🚀 go-pugleaf

Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote:
>
> > Lugnut <ausbiz@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > >
> > > nenosed@apex.met.au (Ned Latham) wrote:
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > > Gaols are a bad idea because they disseminate criminal knowledge.
> > > 
> > > ... but..... isnt that the same reason they gave for wanting to censor
> > > the internet?  Knowledge is power - it just depends on the ideals of
> > > the person/govt/whatever who has it.
> >
> > There's a big difference between the two: criminals in gaol are a closed
> > society, exchanging their knowledge secretively; on the internet, everyone
> > can see what's being disseminated. If you know what the crims can do, you
> > can take measures against it.
> 
> ... but we *do* know what crims can do, and still the system beats us
> when we do catch them.

I presume you're talking here of the big boys: the ones who have enough
money for fancy lawyers and their special pleadings and/or enough influence
to affect the judicial process.

Censorship won't touch those people, ever.

As to those lower on crime's social ladder, gaol is a more effective teacher
of criminal knowledge and attitude than the internet will ever be.

>                         Jail seems to be a school for apprentice
> crims, as is juve.  You cant stop them talking to each other,

Precisely my objection: see above.

>                                                               so whats
> the answer?

1. The Law must be just, so that it is *worthy* of respect.

2. It must be administered justly, humanely, and evenly.

3. The system should be aimed at motivating twho commit crimes to reform.

>              The govt wont spend more money and make jails like
> 'school' or a 'retraining' camp.  It seems that either jail is meant
> to be a nasty time for those charged with offences,

Yep.

>                                                     or its a chance at
> rehabilitation.

Not the way the system is at present.

----snip----

> > What sort of medical grounds? Note that I emphasized ``training'' above.
> 
> There are some people who would not take to that kind of life :-)
> Those who are *delicate* of psyche and body.

Products of the nanny society. Some assertiveness training might be
beneficial for them.

And I'm not happy about the assumption I feel behind your phrase
``that kind of life''.

> You dont want to ruin the life of a person who cant handle being
> yelled at/dressed down in front of mates for continual mistakes.

I've never believed or accepted that malarkey about the ``necessity''
of breaking people down in order to make soldiers of them. There are
better ways to do it.

And this NS is not about making soldiers, so much as training citizens
who are *capable* of defending their country.

----snip----

> Also those with real medical problems that would affect them in any
> job should be exempt.

*Any* job?

----snip----

> If we had NS now, they would be training for East Timor

If we'd had for some years the kind of NS I have in mind, and since
``that kind of life'' actually does suit many people once they've
experienced it, we'd have a large pool of volunteers ready for
battlefield training.

We'd be able to field volunteer forces comparable to those we fielded
in WW 1. And more quickly.

>                                                          - the WW's
> are off to that location now, and we havent sent them to a zone of
> strife you many years. If the need is there, they *will* be sent.

You're assuming that this NS would be managed the way selective conscription
was in the sixties. That is most definitely *not* what I propose: rather,
the nasho is a trainee, and only a trainee. (S)he is not a conscript,
and is not liable for active service.

> > > And when does 'interrupted' mean 'ruined'?
> >
> > It's the amount of time spent in training. While you're doing that, you're not
> > at school or your job or whatever.
> >
> > When does that mean ``ruined''?
> 
> If you are not free to take up job offers/committments/ then you may
> loose an advancement/job.  Same on the home front. Not there for
> important family events, etc.  It puts the NS people at a
> disadvantage. What can NS offer to compensate?

I don't understand this objection: the NS ``disadvantage'' applies to
*everyone*; in other words, it's not a disadvantage. I repeat:
Allowing exceptions means introducing/perpetuating privilege.

----snip----

> > Tell her this: she can't afford to forgo it.
> 
> She has to buy a new computer, and then pay for access on her pension.
> Whats *more* important to her is that she have money for the current
> campaign, and then she will see what she can do.

Put her in touch with someone who can build a computer from parts bought at
the computer fair.

----snip----

Ned

-- 
To reply, cut out my nose and make the met a net.