Lockerbie bomber freed

[The Doctor]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/south_of_scotland/8197370.stm

I'll have to be honest, I completely disagree with the decision to let him go. It's makes me so bloody angry. I can't wrap my head round how someone who murdered hundreds of people is let out. Yes, the man is terminally ill and yes I feel compassion towards his condition as a human being in pain. But he brought this on himself. Those who choose to committ atrocities must understand their responsibility for their actions. No-one knows what will happen to them in the future. If someone undertakes such a horrendous crime, they may fall ill later in life and die in prison. But they brought that on themselves. Those who were killed had no such choice.

He should be left in jail to die. I look at that sentence and it seems so cold and dispassionate. I'm not happy that I find myself capable of such harsh thoughts, but I have to be honest, it's how I feel.

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

I have no problem with the decision because I don't hold with punishment for the purpose of vengeance under any circumstances, but only with punishment as a deterrent. And I don't think letting someone out when they are about to die is going to encourage more people to commit such crimes. Certainly not young and healthy people. The only people today's decision might cause to commit a crime they wouldn't otherwise have committed are people whose fear of being in prison at the moment of death is the one thing deterring them at present.

Punishment can't undo a crime, and I always feel sad when I hear victims saying that their pain is lessened by the suffering of the one who hurt them. To me, the need for vengeance is part of the uglier side of human nature, and something that makes us more like our enemy.

On the other hand, acts of compassion and forgiveness (where they don't put innocents in danger) always please me, even when they are towards the unrepentent and unappreciative. We should not let the criminal set the standard, and let their own lack of kindness set limits on ours. It's easy to be nice to nice people, but much more admirable to have pity on those who haven't earnt it - it's the difference between a fair swap and a gift.

That's my view, anyway!

Martin

[grahamthomson]

I disagree with the decision. The families of those whose lives were taken perhaps didn't want vengeance, but they certainly would have wanted justice.

Still, we'll be wanting access to the oil though, right?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

What is the difference you see between justice and vengeance, when justice is in the form of punishment?

Justice is giving a victim back something that was stolen from them, or being paid fair compensation for a financial loss. How can satisfaction at the suffering of a criminal (and the criminal's family) be seen as a just compensation for the loss of a loved one? What sort of payment is it? It's just suppressing grief with cruelty.

If I lost a loved one I wouldn't want to be compensated with another's suffering - especially if it involved not only the suffering of the murderer, but also the murderer's family. That would be, for me, an insult to the deceased.

But then, the way I see it, the criminal's ruined soul and missed chance to do good rather than evil in life is a greater tragedy than the good life cut short. I'd rather that I or one I loved was on the plane that crashed than that I or one I loved was the bomber, even if they got away scot-free. So I can't help but feel compassion for them - because they are worse off in my eyes, whatever we do to them, even if they deceive themselves otherwise. (And their family is worse off than the victim's family.)

(Polonius: "My lord, I will use them according to their desert."
Hamlet: "God's bodykins, man, better: use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.")

Martin

[Gav]

To look at it from a logical standpoint, the suffering of a criminal (for lack of a better term) shouldn't alleviate the pain of the victim's family - but that clearly isn't how it works. Obviously anyone who commits a crime should be punished appropriately.

In the case of the Lockerbie bombing - many had someone taken away from them, which isn't something that can be compensated with a financial transaction. Like the many families who had such an intangible, precious thing taken from them - perhaps they feel the criminal should have something intangible or precious taken from them - such as their freedom? Would that be considered Justice?

Okay, I'm going to get some juice.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

What about the families of victims who campaigned for the man's release and are pleased by it? Whichever decision is made, some of the victim's families would feel it was just and some unjust. But you can't take a poll of victims' families to decide what constitutes justice. Which relatives would get to vote? You couldn't have one vote per victim, because some families may be divided on the issue. Also, you would get ridiculous inconsistencies - you could have two identical crimes committed by two different murderers, one of whom is released because their victim's family finds peace by showing compassion (and considers that to be justice for them), and the other of whom is kept in prison because their victim's family wants satisfaction through revenge.

But because different victims and different victims' family members have different religious, moral and philosophical values and find satisfaction in different - sometimes contradictory - outcomes of judicial processes, it is impossible to define justice based on their feelings. It has to be done dispassionately by society as a whole, deciding on its values. If as a society we believe in vengeance/retribution on those who are no longer are threat even where it serves no purpose of deterrent, that should be the rule (even when it causes distress to the victims, who favour mercy). If we believe in mercy and compassion towards those who are no longer a threat and whose punishment serves no purpose of deterrent, that should be the rule (even when it causes distress to the victims, who favour revenge). And it should be applied consistently, regardless of political considerations.

(PS If an alien super-race (I'm trying to keep deities out of this thread) came to Earth to judge humanity as in Blueshift's Mosaic piece, would we want them to judge us according to our deserts, or show us compassion and mercy that we don't deserve in the eyes of them and our victims (the species we exploit and drive to extinction and those of our own kind in less developed nations and future generations who suffer as a result of our consumer society)? Who amongst us is not currently going unpunished for some suffering that we have caused others?)

Martin

[The Doctor]

I admire your ethics, Martin. I really do. You're a better man than I.

I see the Scottish Parliament has been recalled to 'debate' the issue. Rather late. Surely the time to do this would have been when the decision was being made? I just saw on the news Alex Salmond supporting the decison. Another reason not to vote SNP then!

-Ralph

[Shockprowl]

Martin is a better man than I am as well. I think the murder shouldn't have been granted freedom. Murders, evil people who get caught, don't deserve freedom, they don't deserve to walk amoung decent people. No cause is worth killing inocents. He's evil, pure and simple, and he should have died in prison.

[kayevcee]

This... is going to sound rather cynical, at least by my standards.

We, as a nation, are never as aware of our own sins as we are the sins against us. That goes for every country. When a Palestinian rocket kills an Israeli civilian, it's a tragedy. When an Israeli airstrike flattens an apartment building full of people, it's a footnote to the death of a single suspected terrorist therein. If you live in Israel, that is. In Palestine it is, naturally, the reverse. Every one of 'our' civilians that dies is an outrageous atrocity- every one of 'their' civilians is an unfortunate accident, collateral damage or, worse yet, 'just desserts' and fitting punishment for people living in the same country as those who wish us harm.

It was this way of thinking that led to the Lockerbie bombing. If it was the Libyans, they attacked a plane full of Americans because a recent attack on Col. Gaddafi's home had killed his son (among others) and they wanted revenge. If it was the Iranians, they had just lost a passenger airliner themselves (shot down by a confused US pilot who was decorated rather than court martialled for his actions) and would have been out for revenge. Not surprisingly, none of this was brought up when police leave was cancelled across the entire country and TV screens and newspapers filled with images of demolished houses and debris stretching for miles. All that mattered was that our people had been killed. We were shocked and hurt and angry, feeling exactly what the aggressors who ordered the attack, whoever they were, felt when the order was given. A cycle of blind revenge could easily have kicked off that would still rage to this day- look at Israel and Palestine. But it didn't.

I'm glad Megrahi was sent home to spend his few remaining days with those who love him. Maybe I read too many Transformers comics as a kid but I always bought the Autobot line about compassion being our greatest strength- it also makes it very hard to gather enemies against us.

The greatest recruitment aid any terrorist can ask for is a crater or a pile of debris that used to be a home or a school and say "look at what they did to us!" Well look what Scotland did on Wednesday. We showed that our need for retribution wasn't as great as our need to provide comfort to a dying man. The Americans are pissed off, and Westminster is spitting bullets, but how much ill-feeling do you think there is towards Scotland in Libya right now? Less than there was at the start of the week? I'd say so. Maybe with this one small act of compassion we've reduced the chance that someone else will launch such an attack on us in the future.

Or maybe we did it for the oil rights, or to sweep the looming appeal under the carpet before something embarassing emerged from it. The group in this I feel most sympathy for are the families of the deceased who were looking forward to Megrahi's now-cancelled appeal in hopes that the truth might finally come out about the frantic political juggling going on behind the scenes. Now we will probably never know.

Basically, innocent or guilty I'm glad Megrahi was sent home but I remain suspicious of the reasons. Sorry if the above wall of text is a bit incoherent- I've been working on it for some time but I'm still bushed and my brain is only getting more addled with time. If any particularly malformed thoughts stand out please highlight them and I'll try to explain what I was gibbering about in the morning.

-Nick

[dyrl]

I agree with Nick and Martin.

I would also add something else to Ralph:

I think it would be more productive to focus your anger at the crime of the Lockerbie bombing on the governments that created the wars that led to such a thing happening.

Much as we might like to look at things like this in isolation - they are never isolated incidents.

Many people confuse this view with appeasement or with "justification" for terrorist acts and crimes.

But that's not true and that's an argument that is kind of rigged along phony lines since governments are the ones who get to decide when an act of mass murder is "legal" (aka "war") and when it's not legal (aka "terrorism" or "the killing done by the loosing side of war X").

I think that the anger people feel towards terrorist like the Lockerbie bomber is a conditioned anger - an Orwellian "two minute hate" where you get to feel good about yourself by hating that one guy who was convicted of bombing an airplane without having to think about the entire sequence of events that led up to it.

Whenever you take the time to explore that sequence of events, you suddenly discover that that "one guy" was probably just like you insofar as he was able to feel outrage at henious crimes committed against innocent people and take that outrage out by commiting a henious crime himself because he became so blinded by hate as to see people collectively - that is "the Americans are all to blame" or "the Jews are all to blame" and to dish out punishment collectively and arbitrarily.

Naturally, better human beings are those who, despite all of the bad things happening around them, don't resort to violence to solve the problem - since by doing so they only become part of the problem.

Still - this guy is going to be dead pretty soon, and his last days on Earth are not wonderful. He spent many years in jail and now will spend some time dying at home. In my view, there's nothing outrageous about it.

But it does give politicians a stump to stand on and moralize before voting for more funding for Predator drones to drop bombs on goat herders and their children in some far away land.

The outrage at this event is misplaced: the blame lies squarely with governments and politicians, not people who get traumatized by war and manipulated to do other peoples' dirty deeds.

Need I remind everybody that Kadafi himself was recently greeted in Italy, given a State Banquet, and treated with great kindness?

This is the way governments operate - and they get away with it because they know that the people will always be moved more by emotion than by knowledge of history, historical memory or the ability to think independently.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Pete, you say "I agree with Nick and Martin," but you don't.

Nick and I are saying that we should all look at ourselves before condemning others. You jump straight in and condemn others - not, in your case, criminals who commit the sort of crimes you don't commit, or other nations to blame in contrast to your own blameless nation, but, in your case, you direct your anger at a component of society you play no part in, namely government, and so wash your hands that way. It's just another manifestation of the same tendency to direct one's self-righteous anger at someone one can separate from oneself, in order to feel justified and blameless - whether it's demanding the suffering of a murderer without recognising one's own fault in desiring another's suffering, or one religion condemning all others because they have strayed from the true religion, or atheists blaming religions in general for all the world's ills, or those with religious values putting the blame for unhappiness in the world on materialism, or the west blaming China for climate change because it is industrialising now, or China blaming the west for climate change because of the west's historically high emissions, capitalism blaming socialism for restricting individual freedoms, socialism blaming capitalism for encouraging individual selfishness, the current government blaming the former government, the next government blaming the current government, everyone blaming everyone except people like themselves for the credit crisis, older generations blaming the kids of today, kids blaming the establishment, the establishment blaming the parents, and just about every instance of humans pointing the finger at other humans and saying, "_That's_ where the root of the problem lies. It's _them_ who need to change, not me."

But it doesn't. The root of the problem is never entirely with the other. The roots of all human problems lie in human nature, and therefore in all of us, because we are all human. Even those who have no opportunity to contribute to the problem because they are completely isolated from society still contain the potential to do so, because they are human.

You may point the finger at politicians. Politicians in turn wish they could do what they really believe is right but (in western democracies) their actions are constrained by all kinds of pressures from voters, the media, business, NGOs, the civil service, their political opponents, other countries, and so on, all pulling them in different directions. And half the time, when the public kicks up a fuss about some moral issue they never back it up by voting on moral grounds at the next election, even when fully conscious of the facts.

_Nobody_ is running the show. The public buy media that gives them sensational stories rather than balanced reporting, because human nature results in those appetites for outrage. The media pander to those public appetites and don't report things in a balanced and sober way because human nature results in them seeking to maximise their profits and only allows those who play the outrage game to prosper - the media that report objectively just don't get bought, because readers don't want to read them. Politicians play the game that gets them elected, because those who don't play the game won't get elected. There are plenty of would-be politicians who would run the country differently, who won't get into power because the nature of the media and the nature of the voter won't let them. Everyone - voters, journalists, politicians - does what they can within the constraints imposed by the other two, and by external factors. I mean, look at Obama now, fighting as hard as he can to do what he promised to do on health - whether you agree with his policies or not - and coming up against the constraints of the world.

If only everyone in the world realised that nobody was in control and to blame for the way the world is, but that it is all a product of the collective tide of human nature, and focussed more on their own responsibilities than on taking satisfaction in blaming "them over there" - whoever "they" are - things might start to improve.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well - I actually think we do agree, but the only problem is the definition of one word: "government."

By "government" I did not mean and do not mean, say, the administration of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, or the Scottish parliament, or any particular institution.

Rather, by "government," all I mean is "the State" or "the Power Structure" or - to be even clearer: The system and organization of people who have a monopoly on the use of violence and can do so legally.

And they/this system IS to blame. It is the practical manifestation of what you describe to be human nature.

The entire description you wrote up about what forces constrain politicians from doing good is EXACTLY true - and it is the exact definition of the State, of the political system, of politics as such.

On the other hand - look at the forces that push and pull on - say- shopkeepers, farmers, taxi drivers, toy dealers, clothing factories and everyone else who DOES NOT have the legal right to use violence:

It seems that suddenly, when people don't have the legal right to use violence against others, then they have to actually CONVINCE others to do the things they want done. They have to advertise, offer bargains, think up some way to offer goods or services efficiently, cheaply and promptly.

If politicians were bound by the same rules that regular people are - namely if they did NOT have the right to use violence or the threat of violence against others to get their way - then they would have to think up ways to get people to agree with them rather than forcing people to do as they please.

Naturally, democracy is merely the majority tyranizing over the minority unless it is restrained by some higher moral principle - namely the principle that theoretically makes democracy just: the idea of human equality. If we are all created equal, with equal rights, then we should have equal say over who gets to rule us, and what the laws are.

Unfortunately, in practice, democracy is usually just the passions of the majority versus the passions of the minority - as you say.

So again - we actually do agree.

On a case by case basis - just as with all situations in life - you can find people in circumstances where they must make a decision on something and we can say that they decided justly or unjustly - and yes - it's best to look at each case in particular rather than applying a general rule of thumb.

Nevertheless, it does go without saying that given how bad human nature is, then it doesn't really help that there's this institution in human society called government or the state (or however you want to call it) which by definition has the power to amass weapons of mass destruction, unleash them on other people, and give priviledges to one class of people over another.

