We should abolish LWOP & the DP

Both life in prison without parole, and the death penalty are vile
punishments.  Everyone should be eligible for parole after ten years,
but parole boards should consider the nature of the crimes comitted,
as well as prison record and interviews, and murderers paroled after
10 years would be few and far between, if any at all.

But it would at least give all prisoners an _incentive_ to clean up
their act.  At least they'd have a ray of hope, even if they didn't
get paroled.  I guess philisophically, it's a nice idea.  It's a nice
philosophy.  The reality is that they would sit and rot in prison in
any case.  So I'm not really sure if it matters.  But it is a good
philisophical argument.  More importantly, it is a step in the right
direction towards a more humane system of criminal justice.  The
question is - if that more humane system of criminal justice will lead
towards a more civil and humane society (i.e. less crime).  My
argument, is that (if anything is said to be "wrong") punishment is
wrong.  Crime (regular crime) is wrong as well.  Violations of other's
persons, bodies, and properties is "wrong" (if anything is wrong). 
However, my point is only a point if we get rid of crime.  If there is
no crime, then my argument that punishment is wrong or unecessary is a
point.

Of course, tell it to the victims.......

I don't know why I even care that much I guess I just believe in the
sanctity of all human life.  Everyone has an unalienable right to
life.  Of this we can be sure.  When we're alive we're alive, and when
we're dead we'll realize life after death, or worry about death then. 
The question is if we have an unalienable right to freedom.  My
argument is that ultimately we DO have an unalienable right to
freedom, and that it is the work of "God" to be moving towards that
right.  Obviously we don't often see people changing themselves into
animals and things, so it is obvious that most in this world are
imprisoned in some way - unless they are doing and getting what they
_want_.  Then I guess they are truly free.  Personally I like the body
I have, and don't wish to change into animals at the moment.  Doing
something against someone else's will is a failure to acknowledge
them, and is "wrong" (if anything can be said to be wrong).  And you
should be most concerned with others because others are then only case
in which "righteousness" and "morals" matter at all.  So it is obvious
that the higher moral authority favors turning the other cheek so long
as you are not imprisoned or harmed yourself.

Dicking back is kind of pointless.  Monetary restitution is the only
thing that makes any sense (and the only way to quantitatively make
things better for a victim).  But then, tell that to a victim.  Maybe
we should do extensive victim interviews to get a better idea of what
it's like and what their feelings are.  If murder is legal then
victims would be free to murder the murderers in any case.  Without
some system of crime and punishment with some measure of authority,
punishments would vary wildly.  Some criminals would go free, while
others would be tortured.  At least with our present system we may see
that punishments for the same crime are more equal, the only standard
by which punishment may be called "fair."  The philisophical question
is if punishment should be lighter than, equal to, or harsher than the
crime.  For in our present system of criminal justice, the punishments
are harsher than the crime for some crimes, and lighter than the crime
for other crimes.  Should we have the death penalty for stealing?  For
jay walking?  Or should we have 'an eye for an eye, ' or should we
have light prison sentences for all crimes, or no punishment at all? 
What right does anyone have to punish someone?  What right does anyone
have to violate another's person, body or property?  No right at all,
for it is war and power makes things happen.  If this causes us to
loose all faith in righteousness, (and God?) then we must look deeper,
and consider that right makes might, and that all have an unalienable
right to life and freedom.    Does the murderer or the kidnapper prove
this statement false by comitting their crime?  Did the murderer's act
of violence "prove" that he won or was "right?"  How do you explain
violations of other's bodies, person's and properties, if all have an
unalienable right to life and freedom?

Unfortunately these lofty ideals hold little sway in our temporal and
vulnerable world.  We are men as children building sand castles.  What
is great and valuable to us, may be nothing to someone else, and
easily destroyed.  Our lives can be ended quickely, but it is obvious
that while we are alive, we are alive, so our unalienable right to
LIFE is obvious as well.  When we are as dead I contend that we will
_still_ find ourselves alive, and still observe our obvious and
unalienable right to life.  However our unalienable right to freedom
is much stranger.  For as castles can be destroyed, they can be built
again, better, more glorious, perhaps never the same.  And every
moment of life is different than the last, and entirely unique.  I
said two paragraphs ago, most in this world are imprisoned in some way
- unless they are doing and getting what they _want_.  Then I guess
they are truly free.  So we see that getting what you _want_ is the
only measure by which freedom means anything.  And this supposedly
unalienable right to freedom can be tested every day; every moment. 
Are you getting what you want?  Are you doing what you want?  Are you
where you want to be right now?  Is everything the way you want it to
be at the moment?  Is there nothing that peturbs you?  Only then can
it be said that you are "free."  Freedom is a concept which represents
truth, and you are not free in concepts but in moments which are life.

We can observe only the past, and our apparent observation of the
present is really only an observation of the past as well.  It is
impossible to change the past.   And yet knowledge of the past tells
us where the present is, and where the future is going and may be.

Thus the question arises, what is the cause of what happens?

Your will is excercised through choice, and choices are yours. 
Through your will you have the power to make anything you want at all
happen.  See where the past was, and make the future where you want it
to be.  The world is yours.  There is one two caveats, do not violate
the free will of others, and do not tell anyone you're God.  When
other's have violated you, it was always in the past.  You must live
in the moment from here on out, making every choice count, and the
power of your will shall grow stronger.  All will be well now.  Live
conciously.  Live awake.  Do the right thing.

XXXXXXXXXXx
Thus we see, if we become as God's there is no reason to violate
anybody.  The only problem is when such faith is swayed.
XXXXXXXXXXx

Thank you.  Good night.

other thing is a) life is hard enought without a drug habit b) the
world is impoverished enough without war

So, given that the world is impoverished, and that people lack, that
some may argue that we are in a state of hell and entirely fucked,
should we _serve_ other people.  Is there such an argument to be made?
There are two philosophies.  Death and Life.  Hell and Heaven.  Prison
and Freedom.  Which is to prevail?  Only one is possible.  If one is
true, the other is negated.  If one is not negated, the other is
false.

So which philosophy is to prevail?  That is the central question of
the last paragraph.

(the argument that we should serve people being dependent upon the
philosophy of lack).

philosophies are meaningless, and yet lead to heaven or hell.

But for there to be faith in a philosophy it must NOT be negatable.

To make a point of clarrification.  Every choice you make has multiple
effects.  You must weigh the positives and negatives of those effects,
and make the choice which affords you the most positives.  Ultimately
you could make choice (be a cause) which had only the positive
effects, and none of the negative effects.  We will work towards that
day of true miracles, and use this here stated point of clarrification
to keep ourselves from loosing faith in our philosophy.


(but if the past is real, can't anything be possible hmm...)

And the concept of the moment is yet a concept.  A static prison.  A
dead used thought.  Glorified only through idolatry

does not everything become tautology?

There must be a way to be free.