From: dandorry@cnct.com

To: Multiple recipients of list

Subject: Why CP is good

X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0 -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas

X-Comment: The Transnational Radical Party List

Dear Tiha:

In your last note, you made two points that merit a response (and, I might

add, it was a LONG message).

"Equally unfortunately, while it is true that we can't be all executioners, a

society which condones the death penalty makes me into an executioner by

proxy. That is what I oppose. I do not wish to be in that role."

There can be a number of responses to this, but I will mention two:

1. Doesn't society have a RIGHT to force you into that role (if it believes

that doing so is for the greater good)?

2. Assuming, arguendo, that CP CAN BE an effective deterrent to violent crime,

would you still oppose it for moral reasons? And if so, will you accept

responsibility for the elevated violence in society, BY PROXY??

"The question is NOT whether it [CP] is good public policy. As a public policy

it is reasonable to expect that its quality will hover around the average of

all public policies i.e. neither terribly bad nor quite satisfactory."

Are you suggesting that ALL public policies are inept, ineffective, or

useless? In America the standard of living is quite high, and it is so

precisely because of "quite satisfactory" [even quite good] public policies.

Be that as it may, what ELSE could it be other than a public policy decision?

Your answer: a moral choice. But in a diverse society, with millions of people

of all moral persuasions, how does one organize society except to employ

utilitarian conceits about "what's best for us all"?

"We all know that it [CP] is not sufficiently deterrent to relieve us all from

living in fear of crime. A much more sensible measure to ameliorate that fear

would be a ban on guns, elimination of early paroles &c. You KNOW that."

No, WE all know no such thing; but if you mean by "We" the Radical Left, then

I would agree. Of course, the Radical Left does not the world make (not by

far). No, your numbers are small, and as I continue this dialogue, I can see

why. So, what compelling statistics do you have to support that statement?

Upon what (apparently hidden) irrefutable logical premise do you base such a

claim?

And remember: guns are not necessary but only sufficient to commit a crime.

That is, if you take away the guns, that will reduce the number of violent gun

crimes, not necessarily the number of violent crimes. Nevertheless, i say this

not because I oppose gun control (i wish there were no guns at all), but

because introducing extraneous statements like that clouds the issue.

CP can work, if given a chance to work!