As to my having nothing to do with government - that's not entirely true either. I've worked in what is roughly called "the public sector" for a good five years and, probably just like you, have tried to do my best to do what is "right" and what is in the public interest.

The problem is - as I see it - that no matter how good intentions are - the way that the economics of public sector function makes it impossible to actually truly DO what is right and in the public interest.

Why?

Because the public sector is ultimately financed either through coerced taxes or through inflation/government debt (which is like a future tax, or a tax on the poor/working classes who have to contend with lower purchasing power of their wages due to the currency being devalued by government debt).

The fact that the public sector is financed via money that will come its' way INDEPENDENT of what it produces for society means that the public sector tends to cost more and do less.

And this is true independent of how many public spirited individuals work for it. It is a fact of human nature.

So if we're going to acknowledge the omnipotence of human nature over all of us, then I think it would be best if we didn't pretend that the public sector is magically capable of economic calculation.

When people stop buying from a store or stop frequenting a restaurant - the income of the institution falls and this serves as a signal to the owners that demand is changing, that something isn't right, that the institution needs to adapt to serve the needs of the people in order to regain income.

But public institutions and the public sector never get to experience this. They just ask for more money fro the budget and usually get it. If they fail to spend all the money they get, they won't get as much next time around, so at the end of the year they like to invent things to spend their surpluses on (when they have surpluses) independent of whether or not those things are "necessary."

This is how the public sector functions and this is why it is inefficient. Without exposure to a market system where real time market signals are being sent by consumers of goods and services via their voluntary purchases rising of falling, no institution, and no set of intelligent, benevolent people will be able to know HOW to economize scarce resources.

This is a fact of life.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Then it sounds like you're putting the blame on a faceless institution and leaving _all_ individual humans blameless.

You make fair points on the deficiencies of the public sector. But you fail to acknowledge the deficiencies of the private sector - how companies work against one another rather than with one another, putting money into advertising that doesn't really inform the consumer simply to shift business from one company to another company, and putting money into research that they want to keep to themselves for commercial advantage, resulting in duplication of effort because people have to develop things independently rather than pooling and sharing all human knowledge. And consumers are as self-centred in their purchases as they are in their votes, putting their own finances ahead of the morals that they claim to care about when getting outraged at what's in the newspapers. Consumers are driven by human nature, and voters are driven by human nature. They are equally uninformed, short-sighted and driven by their own perceived short-term interest, because concumers and voters are the same people. As long as this is the case, neither the private nor the public sector will do what's right. Real time market signals or referenda won't help if they are uninformed and based on short-term self-interest.

If everyone looked to their own faults - made ethical and selfless choices when purchasing goods and services, and if companies behaved altruistically rather than greedily, sharing all knowledge freely with competitors, using advertising merely to convey factual information, and giving those unable to pay (e.g. those unable to afford medical insurance in America, the unemployed, single nursing mothers, retired people unable to afford their heating bills, and those in Third World countries in need of vaccines) goods and services free of charge, then the private sector _would_ be the self-sufficient force for good you imagine it to be, and the public sector would be superfluous. If voters made ethical and selfless choices when voting, then the public sector would also work as it should. No government would go to war unethically because every government that did would be voted out at the next election, and they'd get the message that the people cared more about right and wrong than oil, etc. Likewise, the people could fix the faults in the media if they changed what they demand from it - namely, to be impartially well-informed of the facts. And they could relieve a great deal of distress in poorer countries by giving more to aid charities instead of spending it on luxury items.

All sectors of society are flawed because people are the same in all sectors of society. You can try any system of government or none at all, and it won't change the world much, unless the people themselves change. Personally, I think the human tendency towards competition rather than co-operation is the main source of the problem in both the public and private sectors. Imagine what we could have done if, instead of human nature requiring a competition between superpowers to drive the space race, we had instead an innate compulsion to pool resources and co-operate as single species to get to the moon. Sadly, we're just not wired that way.

But then, as a very uncompetitive person (which is why I don't follow sport and could never be motivated to work in the private sector, or the political side of the public sector) I am at risk of doing here what I'm urging everyone against, namely putting all the blame on people unlike me.

Except that I do spend a lot more on making myself comfortable than I give to charity, so I stand self-accused.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well, I think there is one difference you still tend not to see - namely, for all of the "uninformed" choices made in the private sector, the costs of these choices are always born by those making them.

True, there are externalities, but there are externalities in public sector choices as well, without the corresponding benefit of costs being born by those making the choices.

I do agree with you, however, that the "uninformed consumer" and the "uninformed voter" are one and the same person.

But to my mind, insofar as the uninformed consumer bears the burden of his ignorance alone, when he goes to vote, he suddenly shifts costs onto all of us through his uninformed vote.

Result? Don't let people vote - or at least don't let them vote on everything.

I would go back here to the notion that the right to vote comes from a higher moral principle that cannot be voted on - namely the idea that all people are created equal with equal rights.

It is this equality that gives each person the moral right to a say in what the law is and who rules.

It is also this equality that forbids any person from making a claim to have more rights than the other fellow.

When a majority of people claim to have more rights than a minority - they are breaking the moral principle that gave them a right to vote in the first place, and in this case the minority has a right to resist the majority in defense of their rights.

I think the problem you are grappling with here is broader than competition vs. cooperation.

Competition is actually a FORM of cooperation, because in most activities, people MUST work together to achieve a common goal - even though they are competing with one another at the same time.

I'm not even venturing the argument that competition somehow spurs productivity in a sort of "race to the top" - because you are right - it depends on the case; sometimes people need to work together and not look to their short term desires.

But just like we previously had a different understanding of "government," I now think we have a different understanding of "competition."

Take, for instance, people who work together in any private company. No doubt, some or most of them would like to advance in their jobs; to be promoted, get a higher wage - to "move up." But independent of their personal desires - on a daily basis they must learn how to work together with other people that they might not necessarily like.

This is a form of cooperation that is born from the competitive desire to get ahead. I do agree that it is not a perfect manifestation of love and friendship - but does it have to be?

Love and friendship and benevolent, pure cooperation are things reserved for lovers and friends - and certainly you would not argue that all people should love all other people equally?

That is to say; people need not love their neighbor as they would love their wife or their brother - it is enough that they respect their neighbor, that they are polite, courteous and mind their manners.

If and when they get to know someone closer, they can become more friendly and perhaps more willing to love in a benevolent fashion.

The crux of the problem, however, is the problem of calculation.

All pursuits, whether of private sector consumers or public sector workers/voters are ultimately subjective valuations. Even if we acknowledge that there exists an objective morality, and I think you and I would say something like this exists, then the day to day practical interpretation of that morality is a matter of subjective valuation. We might all agree that there is something generally called right or wrong, but how we apply these notions in different situations will varry.

The big difference between private sector choices and public sector choices is in how reality verifies the subjective valuations of acting individuals/institutions. In the private sector - there is immediate, daily verification by way of sales performance. In the public sector - NO such verification exists.

Now - of course the private sector verification system is imperfect - that is a moot point since nothing in the world is perfect. But at least one exists - at least it sends a constant stream of information to private sector actors (be it in their capacity as consumers or producers or whatever) and helps people make adjustments on the margin.

In the public sector - no such system exists because income is - as I noted above - generated through taxation or inflation (aka through coercion rather than through voluntary contribution).

This is not only immoral (since ultimately coercing subservience and money out of people goes against the idea that people have the right to govern themselves and not be subjects), but is also simply inefficient - since the public sector which collects these taxes or generates inflation to pay for its' activities never has any opprotunity to actually see whether or not what they do and how they do it are actually either in demand, done efficiently, might be done better etc.

