Capitalist exploitation literally kills people. Class warfare is not some abstract thing.
The banking crisis in 2008 killed thousands of people in the US when people were evicted from their homes and thrown out on the street. Financial crimes are not "peaceful" crimes, and should not be treated as such.
Is there an argument to be had about whether this is the same as any other form of capital punishment?
Serious question -- the reason usually brought up for being against capital punishment is the fact that it is impossible for the system to be perfect, that innocents are in prison and are killed.
So my question here is -- does this policy ever result in innocent bourgeoisie being killed? I would be very interested in any investigation into this and comparative analysis applying the same argument to both classes.
I think that, if there are no innocent bourgeoisie being killed by it, then the argument for being against capital punishment for the bourgeoisie diminishes. Perhaps instead there is an argument that capital punishment should be applied to the bourgeoisie but not to the proletariat?
Perhaps the class character of the capital punishment changes the situation.
in dont see why imprisonment and reform while being monitored while stripped of assets doesn’t have the same result. why does justice have to be retributive all the time. what im getting at is alot of people get spooked off of the bloody leftist image and its not necessarily needed all the time. one can be anti death penalty and not pity billionaires but be against it on principle
Deterrent? If they know that they will only get "reformed" as a result of it they might just consider that a risk worth taking and hide a bunch of their assets abroad where they can't be seized, then just run away after they've convinced you to release them because they've "reformed".
I don't necessarily hold this position for the record. I just think it's interesting and worth the investigation and discussion.
Most violent crimes are “crimes of passion” type shit which I always figured was at least part of the reason that harsh penalties don’t deter. People aren’t even thinking of the consequences in the moment a lot of times. I doubt that is the case for bribery and corruption.
I would be interested in comparative analysis of that between countries that actually apply it and countries that don't. I'm not actually convinced that the reaction would be identical for violence vs financial.
I'm aware this analysis probably doesn't exist though :/ "Are the bourgeoisie being oppressed by financial sector capital punishment" doesn't sound like an area of research that would exist.
I just think there are probably different ways of handling it that still pose a threat is all. especially if they seize assets and restrict their movement/monitor them
This is i feel. In the midst of a war, you might be in a situation where killing someone is the best/only means of neutralizing a foe that is putting your life / your comrades lives in danger. If another way to neutralize them were available, it would almost always be preferable (For many reasons, not the least of which being the great mental toll that taking another life has, resulting in often life-long conditions similar to PTSD called Perpetrator Induced Stress Disorder), but like I said often that's not the case.
Outside of a wartime scenario though, there should be a plethora a options available to neutralize such a threat. In fact, going all the way to jump right to killing them almost imbues them with a seemingly inhuman power. My feelings on 'justice' is that first the threat should be neutralized, second is restoration: righting all the wrongs as much as possible, and third would be the transformation of the transgressor to acknowledge and move past their antisocial behavior which often can open eyes of would-be transgressors perhaps even in a cascading effect. If they're killed in the first step, it can make the second step much harder, and the third step impossible.
And I really think much more attention to should be given PITS. someone needs to do those killings, if there is someone who is to be executed, and the effect it'll have on the executor can't be ignored.
I wonder if there's still some way to make them useful? These are at the end of the day extremely experienced people that, if kept in check, have valuable experience in management at the highest levels. I wonder if there is still a way to make use of that without placing them in a position where they'll kill people again.
Puyi is like one of the most fascinating stories history has produced. I generally am more of a big picture guy than interested in individuals, but his story is incredible.
Confiscating all his money is sweet as hell but the death penalty sucks, especially in peace-time.
Capitalist exploitation literally kills people. Class warfare is not some abstract thing.
The banking crisis in 2008 killed thousands of people in the US when people were evicted from their homes and thrown out on the street. Financial crimes are not "peaceful" crimes, and should not be treated as such.
I agree with all of this, except the implication that this is justification for a state execution.
Is there an argument to be had about whether this is the same as any other form of capital punishment?
Serious question -- the reason usually brought up for being against capital punishment is the fact that it is impossible for the system to be perfect, that innocents are in prison and are killed.
So my question here is -- does this policy ever result in innocent bourgeoisie being killed? I would be very interested in any investigation into this and comparative analysis applying the same argument to both classes.
I think that, if there are no innocent bourgeoisie being killed by it, then the argument for being against capital punishment for the bourgeoisie diminishes. Perhaps instead there is an argument that capital punishment should be applied to the bourgeoisie but not to the proletariat?
Perhaps the class character of the capital punishment changes the situation.
in dont see why imprisonment and reform while being monitored while stripped of assets doesn’t have the same result. why does justice have to be retributive all the time. what im getting at is alot of people get spooked off of the bloody leftist image and its not necessarily needed all the time. one can be anti death penalty and not pity billionaires but be against it on principle
deleted by creator
ok this rules im on board
Deterrent? If they know that they will only get "reformed" as a result of it they might just consider that a risk worth taking and hide a bunch of their assets abroad where they can't be seized, then just run away after they've convinced you to release them because they've "reformed".
I don't necessarily hold this position for the record. I just think it's interesting and worth the investigation and discussion.
Capital punishment does not work well as a deterrent. It doesn't for serious violent crime, it won't for financial crime.
Most violent crimes are “crimes of passion” type shit which I always figured was at least part of the reason that harsh penalties don’t deter. People aren’t even thinking of the consequences in the moment a lot of times. I doubt that is the case for bribery and corruption.
I would be interested in comparative analysis of that between countries that actually apply it and countries that don't. I'm not actually convinced that the reaction would be identical for violence vs financial.
I'm aware this analysis probably doesn't exist though :/ "Are the bourgeoisie being oppressed by financial sector capital punishment" doesn't sound like an area of research that would exist.
deleted by creator
I just think there are probably different ways of handling it that still pose a threat is all. especially if they seize assets and restrict their movement/monitor them
This is i feel. In the midst of a war, you might be in a situation where killing someone is the best/only means of neutralizing a foe that is putting your life / your comrades lives in danger. If another way to neutralize them were available, it would almost always be preferable (For many reasons, not the least of which being the great mental toll that taking another life has, resulting in often life-long conditions similar to PTSD called Perpetrator Induced Stress Disorder), but like I said often that's not the case.
Outside of a wartime scenario though, there should be a plethora a options available to neutralize such a threat. In fact, going all the way to jump right to killing them almost imbues them with a seemingly inhuman power. My feelings on 'justice' is that first the threat should be neutralized, second is restoration: righting all the wrongs as much as possible, and third would be the transformation of the transgressor to acknowledge and move past their antisocial behavior which often can open eyes of would-be transgressors perhaps even in a cascading effect. If they're killed in the first step, it can make the second step much harder, and the third step impossible.
And I really think much more attention to should be given PITS. someone needs to do those killings, if there is someone who is to be executed, and the effect it'll have on the executor can't be ignored.
deleted by creator
Neat.
I wonder if there's still some way to make them useful? These are at the end of the day extremely experienced people that, if kept in check, have valuable experience in management at the highest levels. I wonder if there is still a way to make use of that without placing them in a position where they'll kill people again.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
I would prefer giving this guy the Emperor Puyi treatment, too, but some billionaire's life isn't worth getting upset about either way.
Puyi is like one of the most fascinating stories history has produced. I generally am more of a big picture guy than interested in individuals, but his story is incredible.
The guy was richer than most people in the history of humanity and he still decided to fuck people over. Fuck him, I hope he rots.