Even when it’s not the state (what? Is it better if it’s a random militia or a tribe that calls murder justice?)
A revolutionary context is probably the only appropriate time for the death penalty. You don't have the resources of a state to keep someone in indefinite custody, and the whole premise of a revolution is that things have gotten so bad you're willing to kill people to reorganize society.
I agree with you that it would be morally justified in that case, but I don't think that any human institution can be trusted to do it. There's just too much at stake and too many ways it can go wrong that even if killing someone for a certain crime is completely morally justifiable there will always be an unacceptable margin of error.
It's understandable why the death penalty is so attractive to so many, but it should be seen as a relic of the past and left behind as much as capitalism itself.
Yeah and as soon as a leftist government would do that, you'll see capitalists advocating for the death penalty for them, arguing that they are "using their positions to kill people for fun/profit". Death penalty is just an ethical nightmare, no matter how you look at it.
I'm just assuming that a prerequisite to leftist government is going to necessarily involve all the capitalists going away somehow. It's understood that it wasn't a morally good action but 'we won't apologize.' We're talking about how we would administrate a system we actually control. That comes with moral cost.
There's still a difference between "going away somehow" and "mass murder going way beyond death penalty for crimes".
I'll caricature a bit you're position here, but to me that's just as dumb as saying "I'm for poverty to disappear. That why I advocate for killing all poor people. Problem solved, I am very leftist."
Killing anyone belonging to the wrong class is totally different from death penalty. And try doing that, and you'll end up killed long before you "control the system".
I’ll caricature a bit you’re position here, but to me that’s just as dumb as saying “I’m for poverty to disappear. That why I advocate for killing all poor people. Problem solved, I am very leftist.”
This isn't a caricature, it's an inversion...
Look, we're talking about unseating the greatest concentrated power in all of human history. It's not going to be bloodless. I'm not talking about going home to home tracking down landlords. My expectation is that they're going to fight to the death.
Killing anyone belonging to the wrong class is totally different from death penalty.
Elaborate what 'the wrong class' is supposed to mean.
Uncritical opposition.
Even for war criminals (applying death penalty is actually a good way to become one and get a taste of your own medicine).
Even when it’s not the state (what? Is it better if it’s a random militia or a tribe that calls murder justice?)
A revolutionary context is probably the only appropriate time for the death penalty. You don't have the resources of a state to keep someone in indefinite custody, and the whole premise of a revolution is that things have gotten so bad you're willing to kill people to reorganize society.
Indeed, from my couch it would be very presumptuous to argue what is the « « best » » thing to do in desperate times calling for desperate measures.
My point was that Robespierre, just like Louis XVI, ended up guillotined.
Based and absolutely true.
The only time I support the death penalty is for cops and politicians using their positions to kill people for fun/profit
I haven't critically examined this in a while, but I feel like it's justified
I agree with you that it would be morally justified in that case, but I don't think that any human institution can be trusted to do it. There's just too much at stake and too many ways it can go wrong that even if killing someone for a certain crime is completely morally justifiable there will always be an unacceptable margin of error.
It's understandable why the death penalty is so attractive to so many, but it should be seen as a relic of the past and left behind as much as capitalism itself.
Synthesis: abolish the state and police and no one qualifies for it
Yeah and as soon as a leftist government would do that, you'll see capitalists advocating for the death penalty for them, arguing that they are "using their positions to kill people for fun/profit". Death penalty is just an ethical nightmare, no matter how you look at it.
There are capitalists left?
Oh I thought you meant only those "using their positions to kill people for fun/profit". You're are talking about killing all capitalists, my bad.
Still strongly disagree with you.
Maybe it's not execution, but a battle royale.
Winner(s) get(s) to live in a relatively comfortable reeducation camp.
I'm just assuming that a prerequisite to leftist government is going to necessarily involve all the capitalists going away somehow. It's understood that it wasn't a morally good action but 'we won't apologize.' We're talking about how we would administrate a system we actually control. That comes with moral cost.
There's still a difference between "going away somehow" and "mass murder going way beyond death penalty for crimes".
I'll caricature a bit you're position here, but to me that's just as dumb as saying "I'm for poverty to disappear. That why I advocate for killing all poor people. Problem solved, I am very leftist."
Killing anyone belonging to the wrong class is totally different from death penalty. And try doing that, and you'll end up killed long before you "control the system".
This isn't a caricature, it's an inversion...
Look, we're talking about unseating the greatest concentrated power in all of human history. It's not going to be bloodless. I'm not talking about going home to home tracking down landlords. My expectation is that they're going to fight to the death.
Elaborate what 'the wrong class' is supposed to mean.
We went from "It's ok to kill people who kill for fun" to "it's ok to kill to fight for yourself in a civil war".
As for the "wrong class", it's supposed to mean "whatever class you want to kill (and think you can just erase out of existence with murder)".
Okay apparently I've offended you to the point that you can't have a civil discussion and you're just trying to throw barbs right now.
You clearly aren't following what I'm saying closely enough to actually respond, just closely enough to try and snipe back.
So go back and show me that you understand what my actual position is by explaining in your own words why we didn't 'go' from anything to anything.
Counterpoint: Ludovico treatment.