As to the space race - I always have been and still am of the opinion that IF there must be government, and IF there must be public sector spending, because, then at the very least it would be best to make sure that government and the public sector don't spend money on war and instead spend it on less destructive enterprises.

The problem that no one seems to realize is that when the government is allowed omnipotence, then there will always come a time when that omnipotence is abused.

You mentioned Obama and healthcare. I'm sure Obama would have an easier time getting health care passed if he made the argument that he would take the money saved from exiting Iraq, Afghanistan, and the 160 odd countries that the United States now occupies to some extent militarily and taking that money and putting it into healthcare.

But Obama is continuing those parts of the Bush policy which were the most ruinous and has not changed anything. In fact, I would go so far to say that McCain would probably have been a better President because he would not have been so popular. I am personally surprised that Obama is getting such a free ride just because he is so popular. McCain might have been compelled by adverse public opinion and a Democratic congress to actually end the wars...

But...then again...that's likely wishful thinking. At the end of the day, I believe the USA is no different than the Soviet Union was in the 70s and 80s. America will fall under its' own weight and right now nothing can stop the decomposition of that country - just like the USSR, it will be an economically bankrupt military giant with half its' population unemployed and its' currency worth nothing. That's a process that's just going to have to play itself out since nobody and nothing in the country seems capable of reversing it.

In any event, I still contend that we basically agree. I think our differences stem from differences in interpretation, but certainly we are addressing the same exact problems and we seem to see the same problems. We just differ on their causes and how to solve them.

The real problem is that the majority of people don't even see the problems, let alone want to take the time to think about them.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Aug 23, 2009 6:05:45 GMT dyrl said:

Well, I think there is one difference you still tend not to see - namely, for all of the "uninformed" choices made in the private sector, the costs of these choices are always born by those making them.

No they aren't. Companies exploit farmers and factory workers to different extents. Their products vary in terms of environmental impact and animal welfare. They vary in terms of what research they put their profits back into, whether they support philanthropic initiatives, etc. The costs of choices made by consumers are borne by people across the world and far into the future.

Yes, the same costs can arise as a result of choices made in the public sector, but because public sector workers aren't paying for their choices with their own cash they are less likely to let personal interest override those considerations to a morally disproportionate extent. As a consumer, I sometimes let price disproportionately override ethics in my purchases. If I worked in an environmental consultancy, company profits would pressure me to compromise the integrity of my work. (I know this from ex-colleagues who left the public sector.) But as a public sector official I have no personal or corporate pressure to compromise my advice, and base it purely on what I assess to be correct.

The only thing that spoils it is when short-term political considerations enter the mix, i.e. personal interests driven through politics by lobbyists/donors/voters/consumers - who all _do_ have personal financial interests, and therefore will give disproportionate weight to their own costs over those who have no voice but are/will be affected.

Love and friendship and benevolent, pure cooperation are things reserved for lovers and friends - and certainly you would not argue that all people should love all other people equally?

On the contrary, I would argue _exactly_ that. It is what the two religious figureheads I most respect (Jesus Christ and the Dalai Lama) ask of us. All people are of equal worth, but human nature (biology, evolution) results in our perceiving those close to us as of greater worth than those further away. This is what allows us to tolerate war and injustice, and act as consumers blind to the impacts of our choices on people who are just as precious as our loved ones, but from whom we dettach ourselves.

It is an impossible ideal, to love all humans equally, whether they are close to us or not (or even born yet), and recognise that their suffering is as real as those of our loved ones. I will never be able to do it. But it is the correct ideal to strive for.

In any event, I still contend that we basically agree. I think our differences stem from differences in interpretation, but certainly we are addressing the same exact problems and we seem to see the same problems. We just differ on their causes and how to solve them.

Is that all?

So we disagree on whether the public or private sector is more inefficient and more morally faulty in its core principles. We disagree on whether the problem/solution lies primarily with institutions and how society is engineered or with choices made by individuals within whatever system exists.

But we agree that it is morally right to let terminally ill criminals out of prison to die with their families.

The real problem is that the majority of people don't even see the problems, let alone want to take the time to think about them.

Or perhaps that they see the problems but don't think they are to blame or that it's up to them personally to solve them.

Martin

[dyrl]

Companies exploit farmers and factory workers to different extents.

Agreed. Companies exploit people to the extent that companies enjoy special privileges from government that put them at an artificial advantage over others. If we abolished all laws that gave special privileges to companies, companies would not be able to exploit anybody.

In a free market, a company is only able to exist so long as people voluntarily pay for and desire its' goods or services.

But unfortunately, in the real world, where you usually have mixed economies, one of the elements of business competition is using government to help your interests by using mechanisms of legal coercion to your benefit.

The solution is to get the government out of business, which would mean that business would have to do what the people truly desired, rather than what they could get away with doing at the people's expense thanks to the use of government privileges.

Yes, the same costs can arise as a result of choices made in the public sector, but because public sector workers aren't paying for their choices with their own cash they are less likely to let personal interest override those considerations to a morally disproportionate extent. As a consumer, I sometimes let price disproportionately override ethics in my purchases. If I worked in an environmental consultancy, company profits would pressure me to compromise the integrity of my work. (I know this from ex-colleagues who left the public sector.) But as a public sector official I have no personal or corporate pressure to compromise my advice, and base it purely on what I assess to be correct.

But the problem is that what public sector workers "assess to be correct" has no basis in the real world where resources are scarce, need to be economized, and prices provide information about supply and demand (that is always variable) that in turn helps private sector actors make decisions that are effectively productive.

By focusing on prices, I am not "merely" suggesting a simple "profit-loss" arithmetic. I am not merely suggesting that one individual's short term interests are "the truth."

All measures of economic calculation are variable because their basis (human desires and capacity) are also variable. The only thing that is fixed is the fact of scarcity which compels us to economize our infinite needs and wants in finite terms and in finite units of time.

Prices are real-time signals to market participants which help us make decisions. They are by no means definitive, but they are a barometer of where we might be heading and where we are coming from.

Profit and loss, understood fundamentally and not as they are defined by law and the legal concept of accounting (that is for tax purposes) are actually purely subjective.

A person who never made a penny and instead spent his whole life preaching religion to the poor could consider himself wealthy and, according to his subjective view, he makes a daily profit - that is to say he uses his time an resources in the most profitable manner possible - because he does what accords with his notion of what is profitable.

The problem with the public sector is that assessments of what is best are skewed by the lack of data. This is the classical problem of economic calculation that afflicts all forms of socialized decision making. If we have a public institution charged with, say, building affordable homes for the needy, and we also have public institutions charged with producing brick and mortar or wood to build those homes - the question arises: how much brick? How much mortar? How much wood? How many windows? How many units do we produce?

"Need" is infinite. Do we arbitrarily designate that everyone whose income falls below X per month is therefore entitled to a home? And if we do that, then do we not produce an artificial incentive for those who would like a free home to forgo higher incomes for a time in order to qualify, thereby expanding the pool of "needy?" And once we set down to building these houses - how do we know, since we are not charging anybody anything, how much money we have? Again - are we arbitrariliy "given" a budget by the State? On what basis do they calculate this budget? On the current prices in the housing market? On the basis of prices looked at from a 100 year perspective? And just who decides how many houses need to be built? Do we do a head count and say - ok - there are four million needy people so we need to build four million houses? Are all of the houses going to look and be exactly the same? How about maintanance costs? What will those be? Who will pay for them? What about design? Who decides what universal design is suitable for houses for needy people?

