Official Debate #2: Prison Freedom

Official Debate #2
Prison Freedom
With all the man slaughter, the hunger, the hustle we're facing these days, what do you think of applying prison freedom to the society we currently live in.

Last weeks winner: Outside Nan
You have been awarded with the 'Master Debater' award.

[3/3/2014 9:54:44 PM] Malevolent: At the moment, I would go with Outside Nan.
[3/3/2014 9:54:55 PM] Malevolent: I was looking through it, and Outside Nan had the longest, most detailed arguments.

Today's topic origin:

Please read the following:

Decorum and Respect

The most important thing to remember when entering a debate is to remain composed, well-spoken, and polite. Passion is an excellent thing when delivering an opening or closing statement, however laying it on too thick will result in a melodramatic aire that will detract greatly from your argumentation. By respecting both the process as well as your opponents, you will gain honour not only from those opponents, but from the audience as well as the moderator.

I say no. My tax dollars already go to stupid government and state projects, let alone giving prison inmates a good living. Depending on their level of offense, it should be just death penalty as it can saves millions of tax player's money ans go to some other project. (Hopefully good)

I say no. My tax dollars already go to stupid government and state projects, let alone giving prison inmates a good living. Depending on their level of offense, it should be just death penalty as it can saves millions of tax player's money ans go to some other project. (Hopefully good)

Hey, thank you for your reply. But I think you miss read it. What the topic is, should we apply prison rules to the outside. So we all become 'prisoners'.

EDIT: It's 2 am, so I am hitting the hay. Will make a reply tomorrow :)!

I say no. My tax dollars already go to stupid government and state projects, let alone giving prison inmates a good living. Depending on their level of offense, it should be just death penalty as it can saves millions of tax player's money ans go to some other project. (Hopefully good)

Hey, thank you for your reply. But I think you miss read it. What the topic is, should we apply prison rules to the outside. So we all become 'prisoners'.

Oh Damn. I'll redo/delete my first post then make it correct. Just miss read it. Lol

The idea is wonderful, but it can not be properly implemented without having a class system which is a system that is in direct opposition to the fundamental idea of equality.

People do submit to rule, it is what it is. We can understand from La Boetie's writings (The Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) that the people may even desire to be ruled, but the people must also be aware and consent to this ruling (social contract should ring a bell to anyone reading about the beginnings of US Govt). In a society where prison life is expanded into the general mass of society that consent is not going to be gained. Those who have the resources will forcefully implement the system and will maintain the system with force (police only having ability to defend without receiving the right from the people), A forcefully implemented system is not stable, we can see in recent years the happenings in the middle east. Governments are having issues due to forcefully attempting to apply ideas to the people without consent. An unstable government cannot be desired, the government must have a positive outlook for the next generation for it to remain approved by the people and not threatened with rebellion.

Understanding that sustaining the power a society like this would require is impossible determines if it should or shouldn't become. In this case it shouldn't. The lack of equality (class system != equality) threatens the right to life and liberty, the two things that are the most important.

Similar to Equality's post I do believe there need to be social classes/rankings but not for the same reasons. I do not think this system would work because it lacks the motivation for people to increase in social rank for the betterment of themselves and their families. Without the possibility of moving up in life and already having basic necessities, I find that this alternate society would not be advancing and outgoing as our present society.

Similar to Equality's post I do believe there need to be social classes/rankings but not for the same reasons. I do not think this system would work because it lacks the motivation for people to increase in social rank for the betterment of themselves and their families. Without the possibility of moving up in life and already having basic necessities, I find that this alternate society would not be advancing and outgoing as our present society.

Are you familiar with the social theory writer Nicholas Vrousalis? In his writings (in this essay specifically: "Libertarian Socialism: A better Reconciliation between Self-Ownership and Equality") he proposes the idea that there can still be motivation when the necessities are provided. It does, however, also require there to be "effective self-ownership" which I am unsure would be a possibility in a society the topic of this thread proposes, if it does it could follow the same model as proposed in his writings: the surplus is available to all, but one can give up access to the surplus if they do not wish to contribute to society and remain in their personal items.

Why would someone who killed, or raped someone deserve to have any freedoms at all? Convicts in prison have the right to be treated equally, have food, and not have to pay for healthcare. Seniors living in Elder Care have to pay, compared to convicts who committed a crime do not need to pay? ON TOP OF THAT, we have to pay for them to rot in prison until the get released. Half the time, that odes not even cure those convicts. They then commit the SAME crime and we have to pay for them. I have always thought that the electric chair or death by firing squad would be a better alternative to anyone who commits a crime and is found guilty. Would this apply to outside? If it did, we would all commit crimes to get the same treatment as someone who did not commit a crime. Another part I have always been mad at is why some cases where people Pirate a movie have a longer term than someone who committed a crime?

Another part I have always been mad at is why some cases where people Pirate a movie have a longer term than someone who committed a crime?

What kind of crime? Pirating a movie is just 1 specific digital/online crime and leads to a maximum of 5 years in jail a/o fines till 250k. It's because when a person pirates a file, it's auto negative money/loss to the company/LLC/individual who produced/created the file. (read source) You're comparing a kingdom with a species, doesn't make logic.

Other than that, my answer would be no too. Freedom and paradise in a place where freedom AND paradise is not meant to be there sounds senseless. Call me wrong, but here's the definition of prison (read source)

A state of imprisonment or captivity.

Giving liberal paradise in a, if not all prisons turns a defined word, 'prison' into a meaningless and unusable word. Freedom does NOT apply to the ones who abuse it, and it has, will be and will always be like that. How will criminals repent for their sins if they don't feel, experience and think hard for what they've done?

This subject can be argued many different ways, It can be argued that if the prison rules were expanded into our society, does that mean we deserve the same boundaries as someone who killed, or raped, or sexually assaulted someone? Is it fair to limit all people, innocent or not? I believe that with these boundaries expanding into society that not only would this be a complete mess for the simple reason of people rebelling because of such an act. I believe this would cause complete chaos, that being said I still think that maybe if this were to happen, it could put a large cap on the crime rate. This also leaves the issue of when somebody does commit a crime what is to happen, if we are all already living by set prison freedoms than what is to happen? Are they let off, or killed? People who are in prison for the most part don't deserve the freedoms they were giving, not in all cases where someone is wrongly accused, or forced to commit a crime in fear, or need. With 'prison freedoms' being expanded into society, this pretty much takes a piss on all the freedoms brave people have faught to give us. I don't believe in war, but I do believe in intentions, and reasoning, and the reason these soldiers went to war is for these freedoms that we have today, and to take those away by giving us the same freedom as someone who didn't care enough to respect the freedom they had is completely arbitrary. At the same time there are people all over starving, all over killing for a warm place to sleep and with set freedoms I believe the crime rate would dramatically decrease in some of the poorer areas of the world. I am against this taking freedoms from people who have it, yet for it helping people who don't even have the luxury a convicted felon has.