CA anti-death penalty measure qualifies for Nov. ballot

[Free Palestine]

I'm not confident.  The pro-state-sanctioned-homicide crowd will probably put out a slew of scare ads that will make people not want to vote for the measure.

It's sad that California is supposed to be so modern, yet executions still take place.

[Free Palestine]

So it hasn't officially qualified yet, but it looks like we'll also have a 3 strikes reform on the November ballot. It's probably got a better chance of passing than the death penalty repeal, although voters did reject a similar Proposition several years ago. The 2010 Republican nominee for Attorney General supports the Proposition.

3 strikes reform would probably save significantly more money than the death penalty repeal. Arnold opposed it. He certainly did quite a lot of fiscally short-sighted things that came around to bite him in the ass.

The law that says if you steal a bike three times you get locked up forever, right?  That's such an incredibly stupid law, and I hope it's eliminated.

[Free Palestine]

Governments shouldn't murder their citizens.  Citizens should murder their governments.

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

[Free Palestine]

If I were in California, I would vote to keep it. I am very confused on the death penalty. I don't know if I support it or oppose it.

Opposing it would be the libertarian thing to do.

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

Stupid and crazy people are generally considered sapient, unless you are Peter Singer.

This.

I say "sapient" to preclude responses of "hurrdurr what about feetuses."

[Free Palestine]

Well, I'm an anarchist, so...

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

So governments aren't sapient to you, I take it?

Well, government isn't a sapient individual, as it isn't an individual.

Shocking. I wasn't aware of that. *facepalm*

FallenMorgan specifically said that he wanted citizens to "murder their governments." You can't possibly murder an institution, you can only murder people. You can abolish, end, or reform  an institution, but you can't murder it. In order to "murder" a government, you'd have to murder the people who make up that government. From Morgan's argument, it sounds like he wants citizens to murder their legislators. If he meant otherwise, he should have used less extreme and more socially accepted language. By his logic that sapient individuals have to right to life, but legislators should be murdered implies that he doesn't think legislators are sapient.

     It's a figure of speech, you see.

Not one I've ever heard.

IT WAS A JOKE, GOSH

[Free Palestine]

I believe that every sapient individual has a fundamental right to life, something that no government can rightfully take away.

Only the sapient?  (I admit I had to look it up.)  So stupid and crazy people get no such right?

Anyway, by that standard you'd have to oppose a government using deadly force to oppose a military invasion.

Stupid and crazy people are generally considered sapient, unless you are Peter Singer.

This.

I say "sapient" to preclude responses of "hurrdurr what about feetuses."

I knew that that was your reason, and I've asked you this before:

Why should sapience be the deciding factor in determining one's right to life?

Well, fetuses aren't sapient (neither are infants), but it's actually more of a matter of the fact that a fetus is dependent on another's body.  In addition to the fact that it isn't sapient.