Capital Punishment


I’m a wee bit ambivalent about capital punishment. I’ve got no problem with a householder using lethal force against a violent intruder. And, like in Texas (I believe), the said householder should be regarded as a hero. Furthermore, I’d suggest a suitable reward like not being liable for Council Tax for ten years.But I’m not so sure about the state using capital punishment. It’s not like the state gets most things right. Perhaps an exception could be made when the accused has been caught in the act by a large number of very reliable witnesses as well as being recorded on CCTV. It’s not like we’re short of cameras…But here in Edinburgh I note that someone has evaded our local form of capital punishment:

A BUILDER of up-market flats has sparked protests by moving the social housing element of its scheme two miles down the road to Leith.Council housing chiefs have been criticised for allowing Dutch developer MaB to build the affordable flats near the dock’s former red light district rather than in Trinity.

Note the weasel words.By “social housing element of its scheme” they really mean the properties that will probably be used to house unsocial people. And what about “affordable”? This is code for affordable to those who vote the right way. The houses in Trinity are affordable. To their buyers.In fact, I’m beginning to think that use of the word “affordable” may justify capital punishment.Along with “appropriate”.This nonsense is even affecting Ayr United’s plan for a new stadium:

A spokeswoman for South Ayrshire Council said the council was “fully supportive” of Ayr United. She said consent had been given for the Heathfield stadium but complications regarding affordable housing provision due to be built on the Somerset Park site had delayed the signing of the legal agreement.

Enough of this.Jane Jacobs explained why the state should be kept quite separate from the market. Let the state catch the criminals and let the market house the people.

About these ads

2 responses to “Capital Punishment

  1. A bizarre conflation of issues!

    It is a cardinal liberal principle that the laws should be upheld with only the absolute necessary minimum of official violence.

    Every European country shows that laws against murder can be upheld without judicial murder.

    Whereas the US shows us that where judicial killing is rampant, so also is murder. Have you ever paused to think about the effect of this on family and friends who are innocent?

    Housing:

    The Thatcher government forced Councils to sell their rented housing stock at huge discounts. The purpose of this social engineering was based on the expectation that house owners were more likely to vote Tory than renters would.

    But the Ice Lady also legislated to prevent Councils building more housing. Instead, they were forced to invest in long term Central Government debt. This is market-rigging a l’outrance. And vote-rigging. Remember “Lady” Porter?

    In my city, the basic structure of Council Housing worked like this:

    Councils can bulk-borrow on 70 year mortgages at low rates of interest. They built and-or bought inexpensive housing, and rented it out on the basis that better-off tenants cross-subsidized less well off tenants. The better-off tenants still get a terrific deal. The less-well-off (like me, ferinstance) get somewhere nice to live.

    Do you have a problem with that?

    Because of the acute shortage of rented housing, and absurd sky-high prices for houses, it is _impossible_ for a lot of people to find somewhere to live and raise a family. Meanwhile, most of the land in Britain is still owned by worthless parasites whose ancestors stole it, or were “rewarded” for “services to the Crown.”

    The Tory Party is their creature. Not a pretty sight.

    Regards,

    Tony

  2. Pingback: More about capital punishment « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG