Libertarians! Weigh in on the death penalty here.

[London]

Just because you place the world "natural" before it, doesn't necessarily make it objectively real.

Then why bother with misnomers?

 

[XinTX]

Atheists are logically committed to not believing in natural rights. The ones you know are being inconsistent with their own beliefs.

Tell that to John Locke.

 

[sonuvaTXgun]

http://www.theonion.com/video/ohio-replaces-lethal-injection-with-humane-new-hea,36077/

This is the way to go.

-PAK-

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Tell that to John Locke.

Locke? You mean the guy who provided a famous argument for the existence of God?

 

[Savage805]

Thus the TGT Rule
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/politics/21813-no-threads-concerning-religion.html

 

[breakingcontact]

Thus the TGT Rule
http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/politics/21813-no-threads-concerning-religion.html

Ive heard several people mention that. Its time for that rule to be removed.

 

[Savage805]

It apparently only applies to the politics section.

 

[kurt]

In theory I am all about about the death penalty and even expanding it to other major crimes. In practice some recent incidents like the overzealous prosecution of Michael Morton who was clearly innocent, yet spent 25 years in prison make me question if we are accurate enough to carry out an irreversible sentence. Other recent death penalty cases have been reversed due to DNA testing. My own dealings with the legal system on the civil side make me question if justice is even possible unless you have really deep pockets. I can afford about four hours of justice and the state has unlimited resources at its disposal.

 

[Dawico]

Ive heard several people mention that. Its time for that rule to be removed.

Keep the rule and enforce it on a thread by thread basis.

Our current membership seem to be able to handle the threads well but that can change quickly.

 

[Jeffrey]

That's the other side of the coin. The courts were never meant to be a level playing field. The defendant was meant to have every advantage, that way when there is a conviction, it's solid. Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.

 

[TheDan]

If you're going to take someone else's life then you have forfeited your own. I would prefer the punishment to be forced restitution, but some people just need killing. It does make me a bit squeamish giving the government this power, but I think it is an acceptable compromise when sentencing is done by jury.

Honestly I would like to see us go cheaper than these expensive ass sodium pentathol shots and just put a few 30c bullets into the offenders skull.

Bullets are too expensive. A pneumatic hammer like they use on cattle would be much more cost effective.

All I have said is that philosophically, atheism is inconsistent with the belief in inalienable, natural rights.

Then what you have said is wrong. The philosophers you mentioned above might have espoused inconsistent ideas because it was just opinions, or they lost sight of their first principles, or they started their logic with an illogical premise. You seem to have some pretty strong pre-conceived notions on what an atheist and even a philosopher is. Please add this guy to your study.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

If you're going to take someone else's life then you have forfeited your own. I would prefer the punishment to be forced restitution, but some people just need killing. It does make me a bit squeamish giving the government this power, but I think it is an acceptable compromise when sentencing is done by jury.


Bullets are too expensive. A pneumatic hammer like they use on cattle would be much more cost effective.


Then what you have said is wrong. The philosophers you mentioned above might have espoused inconsistent ideas because it was just opinions, or they lost sight of their first principles, or they started their logic with an illogical premise. You seem to have some pretty strong pre-conceived notions on what an atheist and even a philosopher is. Please add this guy to your study.

I'm familiar with "this guy." I skimmed his paper. Not very technical, not sure if he is really even recognized in the field of Ethics. But I can say, he doesn't argue for "secular ethics" on the basis of inalienable, natural rights. In fact, he states that they are not "natural":

Thus it cannot be said that moral rules exist in material reality, and neither are they automatically obeyed like the laws of physics...

He still does not argue for the objectivity of moral laws, only the "universality" of moral laws based on common "preferences."
And nothing said about inalienable rights.

Sorry, his paper is a mess.

 

[TheDan]

And nothing said about inalienable rights.

Well I'm sure I'm just wasting my time here, but I'll give my ideas on it...

For me it boils down to ownership. What are you born with that you own? Arms, legs, hands and feet? Your body and life, right? How is that not natural? If there is a man in the wilderness who never knew anything of laws or deities or philosophers he would still know that he owned his own person. This man would use his arms, legs, hands and feet plus his time (also known as work or labor) to add value to things in the wilderness and to provide for himself. If you came across this man, he might not have ever come up with a formal set of what is right or wrong, but I guarantee he would be upset if you cut off his hand; effectively stealing it from him. This concept of ownership is the most natural of all. It exists entirely independently of any laws of society.

Many social constructs have been created to collectivize and redistribute or transfer this basic ownership of your person and labor. Some with obvious coercion like slavery, others with more subtle coercion like taxes and socialism, and most successfully throughout history with "moral" obligations. None of these are natural, however.

 

[1slow01Z71]

Pretty well covers it for me
Ron White - Death Penalty - Blue Collar comedy tour: the movie - YouTube

 

[robocop10mm]

A murderer (and child molester and rapist) has given up his/her right to be called human because of their actions. They are little more than rabid dogs. We euthanize rabid dogs.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Well I'm sure I'm just wasting my time here, but I'll give my ideas on it...

For me it boils down to ownership. What are you born with that you own? Arms, legs, hands and feet? Your body and life, right? How is that not natural? If there is a man in the wilderness who never knew anything of laws or deities or philosophers he would still know that he owned his own person. This man would use his arms, legs, hands and feet plus his time (also known as work or labor) to add value to things in the wilderness and to provide for himself. If you came across this man, he might not have ever come up with a formal set of what is right or wrong, but I guarantee he would be upset if you cut off his hand; effectively stealing it from him. This concept of ownership is the most natural of all. It exists entirely independently of any laws of society.

Many social constructs have been created to collectivize and redistribute or transfer this basic ownership of your person and labor. Some with obvious coercion like slavery, others with more subtle coercion like taxes and socialism, and most successfully throughout history with "moral" obligations. None of these are natural, however.

This is the argument I would use. It was offered by Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He argued for property rights as the basis for libertarianism and deduced property rights from the concept of "self-ownership" and Kant's Categorical Imperative. There is something to be said here, I will only say that most Atheist philosophers have not gone this route because they did not want to be weighted down by the full scope and implications of Kantism, which included dualism and theism.

also, you have to consider that there is a problem moving from self-ownership to rights as they apply to the ownership of things and property. How does one get to own anything?

also, there are Marxist responses to what you claimed. Such as, we really are not individual selves that own ourselves, but rather we are a part of a collective "self" or society which makes decisions over us.

 

[Younggun]

I can't help but ask, what is your point?

You've not actually stated your position on anything, only argued against anything that didn't fit your "atheists don't value life" belief.


My guess is it simply boils down to "I like Jesus and atheists are bad". That's fine, but your attempt to spread misinformation about a group simply because you disagree with their stance (which you obviously don't understand) is disposable.

As to why an atheist would believe in natural rights. Well, it's irrelevant. Just as the reason you believe in god, the scripture, and god given rights is irrelevant. The same conclusion had been reached by taking different paths. There is nothing hypocritical or disingenuous about it.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

I can't help but ask, what is your point?

You've not actually stated your position on anything, only argued against anything that didn't fit your "atheists don't value life" belief.


My guess is it simply boils down to "I like Jesus and atheists are bad". That's fine, but your attempt to spread misinformation about a group simply because you disagree with their stance (which you obviously don't understand) is disposable.

As to why an atheist would believe in natural rights. Well, it's irrelevant. Just as the reason you believe in god, the scripture, and god given rights is irrelevant. The same conclusion had been reached by taking different paths. There is nothing hypocritical or disingenuous about it.

Okay.

My original point was that there are many facets of libertarianism, and no, they generally are not opposed to capital punishment, especially the atheist ones, and mind you, I was talking about influential and historically significant philosophers, not making personal attacks on individual atheists.

I brought up philosophy because you can't even begin to have a discussion of libertarianism without it. If you think you can, then I guess you have never studied the subject.

This was not an attack on atheism. This was not even a religious discussion. You made it one.

 

[Younggun]

Okay.

My original point was that there are many facets of libertarianism, and no, they generally are not opposed to capital punishment, especially the atheist ones, and mind you, I was talking about influential and historically significant philosophers, not making personal attacks on individual atheists.

I brought up philosophy because you can't even begin to have a discussion of libertarianism without it. If you think you can, then I guess you have never studied the subject.

This was not an attack on atheism. This was not even a religious discussion. You made it one.

Many philosophical libertarians are atheists, so they really don't place a value on life or have a problem with the death penalty.

Sure.

 

[JohnnyLoco]

Sure.

And what I said was completely consistent with historical atheistic philosophy. Peter Singer is probably the best example, and he is the most influential ethicist in the contemporary atheist movement. Richard Dawkins, Bill Maher, and other outspoken famous atheists are all followers of his ethics.

They are really a death cult.

I'm sorry if the facts offend you.