Do you support the Death Penalty

[John Dibble]

Yes, though it's application should require a heinous crime and enough solid evidence to remove any reasonable doubt of innocence.

[John Dibble]

Yes, though it's application should require a heinous crime and enough solid evidence to remove any reasonable doubt of innocence.

How can a libertarian support the use of the death penalty?

There's no requirement in libertarian philosophy that requires a libertarian to support keeping or abolishing the death penalty. Like abortion, it's at least partially an issue of personal morals and the Libertarian Party has no official stance on the subject.

My personal view is that it is the only way to truly remove a very violent and dangerous criminal from society so that they will not pose a threat to anyone. You could put such people in prison for life, but this will not necessarily mean they can't cause any harm. Often such people can and do harm prison guards, nurses, etc. as well as their fellow inmates who may include non-violent criminals. (ideally non-violent and violent criminals would be separated, but unfortunately that isn't always the case) High ranking gang leaders who have been imprisoned on multiple life sentences still somehow manage to direct their gangs from a prison cell. Though rare, there's also the chance of escape. Theoretically, you could lock them in solitary confinement for life, but this still involves guards, nurses, etc. having to interact with them occasionally which can put them at risk. There's also potential mental and physical health issues associated with solitary confinement, so it could be construed as cruel and unusual. (personally, I think solitary confinement for many years is much worse than dying)

To me, the first goal of a good justice system is to protect the people from criminals. Punishment and (where applicable) rehabilitation are secondary. I hold no particular love for the death penalty, and again I stress that it must be applied only in rare situations, but I do feel that it's use is unfortunately a necessity in those situations.

[John Dibble]

True, but similar justifications could be made for any expanse of government power.

True, which is why as people of intelligence we must consider such arguments in depth rather than taking them at face value. Some degree of government is necessary otherwise you get chaos and anarchy which likely leads to tyranny in the long run. Too much government however leads to the people being controlled and freedoms being restricted. While similar justifications could be made for many government expansions, that doesn't mean those justifications are necessarily valid. We may come to different conclusions, but what matters more to me is that we use logic and reason to come to those conclusions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't the only source, but it is a large one. Since the government has the most power, (they probably wouldn't be in charge otherwise) it has the greatest ability to oppress the people, so it seems natural to concentrate one's efforts mainly on the government. For the same reasons, other oppressive forces will often concentrate their efforts on getting the government to do what they want. Take for instance corporations lobbying government for corporate welfare, land seizures for private use, etc. - libertarians oppose these things, but we aren't going to get them to stop lobbying for them by asking the corporations nicely. It's the government that gives them these things, so we need to get the government to say "no" before anything else can be done.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Libertarian views of property start with self-ownership, so slavery is abhorrent to libertarians.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most libertarians would agree to some degree of law involving copyright. That degree varies by individual though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One's emotions, hopes, fears, dreams, and ambitions are part of one's self, so under the doctrine of self-ownership they belong the person they came from.

[John Dibble]

People who commit murder or molest children should, if the states and the juries so choose, face the death penalty.

While I do not support the death penalty in any case, it find it interesting that one would support the death penalty for child molestation (if it doesn't result in the child's death).

Though I don't agree with that idea, there is an argument to be made that it might be even worse for a child to get terribly molested and then live, scarred for life.

It's also viewed as a heinous crime by pretty much everyone - even prison inmates hate child molesters. Might have to do with our maternal and paternal instincts that drive us to protect children.