years facing a wall *With Adequate food/water/protection/sanitation I mind you*
Its a sign of complete weakness. The punishments will display our strength & reaffirm the societies moral boundaries

 

[nuisance]

I'm not seeking barbarity i'm seeking proportionate deterrence and protection of the people
And what does it look like for a state to respond to the rape & torture of a child with mild punishment like
Spending a couple years facing a wall *With Adequate food/water/protection/sanitation I mind you*
Its a sign of complete weakness. The punishments will display our strength & reaffirm the societies moral boundaries

Life in prison is not mild, it's a complete removal from society permanently. True justice protects society without becoming the evil it condemns. We don’t punish rapists by raping them, not because we’re soft, but because we believe some acts are so evil they should never be repeated, not even in punishment.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

Peter Kropotkin described it best:


How do European railways manage without a unifying force then? How do they continue to convey millions of travelers and mountains of luggage across a continent?

If companies owning railways have been able to agree and if Petersburg-Warsaw Company and that of Paris-Belfort can act in harmony without giving themselves the luxury of a common commander, why, in the midst of our societies constituting of groups of free workers, should we need a government?

European railroads managed that because they we're manageable. The scale & complexity of a government is worlds above a railroad.
Did you forget law, defense, healthcare, infrastructure, economics, & whatever else that go into a government?

The companies agreed to it because of common interest, mutual benefit, and low stakes simple as
Now, I grant you that common interest & mutual benefit is a strong unifying force but it only gets you so far
But it def wont get you far with something on the scale of a government

 

[RealSurgerymax]

The problem is most people still wont be caught. Law enforcement/judicial intervention is a "delayed social control"

While some punishments in degenerate/high crime areas like London (if youre a migrant), NYC and LA are basically non existent, thats not actually the norm in most other places. For some reason only in the main international cities are menaces to society allowed to run free. Probably some new world order shit.

Sentences in high profile state cases, and basically all federal cases are already overly harsh - cruel and unusual even. But the public loves harsh sentences because NPC's who make up the public are sick & entertained by lynchings. They LOVE seeing other people lose everything over a mistake, with no awareness of the possibility that life could happen to THEM or someone they care about. For example almost everyone has drank alcohol & got behind the wheel at some point, they were just lucky they didn't kill anyone. Or almost everyone has someone they love who has drug addiction, makes poor choices and therefore at risk of long incarceration.

EVERYONE has made mistakes that they learned from without the need for punishment. For example I have never had a DUI or caused any accident, but when I was very young and immature I took risks. I would NEVER drink and drive now and thats just from maturing and developing better judgement without any legal intervention. No jail or license suspension necessary. Never actually had any consequences but now I am genuinely mortified to think about it, and thank God nothing terrible ever happened.

 

[Dirlewanger333]

European railroads managed that because they we're manageable. The scale & complexity of a government is worlds above a railroad.
Did you forget law, defense, healthcare, infrastructure, economics, & whatever else that go into a government?

The companies agreed to it because of common interest, mutual benefit, and low stakes simple as
Now, I grant you that common interest & mutual benefit is a unifying force but it only gets you so far. Def not far enough on the scale of a government.

Force is no different to any other commodity and if you believe otherwise, you should explain how. Complexity is not a justification because states are incapable of overcoming complex tasks as free trade has. All innovations throughout history were made by free trade outside of state hands. The state is a bureaucratic institution without any defined end which is, by definition, inefficient. The state has no duty to care for it's citizens outside of protection. The core justification of the state is protection. If companies can protect individuals, there is no need for the state.

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

Force is no different to any other commodity and if you believe otherwise, you should explain how. Complexity is not a justification because states are incapable of overcoming complex tasks as free trade has. All innovations throughout history were made by free trade outside of state hands. The state is a bureaucratic institution without any defined end which is, by definition, inefficient. The state has no duty to care for it's citizens outside of protection. The core justification of the state is protection. If companies can protect individuals, there is no need for the state.

Caught you N*gga

 

[Dirlewanger333]

View attachment 3920768
Caught you N*gga
View attachment 3920772

I literally used no AI

 

[Dirlewanger333]

View attachment 3920768
Caught you N*gga
View attachment 3920772

Peter Kropotkin described it best:





How do European railways manage without a unifying force then? How do they continue to convey millions of travelers and mountains of luggage across a continent?

If companies owning railways have been able to agree and if Petersburg-Warsaw Company and that of Paris-Belfort can act in harmony without giving themselves the luxury of a common commander, why, in the midst of our societies constituting of groups of free workers, should we need a government?

If you checked this message, I used AI to properly format the Kropotkin quote

 

[Ultimate Subhuman™]

The problem is most people still wont be caught. Law enforcement/judicial intervention is a "delayed social control"
While some punishments in degenerate/high crime areas like London (if youre a migrant), NYC and LA are basically non existent, thats not actually the norm in most other places. For some reason only in the main international cities are menaces to society allowed to run free. Probably some new world order shit.

Better to have implemented law & punish crime as much as possible then be lenient about it

Sentences in high profile state cases, and basically all federal cases are already overly harsh - cruel and unusual even. But the public loves harsh sentences because NPC's who make up the public are sick & entertained by lynchings. They LOVE seeing other people lose everything over a mistake, with no awareness of the possibility that life could happen to THEM or someone they care about. For example almost everyone has drank alcohol & got behind the wheel at some point, they were just lucky they didn't kill anyone. Or almost everyone has someone they love who has drug addiction, makes poor choices and therefore at risk of long incarceration.

EVERYONE has made mistakes that they learned from without the need for punishment. For example I have never had a DUI or caused any accident, but when I was very young and immature I took risks. I would NEVER drink and drive now and thats just from maturing and developing better judgement without any legal intervention. No jail or license suspension necessary. Never actually had any consequences but now I am genuinely mortified to think about it, and thank God nothing terrible ever happened.

I understand what your talking about here. But I don't think its reasonable to assume that people or jury just want to see someone fail, any intoxicated criminal could've caused harm to their immediate family or friends. Thoughts like losing loved ones plague people daily, Its reasonable to be mad about the fact someone in proximity could've ended you or their lives. But I agree with most of what you said. I'm not sure of where to scale DUI or how to punish it in my perfect world but It obviously wouldn't result in anything harsh or a total loss of assets & opportunitys.