Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 You've completely devalued the harm done to the moral fiber of a society that creates an entitlement system for those whom simply obey the law by turning crime into an amoral act. Further, you have zero evidence that long term outcomes of such a society are desirable: you are creating a government subsidized institutional protection racket. No, its taking a small portion of the population that is predatory and attempting in the most cost effective way to incentivize them to behave and leave other people alone. You are right I have no long term evidence it works, but neither do you that it doesn't. I'm for it if it works. Just seems you are against it no matter what. The ends never justify the means. The means justify the ends. Ever??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 But if the ends justify the means, so what? We want results, not a dogmatic and failed approach that sees more people in jail, more crimes committed and higher taxes I would contend that the vast majority of people on this earth would like a peaceful society. If the end justifies the means then wouldn't it be ok to kill all Muslims since the majority of terror and despicable acts emanate from somewhere within the loose boundaries of that religion? (- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has not committed to funding the program, which would cost $4.9 million over four years, including $460,000 a year in stipend payments $4.9 million to pay out $1.8 million over four years? Where the !@#$ is the other $3M going? No, its taking a small portion of the population that is predatory and attempting in the most cost effective way to incentivize them to behave and leave other people alone. You are right I have no long term evidence it works, but neither do you that it doesn't. I'm for it if it works. Just seems you are against it no matter what. Ever??? Pinhead. What part of "never" do you not understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 $4.9 million to pay out $1.8 million over four years? Where the !@#$ is the other $3M going? Pinhead. What part of "never" do you not understand? I just figured they were following the lead of The Clinton Foundation: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 No, its taking a small portion of the population that is predatory and attempting in the most cost effective way to incentivize them to behave and leave other people alone. You are right I have no long term evidence it works, but neither do you that it doesn't. I'm for it if it works. Just seems you are against it no matter what. I am against it because I have identified both long and short term harm, as well as permanent institutional damages which I feel outweigh any possible good. And, that's exactly what it is: a possible good, wholly dependent on the outcomes of a government social engineering project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Is it illegal to pay people to vote? Why isn't there a pay to vote program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I would contend that the vast majority of people on this earth would like a peaceful society. If the end justifies the means then wouldn't it be ok to kill all Muslims since the majority of terror and despicable acts emanate from somewhere within the loose boundaries of that religion? (- Oh, now you are going to get it! Stereotyping an entire religion like that? The good people of this board won't put up with that. Go easy on him guys... Paying individuals not to commit crimes is a completely different endeavor. 1) It starts with the baseline that the commission of crimes is economically neutral for the offender, 2) then builds on to that premise that simply being law abiding is actually doing something "over and above" which is worthy of merit and compensation. That's an absurd base premise that has no place in a society of laws. 1) No, it starts with the premise that crime is economically detrimental to society in the act and in the prosecution and punishment of the crime. 2) It is an investment that we hope will pay dividends Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) 1) No, it starts with the premise that crime is economically detrimental to society in the act and in the prosecution and punishment of the crime. It's both actually; however your position attempts to whitewash away the real socials harms you are doing by refusing to acknowledge them as harms that should be considered. This is wrong. Mine, on the other hand, does not. I accept that it changes the current viewpoints surrounding the morality of crime, by creating an economically neutral baseline for criminal behavior. The long term impact of this shift on society could be devastating. 2) It is an investment that we hope will pay dividends It is proactive social engineering, with which government has long history of failure. And worse, given the political legacies tied to these sorts of endeavors, even if they fail miserably, they are rarely undone, as in the end this becomes nothing more than another entitlement. Edited February 5, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Kids get an allowance for doing chores they arguably should be doing as part of the family. People get rewards for turning in lost or stolen property, or criminals. Companies get tax abatements for moving from one state to another, or for NOT moving. There are all sorts of examples of how we throw money at things to get what we want, although I can't think of one directly on point. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Aside from the innate ick factor, even if the economic returns are reasonable, the other concern is that people who might not commit crimes would express an intent to do so in order to get paid off. That would probably start about 5 minutes after the law went into effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Oh, now you are going to get it! Stereotyping an entire religion like that? The good people of this board won't put up with that. Go easy on him guys... 1) No, it starts with the premise that crime is economically detrimental to society in the act and in the prosecution and punishment of the crime. 