This has always been a question of mine - how would a communist state deal with homicides, robbery, thefts, burglaries, and other nuisance crime
This has always been a question of mine - how would a communist state deal with homicides, robbery, thefts, burglaries, and other nuisance crime
Weird take to imply someone is criticizing the rev as a whole when they critique a specific post-rev policy
I was attempting to be glib in implying that any post revolutionary scenario opens up the possibility for “moral hazards”. Any destruction of the preceding societal order opens up the space for abuse, just as the perpetuation of the current societal order opens up the space for the very same moral hazards. Turns out maybe just when human beings are involved in a system there is a chance of “moral hazards”.
Weird take to bring moralism into the historical necessity of the proletariat overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Was the bourgeoisie concerned with the moral hazard of overthrowing the divine right of kings?
Again, everyone here agrees on that, stop grandstanding.
Sure there will always be some moral hazards around but this sounds like the human nature argument of capitalism, if there are moral hazards you can identify in specific parts of a system, do you either just discard that observation as inevitable or good enough, or do you look for ways to minimize the dangers there?
Just sounds like you're arguing with someone who is concerned over the morality of a revolution as a whole, instead of what the person actually said which is that specifically giving risky and dangerous jobs to criminals risks introducing an incentive to find more criminals for dangerous positions when spots are open(and, I would add, comes off as a kind of passive retributive justice, where instead of directly punishing a criminal you place them in a position where they are more likely to be "punished" by circumstance).