There are millions of questions that can never be answered by central planning and by the public sector due to the public sector forever having a lack of real market information upon which to base its' decisions.

Thus, what you see as a virtue - namely your assessments not being rooted in any financial interst - are actually a vice. Whatever visible benefits come of them are overshadowed by the opportunity cost of their having come about at the expense of some reality based market need.

It was the same when I worked in the public sector. It has nothing to do with whether people are intelligent or not, or good or not, or benevolent or not. Waste and inefficiency are systemic because it is impossible to economize.

To go from this contention to the notion that we ought not "limit" ourselves to "mere" economic calculation is kind of unwarranted, since my argument the whole time is that to the extent that economic calculation is an important component of decision making, the fact that the public sector has no capacity for it is a detriment. This does not ipso facto mean that all decisions in human life need to be made on the basis of a dry "cost-benefit" scenario - especially since cost-benefit, looked at outside of how the tax office defines it, is actually very broad and fluid.

On the contrary, I would argue _exactly_ that. It is what the two religious figureheads I most respect (Jesus Christ and the Dalai Lama) ask of us. All people are of equal worth, but human nature (biology, evolution) results in our perceiving those close to us as of greater worth than those further away. This is what allows us to tolerate war and injustice, and act as consumers blind to the impacts of our choices on people who are just as precious as our loved ones, but from whom we dettach ourselves.

It is an impossible ideal, to love all humans equally, whether they are close to us or not (or even born yet), and recognise that their suffering is as real as those of our loved ones. I will never be able to do it. But it is the correct ideal to strive for.

First of all: Why is "an impossible ideal" therefore "the correct ideal to strive for."

I could just as well say that the best thing would be to live forever, experience no biological degeneration, and have one million dollars in your bank account - forever. Oh - and add to that that it would also be nice to be able to travel at the speed of light and visit far off worlds.

Then again, many things that were long thought of as "impossible" are quite possible nowadays - so one ought never be so dogmatic as to label an ideal impossible. If Man can dream it - he can do it.

The problem here is this:

Did Jesus go around with a gun and say "worship me, pay me, or go to jail" ?

No.

Did Ghandi build a nuclear arsenal and drop atomic bombs on thousands of innocent people to convince them that democracy was the best political system?

No.

So - how can someone claim to be in favor of Jesus and Ghandi yet at the same time support the State?

Jesus was pretty clear that we should give unto Caeser what is his (nothing), and unto God what is His (everything). Ghandi was an opponent of the state and advocated non-violent revolution in the face of an oppresive colonial state.

I can't quite see the connection between Jesus, Ghandi and the contemporary Welfare-Warfare state as being somehow synonimous.

Finally - Jesus advocated Agape; a very unique concept of Love. He did not advocate that we love complete strangers the way we love our brothers or wives. The parable about loving thy neighbor as you would thy brother is a plea to be truly good to eachother - yes. A plea for universal love - true.

But nowhere does Jesus say "Love your neighbor like your would love your brother and if you can't because human nature won't let you, then we're going to insitute an income tax to equalize wealth distribution and we'll keep those Roman soldiers who crucify me later on the payroll to enforce it."

In short: Jesus and Ghandi make pleas that human beings can either accept or refuse in accordance with their own consciounce.

This is a crucial difference between religion, which says "please sacrifice and give to the poor and stop thinking about yourself" and government which says "you must do these things."

So we disagree on whether the public or private sector is more inefficient and more morally faulty in its core principles. We disagree on whether the problem/solution lies primarily with institutions and how society is engineered or with choices made by individuals within whatever system exists.

But we agree that it is morally right to let terminally ill criminals out of prison to die with their families.

Well - I would add to that:

See... whenever a story like this one comes up, about some horrible criminal being freed, I always think - what about the stories about not-so horrible criminals still sitting in jail?

I don't know the statistics for the UK or for Europe in general, but to my mind, the US has the largest prison population on Earth. The vast majority of people in these prisons are non-violent offenders.

Laws are on the books that criminalize narcotics that shouldn't be on the books. And the whole jail system is, in my view, pretty much as effective and moral as lobotomies (which people used to think were humaine ways of treating excentrics).

I just find it hard to get all worked up over one guy who is dying of cancer and may or may not have really had anything to do with killing hundreds of people getting released when this guy is little different from the authorities that released him.

In other words: I apply my criticism of government to the system of penal justice just as much as to any other government institution. In short: jails should also be privatized.

But mainly they need to be emptied of non-violent offenders.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Aug 23, 2009 11:18:41 GMT dyrl said:

So - how can someone claim to be in favor of Jesus and Ghandi yet at the same time support the State?

I said the Dalai Lama, not Ghandi, but never mind.

I support 'the State' because I see it as the best available mechanism for doing good (i.e. for loving my neighbour), despite its flaws. I don't believe I personally could do as much good if it didn't exist. It is also a place where the job is to serve society in general rather than a particular company's profits. We obviously disagree and will continue to disagree on this point, due to our different experiences of the public and private sector.

Jesus was pretty clear that we should give unto Caeser what is his (nothing), and unto God what is His (everything).

I consider that a questionable interpretation - his mission on Earth was certainly not to overthrow the Roman occupation, and he was no more a capitalist than a socialist - he was concerned with motivation, not mechanism. But this is not the thread for that debate.

But in any case, unlike Caesar, the UK public sector exists to serve the people, and in my opinion, despite the distorted perception in the media, the people generally get value for money in return for their taxes* - more than they would from the private sector, anyway. But I know you believe the opposite to be true.

*except in the field of foreign affairs, where competition overshadows co-operation and leads to opposing efforts by different nations, the solution in my view being to abolish the concept of competing nations, which is what Europe has begun to do

Jesus did however say that the most important commandments were to love God and love your neighbour as yourself, and defined 'your neighbour' through the parable of the Good Samaritan, as a person as unrelated to you as you could imagine in that period in history. Nothing took precedence over these commandments. And the Dalai Lama urges you to consider all living creatures as if they were the reincarnation of your mother - which they may well be.

Anyone who signs up to these philosophies should do what they can to exercise them as best they can. If you think it is through work in the private sector, strive to love the world through your work in the private sector. If you think it is through work in the public sector, strive to love the world through your work in the public sector. If you think it is through work in the charitable sector, strive to love the world through work in the charitable sector. If you reckon academia offers the best opportunities to do good, do good in academia. If religious life, do it through religious life.

I can't quite see the connection between Jesus, Ghandi and the contemporary Welfare-Warfare state as being somehow synonimous.

I didn't mention Jesus and the Dalai Lama in order to make that connection, but only in response to your sentence, "You would not argue that all people should love all other people equally?"

As for welfare state and warfare state, I won't defend the latter, only the former.

We've gone incredibly off-topic, and strayed onto issues we've argued about in other threads, so I apologise to everyone else who's had to read all this. Any chance we could steer this back onto the penal system without making any more generalisations about the public and private sector, Pete, what do you reckon? You know, simply talk about who should be in for what crimes, and not about who is running the system? Can we do it if we try very hard? And I'll try again not to bring religion into it, which also has its own thread...

Martin

[dyrl]

Pete, what do you reckon? You know, simply talk about who should be in for what crimes, and not about who is running the system?

But you yourself admit that it's hard to have this discussion abstracted from context. If it were just a simple matter of "man bombs plane" then sure. But as others have mentioned in the thread, it's a tad more complex.

Besides, I STILL think we actually agree because in the end, I think that if you and I both looked at each and every issue as an individual case, and then set aside our idealized view of how things ought to be, and looked to what was possible, then we would likely come to the same or very similar conclusions.

Why?

