If you want to convince us that "he's guilty because he's black" is still pretty common, perhaps you should provide us with an actual example of "he's guilty because he's black." The Duane Buck case isn't.
I don't know enough about the specifics to offer any objection, so I'll give you those. Though by "recent times," I meant since the reinstatement back in '76.
Just about everything the government does is susceptible to abuse for the sake of pandering, so the death penalty isn't special in that respect. It is special in that there's no money in it.
As far as incentives go, I would say that the death penalty is less susceptible to abuse than most other things the government does. Most of what the government does involves the resource transfers. These are highly susceptible to abuse, because everyone has an incentive to try to get a piece of the action.
The death penalty, on the other hand, doesn't really materially benefit any specific interest group. Friends and family of the victim may derive psychic benefit, but that's about it. This is part of the reason why the death penalty is so rarely applied. We have thousands of murders in the US every year, and tens of executions.
And there is, to the best of my knowledge, not one single allegation in recent times of the death penalty being used in the US for a personal or political vendetta.
It's worth noting that libertarians pretty much never do this. We didn't like the Bush administration. In fact, many of us feel deeply betrayed by it. But we don't think of "You know who I hate? Dick Cheney!" as the perfect accessory to any conversation. It's purely a shibboleth of the left.
Which is not to say that we don't have our own, necessarily.
To channel Robin Hanson, gratuitous Cheney-bashing is a method of signalling tribal affiliation. It's not about any actual relevance Cheney has to the topic at hand. I'm not particularly fond of Cheney, or of the Bush administration generally, but I just roll my eyes whenever I see something like this, especially given that he's been out of office for nearly three years. "Oh. It's one of those people."
"You know those people who you don't particularly like or trust? Well, I'm one of them. Oh, and you should take that other thing I just said at face value" is not a sound rhetorical strategy.
Specifically: "The President shall...[do Presidential things]...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Well, yes, but if we're considering all possible doses, then not only would "lethal poison" be redundant, but "poison" would be redundant, since everything is poisonous if administered in some manner at some dose.
When you make it obvious that this is part of a broader political agenda, then it makes me more inclined to believe that you're misrepresenting this issue to advance the broader political agenda.
Dick Cheney has not only admitted to ordering a technique for which the U.S. has in the past tried soldiers for war crimes; he has also shot a man in the face while hunting.
Yeah. Stuff like that there. The shooting was an accident, and the victim is still alive and chose not to press charges. If you can't even resist misrepresenting easily verifiable facts, why the hell should I trust you on stuff I can't personally verify?
The key thing to keep in mind here is that the $450 average is based only on families who actually gave to charity. So it's possible that only 10% of families making less than $20,000 per year actually gave to charity, but that the 10% who did gave an average of $450 per year, for an overall average of $45 per year.
If you take a look at reports here, you'll see that rates of giving are much lower for families making less than $50,000 than for families making more than $100,000.
Also, rates of giving tend to be higher for people over 65. It's possible that many of these families making less than $20,000 per year and giving an average of $450 per year are retirees with money in the bank, and not actually poor.
That's very obviously the wrong answer. There has to be an upper bound. There's a reason that countries that don't ration medical care by price ration it in other ways.
5. As for the supposed counterproductive nature of some or all social-welfare programs, I came to doubt that this was an iron law of social welfare. It might just be that our existing programs were too chintzy to do any good.
I find it most interesting that the people who donate the most to charitable causes (the Catholic Church does NOT count, even if it spends some money on charity. it mostly spends it on operating a religion), are also the people who tend to be most liberal[*].
By "those countries," I meant the ones listed in the excerpted text, namely Turkey, Brazil, and India. I'm well aware that Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis, as evidenced by my comment upthread, in which I said, "Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis."
Huh. That's interesting. Maybe it's because Singapore has the combination of a rich country's infrastructure and access to a poor country's labor force.
Not perfect or number one mind you, but far more entrepreneurial-friendly than what is seen in high-growth countries like Turkey, Brazil, and India.
To describe those countries as "high-growth," and just to leave it at that, is misleading. Catch-up growth is much easier than leading-edge growth, so poor countries that have recently liberalized their economies will tend to grow much faster than any wealthy country can.
The guy who would have hired a bartender and a person to walk drinks around is now a cubicle monkey who is counting down until he gets outsourced to Singapore.
Is there actually much outsourcing to Singapore going on? Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis, so I wouldn't think there would be a lot of cost-savings to be had.
This is, of course, despite and not because of their low taxes and anemic public sector.
The hard about the whole “caring” thing is, after having many many conversations with all sorts of people, is that some people really don’t give a shit if other people live in grinding poverty or die. Some really don’t.
I would go so far as to say the vast majority. Most people on the political left care just enough to demand that the government raise taxes on other people in order to fund anti-poverty programs, but while there's no rigorous definition of "giving a shit," I don't think that cuts it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Going Valjean”
I found a survey that says that Jews want higher taxes, and some entrepreneurs are Jewish...
On “Comment Rescue: Dealth Penalty Contrasts”
If you want to convince us that "he's guilty because he's black" is still pretty common, perhaps you should provide us with an actual example of "he's guilty because he's black." The Duane Buck case isn't.
"
I don't know enough about the specifics to offer any objection, so I'll give you those. Though by "recent times," I meant since the reinstatement back in '76.
"
Just about everything the government does is susceptible to abuse for the sake of pandering, so the death penalty isn't special in that respect. It is special in that there's no money in it.
