This is getting off track, but I’ll state briefly that punishment and incarceration are two different things. The point of punishment is along the lines of Koxinga’s statement, incarceration is to protect society from future crimes. Part of the mess we have is a lack of distinction between the concepts.
I believe incarceration is valid. I’m not sure punishment in any form is a reasonable activity for the state to undertake. Punishment serves next to no benefit for society as a whole.
I don’t understand why we don’t talk about these two things separately, and why people merge the two into one.
Sounds a BRILLIANT idea !
We could gain revenue for the state from having companies sponsor it, also we could charge for admission, the T.V. rights AND leasing the fastfood/souveneer outlets at the venues.
There could also be bets on how long an individual could go without screaming/dying etc.
It could be a great day out for all of the family, entertaining while instilling a respect for societal values.
Of course it has been done before by the Romans at the Games, and it used to be a big day out watching highwaymen and other malefactors being hung at Tyburn in the 18th c .
Sounds like a win/win idea, nice one BORZO
Thank you for your approval!
Right. God forbid I’m reminded of a book about* social contracts * as I read this very discussion about* social contrats*.
Also, I can’t believe you just compared Raul Sanchez’s work to the fucking* Race Diaries.* Are brown people really so scary around here that mods have to bust out the crazy?
I’ll just go back to reading my C.S. Lewis now…
True, although it’s also the prerogative of the rest of the citizenry (many of whom work as police officers, Guardsmen or Army troops) to oppose you. 
[/QUOTE]
The question wasn’t “When is armed struggle against the state a good idea” 
Davina or Dermot?
I believe when the state takes up arms against its own people, they have no other option. Unfortunately, the state has almost all the really good weapons. You have to go underground, and strike at the forces that control the state. Mostly you lose.
Tris
Well, the part I underlined explains why so many revolutions have involved the military in the rebelling side. It gives the rebels some of those shiny guns; in those cases where the revolt has started in the office of the local equivalent of the Joint Chiefs, the civilian side’s best option has usually been “uh… you guys mind if I go by my house to pick up my jammies, CCs and a toothbrush before heading to the airport?”.
It’s called Corporate Takeover. Corporations send their political ccksuckers and Rgm**nchers(Lobbyists) to Capitol Hill to suck Congresspeople’s reproductive organs, in the hope that in return, the CEO’s will get laws that they want passed sped through Congress with very little voting and posturing. If anything, it should not be an armed struggle against the state, it should be an armed struggle against those who sell the products we consume daily. Long ago, the top 1%of Americans got together and hatched a plan to make the rest of America serve them. This involved driving us into debt, and making sure, that no matter how hard we tried, we could never become one of them. The reason the peasants don’t revolt, is because we still believe in The American Dream, or the idea that one day, if I work hard enough, I’ll become one of the top 1%, too.
Okay, that was a little huge.
Virtually all Americans maintain a standard of living above the overwhelming majority of the world-even the poor have TVs and their nutrition problem is eating junk food not the lack of food. And this “oligarchy” if anything was stronger in the past (ie the property requirements for voting).
When you live in Wisconsin?
And as long as the established order was well aware that they could deal with the Martin Luther Kings or they could deal with the Malcom Xs.
I think he got it, too, but was off by a clause. The important part is that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. When government loses the consent of the governed (as a whole), then it is no longer the government and becomes a bunch of strongmen. It is never wrong to resist strongmen and always wrong to resist the government.
In other words, when the government loses the legitimacy to rule by losing the consent of its people, then armed struggle is justified.