Because in reality, the political debate does NOT look like what is taking place between you and me. In reality, the political debate actually looks very different: it is not a battle of ideas, but rather a battle of interests that always push ideas away.

People who believe that politics needs to be idealistic are few and far between. People who believe that politics needs to serve their particular interests are many, and often times they have a knack for turning people of ideas against eachother.

That is to say, politicians like to look at people of ideas as what Lenin called "useful idiots." I personally think that people of ideas should not let themselves be blinded by differences in ideals to the point where they are exploited by people without ideals and turned against one another.

If honest people could come together to work out compromise positions on a number of issues, and it is possible I think, then what are generally percieved as "special interests" or low and crass interests would have less sway in how things are run.

As to particular points - I would just say this: I can agree with your view of the state if we defined the state as being a public body that is self-governing and predicated on voluntary choice.

But the grander and more centralized the state, the farther away it is from the people, and the less say the people have in the affairs of a state, the less they will train themselves to be informed citizens of that state, rather than docile voters.

Second of all - there is no way to gauge your statement that you think people get value for their taxes. How can we know? In a market situation, we know people get value from their purchases because they make them voluntarily. I would even go so far as to defend what you blame as non-factual advertising, since "facts" are not always what are important to people when making consumer choices (whole industries are, in fact - 'scue the pun - predicated on values - the fashion industry, the car industry..) Heck... I just bought a car and couldn't really care less about all the bells and whistles. I just wanted an automatic that could go fast, had a good internal sound system and wouldn't cost me an arm and a leg for gasoline, which is why I got a mazda that runs on gas (rather than petrol)... Other than the fact that the thing is certified as meeting basic technological criteria to be on the road - I don't know anything about what's under the hood. And I don't need to know. Just like none of us need to know absolutely everything about everything else to make informed choices. This is because producers out for long term profits will in the vast majority of cases provide a product that is too superior for us to even fathom - and by the time we manage to learn about what makes it superior - something better is already on the market.

Finally - I do agree with you about abolishing competition amongst nation-states (not amongst nations - those can go ahead an compete - soccer tournaments, F1 racing, the Olympics - harmless wonderful competitions between nations that help us learn something about other people - good stuff).

However, competition between nation-states is always bad because states by definition have the "freedom" to use violence and to lie to advance their aims. Imagine if your local grocer opened a Grocery Spy Agency and sent agents to other stores to lace the competition's food with poison, to steal their records, to bomb the houses of the management, and so forth and so on - not a pretty picture by far.

Yet this is exactly how states operate. Legally. In full view. The state does every immoral thing that is forbidden to men; and men feel best when they commit their immoral acts in the name of the State and "for the public good" and - most importantly - in accordance with "the law."

Anyways - about the penal system and how crimes are punished - just to get back to the subject at hand and do as you wish:

I tend to be an advocate of the teaching of works like A Clockwork Orange. I know it's a distopia, but I think it's ultimately pretty true.

First - we need to distinguish between violent and non-violent crime, and abolish all laws that penalize the latter. Taking drugs should not be a crime, and selling them should also not be a crime.

This would go a long way in unburdening the prison system, putting otherwise non-violent and productive people back on the streets and also reducing crime, since legalized narcotics would be as cheap as cigarettes and alcohol are now (well, cheaper if we didn't tax them) therefore taking away the motive of vast riches to be had for engaging in illegal drug dealing.

Of course, to de-criminlize drugs would also mean that the police state would suddenly loose a big cut of its' drug profits and hundreds of jail wardens would find themselves without inmates to terrorize - so there will clearly be some resistance to this idea, no doubt led most vocally by the defenders of "the children" who, we are meant to believe, will all be dying of heroine overdoses taken at Macdonalds if drugs are legalized - which is rubbish.

That leaves violent crime and violent criminal offenders to be taken care of.

In this area, I wonder whether the current penal system makes any sense at all.

Let's start with murderers - the most grevious offence. They are locked up for life.

So - how does it make for justice to tax the victims' family to pay for the food and bord of the murderer? Wouldn't it be better to put the murderer to work, or better still to work and also to rehabilitation?

Remember the movie with Robert DeNiro - The Mission? There was a fellow there who committed a murder and was taken by the Jesuits to toil for the good of indigenous peoples in the Amazon; teaching them Religion and art and at the same time learning religion and art himself.

I would favor a system that put people to work doing good rather than putting them in a small room with a toilet and making murder victims' families pay for the murder's food and board for the rest of their lives.

As for crimes that are not as severe as murder - robbery, fraud and the like - well- there are numerous forms of restitution that would make more sense than jail, I think.

The real problem here is that it is easier just to lock people up and throw away the key.

Finally - I suppose there is the problem of people who are "beyond redemption" as the saying goes. But surely these cases would be psychopaths?

I dunno. I guess I just don't like the current system. It's like infrastructure. As a driver, I have to learn and abide by traffic laws and make sure my car is fit to ride.

But the government has no obligation to make sure my car has high ways to drive on and roads without potholes.

So the end result is that I have to be responsible for everything and pay taxes for infrastructure which is falling apart. Drivers are responsible for vehicle safety - but the government is never responsible for maintaining the roads and no politician ever had to be hauled off to court for traffic accidents that happen on account of the horrible state of infastructure.

I guess I speak from expierience here in Poland, where the majority of the country doesn't even has side-walks, and you daily see situations which are just horrible - like people being forced to walk on the streets, narrow lanes, the lack of lanes, potholes all over the place...

But if I cause or am part of an accident - it's my fault. It's never the fault of the government who monopolized the roads, who doesn't allow for private roads, private highways, private initiative in infrastructure, and then does not fulfill even basic obligations and fails to build sidewalks for people...

But still charges eveybody 40 to 60 percent of their pay in taxes

To me - that's bonkers...

And off topic...again

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Thankfully, I don't find anything in your last post that is off-topic and that I also feel the need to respond to. And I agree with some of it.

HEY EVERYONE, YOU CAN COME BACK NOW, WE'RE BACK ON-TOPIC AGAIN! (Anybody still reading?)

Aug 23, 2009 18:03:44 GMT dyrl said:

That leaves violent crime and violent criminal offenders to be taken care of.

In this area, I wonder whether the current penal system makes any sense at all.

Let's start with murderers - the most grevious offence. They are locked up for life.

So - how does it make for justice to tax the victims' family to pay for the food and bord of the murderer? Wouldn't it be better to put the murderer to work, or better still to work and also to rehabilitation?

Remember the movie with Robert DeNiro - The Mission? There was a fellow there who committed a murder and was taken by the Jesuits to toil for the good of indigenous peoples in the Amazon; teaching them Religion and art and at the same time learning religion and art himself.

I would favor a system that put people to work doing good rather than putting them in a small room with a toilet and making murder victims' families pay for the murder's food and board for the rest of their lives.

One thing I heard while getting a haircut the other day made no sense to me whatsoever. It was, "Make 'em join the army and ship 'em off to Afghanistan." Yeah, right, just what we need to win the hearts and minds of civilians, send them people we don't want on our streets, carrying guns on theirs. (Also a huge insult to the majority of professional, disciplined soldiers who do their duty as well as they can, whatever you think of their leaders.)

But I'm not knocking your idea in principle, Pete. It could be the way to go, and might redeem some souls. But would it work in practice? And would it cost less to supervise them than to keep them in prison? Would it result in more violence because it is seen as cushier than prison, and so some deterrent value is lost? I have no idea. Has it ever been tried on a large scale?

What do others think (if they are still reading)?

Martin

[grahamthomson]

Well that was some heavy reading for a Monday morning! Valid points, for sure, and it was interesting to read everyone's viewpoint. And I can see it from all sides.

