World News

To be fair I feel like Kevin O'Leary just used this excuse for trump. He essentially said we do it all the time you normies never say anything I don't see the problem, I'm paraphrasing but here's a Jon Stewart piece about it

That's why death penalty shouldn't exist for crimes like a wife killing a husband. You might be 99.9% sure she poisoned him, but you cannot know for sure.

However, a school shooter caught red handed shooting a school?

Some crimes and scenarios can warrant the death penalty in my mind

Next argument is "what if the government framed people to execute them?"

Why in the world would the government point out that they are executing someone?

If the government (the rich controlled government) wants you dead they would do it quietly.

Even something as simple as cutting your brake lines. You really think local police are going to figure out that the government had soldier 65478 tamper with your brake lines?

I'm overstating, but yeah I want them alive. To eat a way out. There's plenty menial tasks they can do .

It's reversible at least. I'm not for unusual punishment, just got the exact conditions of a Vietnamese laborer at the bottom rung.

From the article:

"She faced an array of charges along with her husband, Eric Chu Nap Kee, a billionaire Hong Kong real estate operator, and 85 co-conspirators, including lawyers and banking regulators from the capital of Hanoi, the seat of communist rule."

So, she did bribe officials. Probably pissed off the wrong one, though.

So 49 years ago? Yeah I'd say that counts as rare.

It's a very hard line to tow.

I think the death penalty should really only be allowed for mass murder / enslavement.

However, I doubt any billionaires are innocent of enslaving people, even if it's "I paid them ($0.07 / day, which is slave wages)!" So, fuck the ultra rich. They didn't get there by hard work; they got there by exploiting people and the system. Finances are not unlimited, so funneling that much money to yourself means you are directly depriving whole communities of livelihood and, almost always, actual life.

It's about balancing principles....

Nah, it's more about having no principles.

Yes, yes. 'The death penalty is acceptable for some' is all I'm hearing.

You say harm reduction, I say Bullshit!

The same argument can be applied for free market capitalism: it's too fragile and susceptible to corruption and outside influence. The reality is that the big economies of the world lie somewhere in the middle.

Socialism works. Workers can democratically direct production at scale. Communism is the goal, but Socialism isn't some sacrifice to get through, it's a marked improvement on Capitalism. Capitalism itself is the sacrifice.

That's because communism was never supposed to be a thing you just implement and was never meant to exist alongside other ideologies.

Communism as first described by Marx and then later expanded upon by other theorists is merely the inevitable outcome of a global society that has overcome scarcity, moved away from late stage capitalism and values things like workers rights, equality and standards of living.

The biggest divide between communists is usually how we get to that end state. Do you try to ignite a global violent revolution against capitalism, seize the means of production by force and then use dictatorial power to try and force society towards it, like the Soviets did? Or should we make incremental changes over time though existing Democratic channels like democratic socialists? Or do you seize the power for yourself, run the country like a monarchy and claim you've achieved communism?

But even if communism was an ideology and an unreachable standard that a community or country was striving to active, you would expect it to be harder to even become a millionaire