"
As far as incentives go, I would say that the death penalty is less susceptible to abuse than most other things the government does. Most of what the government does involves the resource transfers. These are highly susceptible to abuse, because everyone has an incentive to try to get a piece of the action.
The death penalty, on the other hand, doesn't really materially benefit any specific interest group. Friends and family of the victim may derive psychic benefit, but that's about it. This is part of the reason why the death penalty is so rarely applied. We have thousands of murders in the US every year, and tens of executions.
And there is, to the best of my knowledge, not one single allegation in recent times of the death penalty being used in the US for a personal or political vendetta.
On “Troy Davis and the American justice system”
It's worth noting that libertarians pretty much never do this. We didn't like the Bush administration. In fact, many of us feel deeply betrayed by it. But we don't think of "You know who I hate? Dick Cheney!" as the perfect accessory to any conversation. It's purely a shibboleth of the left.
Which is not to say that we don't have our own, necessarily.
"
To channel Robin Hanson, gratuitous Cheney-bashing is a method of signalling tribal affiliation. It's not about any actual relevance Cheney has to the topic at hand. I'm not particularly fond of Cheney, or of the Bush administration generally, but I just roll my eyes whenever I see something like this, especially given that he's been out of office for nearly three years. "Oh. It's one of those people."
"You know those people who you don't particularly like or trust? Well, I'm one of them. Oh, and you should take that other thing I just said at face value" is not a sound rhetorical strategy.
"
Specifically: "The President shall...[do Presidential things]...and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
"
Well, yes, but if we're considering all possible doses, then not only would "lethal poison" be redundant, but "poison" would be redundant, since everything is poisonous if administered in some manner at some dose.
"
When you make it obvious that this is part of a broader political agenda, then it makes me more inclined to believe that you're misrepresenting this issue to advance the broader political agenda.
Dick Cheney has not only admitted to ordering a technique for which the U.S. has in the past tried soldiers for war crimes; he has also shot a man in the face while hunting.
Yeah. Stuff like that there. The shooting was an accident, and the victim is still alive and chose not to press charges. If you can't even resist misrepresenting easily verifiable facts, why the hell should I trust you on stuff I can't personally verify?
"
Poisons are harmful by definition, but not necessarily lethal. The chemicals used in chemotherapy would be an example of nonlethal poison.
On “Liberty, Anarchy and the Pragmatist’s Dilemma”
I suspect that "Swipe Swipe" is satire. The intentional kind. That's just too over-the-top to be real.
"
Can we all agree that the phrase "asshole republican rich" is flat-out bigoted?
"
Puting aside the fact that not all Jews are leftists, only a very small minority of leftists are Jewish.
"
The key thing to keep in mind here is that the $450 average is based only on families who actually gave to charity. So it's possible that only 10% of families making less than $20,000 per year actually gave to charity, but that the 10% who did gave an average of $450 per year, for an overall average of $45 per year.
If you take a look at reports here, you'll see that rates of giving are much lower for families making less than $50,000 than for families making more than $100,000.
Also, rates of giving tend to be higher for people over 65. It's possible that many of these families making less than $20,000 per year and giving an average of $450 per year are retirees with money in the bank, and not actually poor.
"
This doesn't support the quoted claim.
"
That's very obviously the wrong answer. There has to be an upper bound. There's a reason that countries that don't ration medical care by price ration it in other ways.
"
5. As for the supposed counterproductive nature of some or all social-welfare programs, I came to doubt that this was an iron law of social welfare. It might just be that our existing programs were too chintzy to do any good.
Well, I'm convinced. Can't argue with that logic.
"
I find it most interesting that the people who donate the most to charitable causes (the Catholic Church does NOT count, even if it spends some money on charity. it mostly spends it on operating a religion), are also the people who tend to be most liberal[*].
*Citation needed.
"
Actually, would insurance truly designed to respond to major health catastrophe’s really be all that expensive?
For a single 30-year-old man in Washington state, about $100/month.
On “Unintended Consequences Sunday Sidebar Comment Request Open Thread”
By "those countries," I meant the ones listed in the excerpted text, namely Turkey, Brazil, and India. I'm well aware that Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis, as evidenced by my comment upthread, in which I said, "Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis."
"
Huh. That's interesting. Maybe it's because Singapore has the combination of a rich country's infrastructure and access to a poor country's labor force.
"
Not perfect or number one mind you, but far more entrepreneurial-friendly than what is seen in high-growth countries like Turkey, Brazil, and India.
To describe those countries as "high-growth," and just to leave it at that, is misleading. Catch-up growth is much easier than leading-edge growth, so poor countries that have recently liberalized their economies will tend to grow much faster than any wealthy country can.
"
The guy who would have hired a bartender and a person to walk drinks around is now a cubicle monkey who is counting down until he gets outsourced to Singapore.
Is there actually much outsourcing to Singapore going on? Singapore is now quite a bit wealthier than the US on a per-capita basis, so I wouldn't think there would be a lot of cost-savings to be had.
This is, of course, despite and not because of their low taxes and anemic public sector.
On “Political Theodicy”
The hard about the whole “caring” thing is, after having many many conversations with all sorts of people, is that some people really don’t give a shit if other people live in grinding poverty or die. Some really don’t.
I would go so far as to say the vast majority. Most people on the political left care just enough to demand that the government raise taxes on other people in order to fund anti-poverty programs, but while there's no rigorous definition of "giving a shit," I don't think that cuts it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.