But, I still think it the wrong decision. Not because I am not compassionate, far from it. But, I don't think "dying in a UK prison" is a cruel way to die. Our prisons are relatively humane (considering their purpose). There's no torture, no death penalty, no stoning or hand cleaving, and prisoners are treated with respect and dignity. In fact, there are much worse living conditions in this country than prison.

Another thing that comes to mind is all the other prisoners who are currently incarcerated with terminal illnesses. Is our justice system being unnecessarily cruel to those not yet freed on compassionate grounds?

I see "vengeance" as personally going to violent lengths to get revenge on a perceived wronger-doer. I don't agree with vengeance. At all. "Justice" on the other hand, to me, is a carefully considered means of punishment agreed upon by many (such as our judge/jury systems). Society needs the concept of justice both to feel safer as a community. (Society doesn't need vengeance.)

When justice has been compromised, as in this case, then in my mind I don't think it a good thing. Our punishment system, generally, is already a lot more compassionate already than other country's (including the USA and Libya). I doubt there'll ever be a "perfect" justice system.

[Deleted]

I think it is wrong to let a mass murderer out of prison. He caused death to so many people with no thought for anybody yet when the boot is on the other foot he gets a get well soon card which doubles up as a get out of jail free card. It's this reason why there is so much crime on our streets. The criminals know they will get nothing more harsh than a slap on the wrist so thats why they do it. First we let out Ronnie Biggs then the Lockerbie Bomber who next? Ian Huntley?

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Some questions for Graham/Gav/Ralph/Shockprowl/Zudobug:

1. Graham says that in our prison system, "There's no torture, no death penalty." But having terminal cancer _is_ torture and death penalty. It's just not human-inflicted. Presumably you would agree that contracting prostate cancer and being let out of prison to die is worse for the person concerned than staying healthy and living another thirty years in prison and dying quickly and painlessly in extreme old age, which is the punishment we had planned for him before nature intervened. So why do you consider the former to be too good for him? Is it that it was nature rather than his human judges who inflicted the cancer on him? Why does that make any difference? Can victims' families only get satisfaction if the punishment is human-inflicted? Isn't it better when nature inflicts suffering on the guilty and saves us getting our hands dirty? Or would you change the justice system so that we _deliberately_ gave terminal cancers to people who committed mass murder _and_ kept them in prison to die - if you believe they deserve a worse fate than Megrahi is now getting? If so, it would be among the most cruel forms of capital punishment in the world.

2. As you know, Megrahi protests his innocence, and some of the victims believe him to be so. (Here are some of the questions raised over the conviction: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8211596.stm .) If we kept him in prison to die rather than allowing him to die at home with his family, and we later discovered that he _was_ innocent, we would of course regret keeping him in, as we would regret convicting him in the first place. Perhaps there is a 1 in 3, 1 in 10 or 1 in 50 chance that he's innocent - I have absolutely no idea, because I'm not an expert in the case. How high would the odds have to be for you to say, "Better let him out to die just in case he is innocent?" Are you confident that the odds of his innocence aren't that high? Or do you have enough confidence in the justice system that it is enough for you that he was convicted, to treat him as if he were guilty for certain?

3. I think all prisoners, whatever their crimes, should be allowed to die with their loved ones at their sides (in prison if possible, but out of prison if the family can't be brought over, as Megrahi's elderly mother could not), and also that they should be allowed out briefly to be at the sides of their dying spouses, children or parents. It's _not_ a treat. It's _not_ a jolly. It's something that I don't believe the justice system has a right to infringe on, not least because it is not only the guilty who is affected by it. Would you deny a dying innocent the presence of their mother, father, child or spouse as they die, because their mother, father or child is being kept in prison by us? Would you deny a bereaved innocent the right to be at the side of their dying mother, father, child or spouse because we insist on keeping the dying person in prison, and they are unable for whatever reason to visit?

I look forward with interest to your answers.

Martin

[Gav]

I'll definitely have a bash at answering those questions Martin (or at the very least, describing how I feel about them) - it just may take a while to do because I'm not very articulate. Hehe.

[Andy Turnbull]

I'm with Martin. (Rather surprisingly my ex- Army dad was as well) He's going to die so why not show some compassion and allow him to die with family.

What sickens me about the whole thing is the media circus going on around it and the American reaction to it all. Given the fact he had to drop his appeal in order to get this release and all along he's stated he was innocent. It's pretty plausible that he was indeed a scapegoat for the affair, allowing Libya to start moving back into political circles once he was found guilty.

The welcome he got back in Libya was in poor taste and angered a lot of people and justifiably so.

As for the Americans. Well those who lost family and friends in Lockerbie I can understand being outraged and aggrieved and have no quarrel with their reactions whatsoever. As for the rest of them - well I do think they should shut up. Their righteous indignation is quite aggravating given that their country has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism for quite some time. Hell they've shat on every nation on this earth with their money. Even our "special relationship" didn't make us immune as they ploughed money into the IRA for long enough.

Let's not forget that their unlawful killing of Gaddafi's adopted son in response to a terrorist attack, they blamed on Libya when in fact it was the main factor in Libya becoming involved in acts of aggression against the west and America and Britain in particular.

Andy

[karla]

who wants a bet he'll live for years

[dyrl]

To my mind, some of the families of those killed on that airplane do not believe he is guilty. And there has been controversy as to whether or not he is or isn't guilty.

As for the reaction of the Libyans - why do we assume they were cheering on a murderer? Maybe they were cheering on a person they saw as having been framed by the west?

See - here's the problem I have with buying into the outrage:

A few years ago, Kadafi was a "terrorist" and a "tyrant." Now he's a legitamite head of state.

The west, and more particularly the USA, ostensibly went to war first in Kuwait, then in Iraq, to "bring democracy." In both cases, and up to and including to this very day - they were allied with undemocratic states like...oh..Saudi Arabia.

Now, I am not dogmatic proponent of democracy. I believe in human rights, in individual rights, and sometimes tyrants do a pretty good job of guaranteeing those, or at least not trampling them. In any case, democracies have been known to be equally warlike and abusive as monarchies or tyrannies.

But what I don't agree with is politicians manipulating regular people for their changing political agendas.

And I don't believe that this trial, or most other trials, have anything much to do with justice.

Pete

[Deleted]

The news is now reporting that the government released him as a kind of trade-in for their oil. The government has naturally denied this but considering that they have lied to us many times in the past year or so I'm not so sure.

As for his innocence maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Either way he could never have committed such an attack on his own and there were certainly others involved. The whole thing stinks of cover-ups and if he was innocent then it was the right thing to do to release him but if he wasn't some people may begin to smell a rat especially if he suddenly begins to feel well again soon after his release.

[dyrl]

I would also remind everyone that a short time before the Lockerbie bombing, the US Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airplane, killing 200 some odd folks on board. To this day, the US has not apologized, and Vice President Bush at the time said that "I don't care what the facts are, I will never apologize."

This was back when Iraq was America's ally and Sadaam Husein was the progressive, enlightened Arab despot who was to be praised because he was heading a secular government and a movement towards secular, Pan-Arabic rule, while the Iranians were evil for having a religious government - or more accurately for not having a government that was going to be a puppet of Washington any more.

Now, the notion has been ventured that it was actually Iran that was behind the Lockerbie bombing, not Libya directly, but Iran - as a way of getting back at the USA for taking down its' own civilian airliner.

In any event, I think Zudobug is right when he writes abou the British government: "considering they have lied to us many times in the past year or so I'm not so sure."

