Court can order computers dismantled. And I think there are methods for state to aquire property if it can be shown to be a "vechicle of crime". It is afterall the state that controls the monopoly on violence needed to enforce private property in the first place.

I think even with the ordinary phrasing the omegas prediction can be thought to sit in a sealed envelope as the real you picks. You don't think about the problem until then with your own brain. But in a way the contents of the envelope can be deduced from the transparent boxes.

I think it exhibits the same kind of wierdness. It doesn't really make sense to ever have the player choose only the empty transparent box, because the box will only be left empty if the player is predicted to pick both. So committing to not take both boxes means the boxes will be full. It doesn't really mean that the impossible "presented with two empty boxes" scenario is destroyed.

Capital punihsment doesn't help the convict to live a crimelss life where a jail does.

I do take not that jail is described as deterrence and that a proper "no argument to the stick" line would want to abolish that. However if we are going to discourage people with negative consequences jail has less downsides to it than capital punishment.

I do come from a part of the world where rehabilatory stances are taken more seriously and the prison conditions are kept way more orderly (which like takes money). I can speak only for my half on why I approve having jails around and how I would like them to be run. US type prisons are very in line with the will of the voter but I disagree with the popular stance there to handle prisoners.

In a documentary apparently one inmates motive for the crime was to be incarcinated in order to buy their drugs at prison prices instead of street prices. While I understand this from the convicts point of view I don't think that any system that allows this to happen is a good one. While you can't 100% remove them because the smugglers have pretty good incentives to try, if it is too much accepted as a inevitability the countermeasures can be too lax.

I don't think jails main function to be deterrant. Jail can give room for reflection and it can be used to provide a more structured environment. Various interventions are more easily carried out in jail context. Jail prevents further commitment of most types of crime. At least for their stay in jail they will have to carry out a way less crimeful life.

Well, I will rephase. I think pre-meditated killing of another human being against the targets will outside of immidiet self-defence in times of peace should be illegal. That should disinclude capital punishment and allow for possbility of euthanasia. Cops can still gun down gun nuts, but essentially only when they violently resist arrest.

I was thinking of the word "murder" in a more neutral "pre-meditated act of causing the death of another human being for the sake of it" sense. Over what it is legitemate to declare war I leave to separate consideration but I consider it important they be declared. Capital punishment for war crimes I am less worried about althought I am happy and accepting of my countrys stance that its not a valid legal consequene even for them.

Some people would say that it might be considerable for extremely bad crimes but I disagree. I think for example that Norway had adequate and proper consequence for Breivik. Everyone whoms beliefs I have got even a little traction of that favours for a consequence of death for him has essentially the same flaw in logic that the motive of itself Breivik did, that violences solves something or meaningfully communicates something. Argument via stick is not a persuasive argument.

I just mean that I am part of the group that thinks murder outside of war should be illegal. I not a relativist in the sense that for others its negation should/could hold. I think they are wrong and misguided and their reasons for their belief and their stated reasons are insufficient. I could be deluded that everybody things that murder is wrong. but no there are people that genuinely believe and effectively enact that running a country by a few murders is appropriate.

Stane on hate speech that is encouraging and calling for criminal acts is okay to be punishable but purely communicative speech should be allowed. Having a minority political opinion should not in itself be a basis for punishment (and is not sufficient grounds for "political instability" security arguments).

But even if the speech freeness conditions are not perfect I don't think it gives basis to go invade or mess too much with internal affairs of a state. But it does mean for me that it is more okay to treat the countrys offiical stance to be attirbuted as of their opinion on who are in (de facto) power. There are lines of argument in that if the leadership deviates too much from the will of the people they would bother to revolt to revoke the technically illegimately held power. Thus even power illegimately gained needs to be atleast passively accepted granting it a sort of genuine legitimacy. But here arguments about how cost-effective it is to genuinely influence the political direction are strong. If there is a official position and disagreeing with it gets you murdered it does tell what the legitimate stance would be.

I am suspecting taht the reason is that poors are more liekly to commit crimes and using race as a proxy for social-economical status doesn't add anything significant. That is "high-black area-> high-crime area" is a correlation not a causation.

I guess my main emphasis was that police have more readiness to use force against blacks than against whites. The tendency for media to give attention selectively doesn't totally explain it. There are also additional media effects that play a role. A story is more likely to be a news story if it features a white victim as opposed to a black victim. And for example in the recent gorilla story somehow the father that was not on the scene was found relevant even with his past being somehow relevant. A embarassing reason for it is probably because there were details that resonated with casting that person in a villain role.

Black people are searched more often, their treatment while police direct actions towards them is more hostile. a black person doesn't need to exhibit any actual sign of terror such as wielding weapon or be found near a crime scene or anythign like that. Just being black makes police likely to treat you as a higher threat. This is against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". One can argue whether using skin color as part of threat assement is legimate or that it doesn't happen. But most of the time it seems its seen as illegimate and it does happen.

Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal. But I think we don't think we are especially non-murdery but see it as a natural extension on civilization eradicating free-for-all murder. But I guess on other systems the state merely has a monopoly on murder that it can do at its discretion.

While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don't dare face the "fair fight" where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn't as strong an argument to show what the people want.

Maybe its the question of what are the relevant crime statistics. Having heard and read about such a black person committing a serious violence is more likely to get death-sentence while a white gets life in prison. Compared to a general population there are disproportionally more black people doing crimes. However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas. But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people. They also tend to use more serious measures against them. A black person doesn't need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.

There is even the joke of "Well white people can't use the N word but atleast we can use phrases like 'thanks, for the warning officer'". There is reason to suspect that there are a lot of "false positives" of black people being processed by the legal system where a lighter process could have sufficed. Still it gives an order of magnitude that the prospensity to convict blacks for murder and such is weaker than overall prospensity to charge blacks for crimes.

Women and men tend to live in each other proximity and atleast have occasional contact. You don't in the same way spatially mix different states.

There are some effects where for example nurses can have disproportionally female composition. But even in such a setting the nurses might be regularly interacting with doctors which don't have the same kind of gender skew. How the nurses conduct themselfs might have very practical signifcance to possibly male doctors.

However things need to play out rather wonkily if a corporation has employess in two states. And one state can fix signficant laws that don't have any impact on the other state (as they don't hold there). There are some effects where for example some criminals find mexico to be a easy drug production place and the US a handy market for them. But these tend to be less intensive and don't reac tto each other so well.

In meshing together multiple issues there is risk that you think of interactions of phenomena that actually do not interact because they are part of different series of events.

For example genders are way more economically integrated than countries. But genders also usually don't have leadership hierarchies. Usually hypotheticals work by cutting out stuff that is inessential to the central logic of the phenomen making it easier to see and reason about. If you just slap together random mechanics taht might or migth not be relevant its going to be a very unintuitive franksteins of fact and fiction where you don't know which part is which.

There is something to the idea of appriciating how several social effects work together to make systems and complex outcomes. And about discovering social effects that are in effect that are not obvious. But trying to make both at once seems more like a recipe for confusion rather than clarity.