In this thread we post our most :LIB: takes, and discuss whether that is the logical end point on a given topic or whether we need to lose that last bit of liberalism.

  • PhaseFour [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    What do you mean by “instrument”? Because guns can do all the things you described, making them prisons per your definition.

    Guns alone cannot do what I'm describing. A person wielding a gun can contribute to a prison.

    I also wouldn’t consider an execution to be a prison

    Neither would I, that's just executing someone.

    And what defines “violently”?

    I would consider physical harm or withholding necessities to human life to be violence. The constant use of these are a core component of prisons. Schools, hospitals, re-education camps, etc. all include the threat of violence if someone does not comply, but the institution does not require violence to function.

    • EthicalHumanMeat [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      4 years ago

      Guns alone cannot do what I’m describing. A person wielding a gun can contribute to a prison.

      Either the gun itself or a person wielding a gun, depending on what exactly you mean by "subjugates", is the prison. If at the very least a person with a gun doesn't qualify as a prison, then it follows that a person with a gun can't subjugate a "criminal".

      Neither would I, that’s just executing someone.

      But it's (a) an instrument which is inherently violent (b) an instrument that can subjugate criminals and ( c) is used by the ruling class to do so. So what's the difference?

      I would consider physical harm or withholding necessities to human life to be violence. The constant use of these are a core component of prisons. Schools, hospitals, re-education camps, etc. all include the threat of violence if someone does not comply, but the institution does not require violence to function.

      So if a criminal is locked in a cell, but not otherwise harmed, they aren't in a prison? Or is being locked in a cell inherently violent?