I would just add that the lies actually strech back far long than one year or so. Iraq and the whole weapons of Mass Destruction debacle is just the most recent big lie to be exposed so quickly and with such force.

Western governments - well.. ok - to be fair - government - has been lying to people for time immemorial. Government is actually sort of a factory of lies.

This goes for people like Kadafi as well, of course. But the thing about Kadafi and other dictators that makes them respectable in my eyes is that they don't lie about what it is they do: they are despots, they don't hide behind claims of humanity, democracy, liberty, the common good and saving the whales. Their cruelty and crudeness is on display for all to see.

Western governments, on the other hand, have this terrible hypocracy and duplicity in them that comes with the turf called "democracy."

The latest hypocracy is - excuse my French - going ape shit over the release of this poor fellow with cancer who likely had little or nothing to do with the Lockerbie bombing while kissing Kadafi's ass, buying his oil and killing Iraqis and Afghanis in the name of a democracy that no Western power would dare ask to be implemented in Libya, Saudi Arabia, Etheopia and numerous other countries whose dictators and despots happen to be CIA installed and therefore perfectly civilized, acceptable nice people.

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Sept 1, 2009 18:35:41 GMT dyrl said:

Government is actually sort of a factory of lies.

Sigh. I just can't be bothered arguing with you about this any more, but you are terribly misinformed about the nature of the main part of the work of government, at least in this country, so I can't stop myself from responding. It's not your fault, but the media's, which ignores everything that happens as it should, and the Internet, which is equally obsessed with focussing on the bad exceptions. And yes, it is also the fault of those in government who are guilty of the small proportion of output that is lies and scandal. Government press releases in general are much more factually accurate than the tabloid media, Internet chat rooms and commercial advertising. But unlike government, the public keep trusting those other channels no matter the amount of factual inaccuracy that is shown up in them.

At work I come across from time to time correspondence from members of the public who have prejudices about government in general similar to yours, and who make assumptions about specific issues starting from those prejudices. Their perceptions of the specific issues of concern to them are generally factually inaccurate, because of their assumptions about government in general, and they won't believe what we know to be the truth when they are told it. It is very frustrating and demoralising.

I accept that if no-one in government ever lied, the perception that government always lied would not exist. But because government occasionally lies*, people get the idea it does as a general rule.

*In my work I've never had contact myself with any government officials who put out lies to the public, and I'm well-informed about my area of work.

The trouble is, we live in a world where, if one person believes a hundred conspiracies theories are true, and another person believes they are all rubbish, and it turns out that ninety-nine are rubbish and one is true, the person who was ninety-nine percent wrong will go away feeling that their conspiracy-believing view of the world is vindicated, and the one who was ninety-nine percent right will be thrown into doubt.

Here's a good unprejudiced bit of the Internet for getting facts straight and de-bunking both false public perceptions and government spin.

But none of this is on-topic. Sorry, folks.

Martin

[dyrl]

Well, to be fair, I think that part of the problem is not so much that government "lies" as rather that it is incapable of "telling the truth" due to the nature of the endevor, and I agree with you that blame for this state of affairs rests with the public at large, and not with some nefarious "evil people" who happen to always populate the halls of government.

The public, for example, does not like to hear things like "we must raise taxes to fund all the programs you desire."

likewise, the public does not like to hear things like "if you want less taxes and less deficits, you're going to have to accept that we won't be able to maintain these programs you support."

The public has a track record of rewarding politicians who make promises that are impossible to keep.

Politicians who try to use reason, who are moderate, and who are prudent, are never rewarded in the poles.

This goes beyond whether or not one supports bigger or smaller government. Few sane people support inflation, currency devaluation, economic depression and the loss of innocent human life in war.

Yet these are the effects - the "side-effects" if you will of policies that the public overwhelmingly supports - policies life mass deficit spending combined with low taxes, ever-expanding government programs and war with ever new "villains du jour."

There's an old saying that democratic government is just a reflection of the people; and if the people are corrupt - then the government of the people is also corrupt.

The problem, however, ultimately comes down to accountability.

In the market, if a business lies, it looses customers. Even if a business isn't lying, it is almost always fatal when there is even a suspicion of lying. A business must then spend real resources to clear its' name or face the prejudices that go against it. I individuals working in a business lie, they suffer the consequences - being fired. If they were innocent, good workers who got canned unjustly - then the institution that canned them suffers the loss of a good worker.

But when government lies - it sometimes does so as a matter of policy (the vast majority of diplomatic protocol is based on lying and never actually letting people tell one another what they really think, then of course there are lies told as part of warfare). Finally, there are lies told in the interest of manipulating public opinion whether for winning ellections, gaining support or causing ones' opponents to loose support.

As for the media ignoring "everything that happens as it should" - I take it that by this you mean that they only report the bad news, and always "spice it up" to sensationalize things a bit?

In a sense - yes. But I and people who think like me could make the same charge; and I notice that all sides of the political divide routinely attack the media for reporting things biased or for not focusing enough on this or that.

In the end, I think it's actually impossible to talk about "the media" as if there was any such coherent whole anymore. There is such a vast variety of news outlets, on television and on the internet, all competing with one another and all with track records for better or worse. One can give examples of zany internet-based stories as well as stories which were propaganda and lies in the mainstream press. More often than not, I think, the vast majority of stories are written "on the fly" and not much attention is given, except to the deadlines...

Be that as it may, what you call prejudice, I would call healthy scepticism. When we go shopping for a car, or when we meet a new person, we always have a bit of healthy scepticism in us just to prevent any mistake. Trust is built slowly, but surely. Incremental steps are taken to establish mutual understanding. Failure to respect one another results in people not being able to get along and not building trust with one another.

Sadly, when dealing with government, the equation is different. When I am called into the tax office and audited, I certainly can't tell the truth. I can't tell these people that I think what they do is evil, I can't point out that it goes against the principle of the seperation of church and state that they've gone and hung up a bible verse on the wall to justify the income tax, and I certainly can't count on sympathy from them if I tell them that I really need my tax return in 25 and not 60 days because I'm hard up for money to live off of. Naturally, whenever I'm hard up for money and tell my suppliers that I'm going to be late with payment, I get loads of understanding - because they are willing to be flexible since in the long term they know they'll get their money. They'd rather be flexible and keep a business partner for the future than be cold and alienate a business partner.

The government has no such compunction. They don't even accept the argument that it is in their interest that I stay in business so I can pay their taxes. No - because in reality, there is no direct link between the pay of the people working in the tax office and the success or failure of business that are taxed. Their inhumanity could drive half the economy into bankrupcy, and they would not loose a penny of their paycheck since it is independent how much revenue they bring into the state coffers.

So - you're right. It's not exactly true to say that government is a factory of lies, since that implies an evil intent or a malicious intent.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that government is systematically geared against honesty and truth because it pits interest against morality rather than making it necessary to exhibit the latter in order to serve the former.

However, in the context of foriegn affairs; terrorism, Lockerbie... well - I can't really see how one can view the history of Western involvement in the Middle East over the past few decades and not see that the Orwellian nightmare is alive and well. We have always been at war with Oceana you see. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were our allies? No - that never happened. That is now in the memory hole. They have always been evil monsters. Gadaffi was a terrorist before handing over some useless nuclear junk that he got on the black market and becoming our friend? No - he was always a fine fellow, you see.

Whether or not it is out of willfull ignorance of recent history, evil intent, or some kind of financial interest on the part of those able to access the power of government for their aims and therefore not requiring the voluntary contribution of customers in a market - these things have been and are taking place. And this Lockerbie incident is just another grand occassion to raly public passions against something OTHER than at what really matters.

Pete