Quote:
Originally Posted by Brujah
How about capital punishment?
|
I have to square my views on that with my views on self-defense. I think that a person can use deadly force in order to protect themselves and others from someone that poses an immediate threat. Obviously this decision must be made in the moment, by the people involved, and the merits of that decision judged later by their community.
By the same token I'm somewhat on the fence as to capital punishment. If a community feels that a convicted murderer, comprises an ongoing threat to that community, do they have the right to "self defence", rather than the obligation to take care of that person for the rest of their lives? I'm not sure, but I also don't think it should be a federal issue, but rather a state level decision.
As you may notice, I differ a lot of power to the states, as does the constitution. The reason for that is two-fold. Firstly, it is that the smaller the area, and population, that a government represents, the more representative of that population it is. Conversely, Central, Federal governments with control over huge areas and huge populations are very very difficult to influence on the local level and therefore not nearly as representative.
Secondly leaving the majority of the power to the states, as was granted by the 10th amendment, creates a "free market" of government styles, whereby citizens can move to the state that most represents their point of view, and wants and needs for their own lives. States would "compete" for people that they wish to live there, and I'm a firm believer that competition in a free market creates better products overall. In this case the "product" would be government.
.