2) It is an investment that we hope will pay dividends I thought the ends justify the means? Kids get an allowance for doing chores they arguably should be doing as part of the family. People get rewards for turning in lost or stolen property, or criminals. Companies get tax abatements for moving from one state to another, or for NOT moving. There are all sorts of examples of how we throw money at things to get what we want, although I can't think of one directly on point. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Aside from the innate ick factor, even if the economic returns are reasonable, the other concern is that people who might not commit crimes would express an intent to do so in order to get paid off. That would probably start about 5 minutes after the law went into effect. So, you are convinced it is a bad idea? Edited February 5, 2016 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 1) It's both actually; however your position attempts to whitewash away the real socials harms you are doing by refusing to acknowledge them as harms that should be considered. This is wrong. 2) The long term impact of this shift on society could be devastating. 3) It is proactive social engineering, with which government has long history of failure. And worse, given the political legacies tied to these sorts of endeavors, even if they fail miserably, they are rarely undone, as in the end this becomes nothing more than another entitlement. 1) The social harm of lower crime and lower incarceration and lower taxes? (Assuming it works) 2) How? We already know that the system we have is destroying a whole lot of lives. 3) I think the government has actually done a great job in some areas of social engineering. Racism, sexism and other areas of hate are no longer in business, the population is way more educated, tolerant and the elderly are no longer sentenced to a life of poverty like they use to be. I thought the ends justify the means? So, you are convinced it is a bad idea? Hate leads to a positive good? Now the rest of you board members leave third alone! Ok, he said something really terrible but just let it go! Gosh, you are relentless against this hater! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 1) The social harm of lower crime and lower incarceration and lower taxes? (Assuming it works) Did you read the article? They're paying the 200 most "at-risk" citizens. How many crimes are committed by those 200 people? How much lower is that incarceration rate going to be? How much money is that going to save? 3) I think the government has actually done a great job in some areas of social engineering. Racism, sexism and other areas of hate are no longer in business, the population is way more educated, tolerant and the elderly are no longer sentenced to a life of poverty like they use to be. You are so full of ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 1) The social harm of lower crime and lower incarceration and lower taxes? (Assuming it works) 2) How? We already know that the system we have is destroying a whole lot of lives. 3) I think the government has actually done a great job in some areas of social engineering. Racism, sexism and other areas of hate are no longer in business, the population is way more educated, tolerant and the elderly are no longer sentenced to a life of poverty like they use to be. Hate leads to a positive good? Now the rest of you board members leave third alone! Ok, he said something really terrible but just let it go! Gosh, you are relentless against this hater! Back to your old trick of not defending your statement (the end justifies the means) and just spewing schit again, eh? You're flirting with a shunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I thought the ends justify the means? So, you are convinced it is a bad idea? I am not convinced one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Back to your old trick of not defending your statement (the end justifies the means) and just spewing schit again, eh? You're flirting with a shunning. Yes...but he did defend "The means justifies the ends" without realizing it. Classic example of the First Gatorman Fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 5, 2016 Author Share Posted February 5, 2016 I am not convinced one way or another. That's the difference between you and me. I instinctively know that it is wrong while you equivocate like the liberal you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Will punishments be more severe if anyone receiving this stipend is caught breaking the law? Of course not. Can't violate their civil rights you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) Aside from the innate ick factor, even if the economic returns are reasonable, the other concern is that people who might not commit crimes would express an intent to do so in order to get paid off. That would probably start about 5 minutes after the law went into effect. Absolutely right. I'd even go so far as to add that a stipend isn't likely to stop a person from committing a crime - if they're already breaking laws, is it wise to expect them to suddenly develop a sense of ethics? You are so full of ****. Didn't you know that Martin Luther King Jr was a federal agency? Of course not. Can't violate their civil rights you know! I'd be inclined to approach this from the other side - if someone is on public assistance and is convicted of anything above a misdemeanor crime, they lose their public assistance. How's that for incentive? Edited February 5, 2016 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts