Hi Steele,

Where you been ?

You propose: "Though simplistic the notion that a more equal distribution of resources may well lead to less crime and therefore less incarceration is not without substance. If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?"

When I was a kid, there were machines supposedly designed by Heath Robinson, vastly complicated things, with wheels and belts and axles and pulleys, for things like shaving, or eating Weet-Bix, or scratching one's arse.

You have suggested a similar machine to link capitalism (ptuh ! ptuh !) with totalitarianism, via many subsidiary 'machines' such as structural inequality, welfare programs, racism, unemployment, idleness, opportunity, crime, the justice system and incarceration, to 'prove' totalitarianism in capitalist societies.

As with Heath Robinson's machines, there may be other explanations for high incarceration rates, such as Black-on-Black crime, poor education opportunities, a gun culture, the attractions of petty crime rather than work, etc. You haven't really proven your case :)

Joe

Dear runner,

Both Christianity and Islam are delusional systems postulating a deity and an afterlife when there is no evidence for the existence of either.

DavidF,

There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue. I'm a fence sitter on these things, but whatever you say to runner and others with faith can be bounced back at you, who have no more idea of happens when we pop our clogs than anyone else.

Steele,

I'm sure you just forgot to mention Fairfax and other ardent pushers of wreck the joint politics. Just joking. You would prefer state control, as long as the state was on your side. None of that balance and free speech nonsense for you.

ttbn,

"There is no evidence that there is not an afterlife, either. Just because something is hard to believe, it is not necessarily untrue..."

There is no evidence that there's not a Celestial Teapot orbiting the sun either...as Bertrand Russell pointed out.

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy, coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others. Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. Russell's teapot is still invoked in discussions concerning the existence of God, and in various other contexts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Steele Redux wrote: “While I certainly wouldn't want to see all media and communication in the hands of the government I'm not sure we are being served by capitalism in this regard either. The media in Australia is now highly concentrated into the hands of a few particularly one Mr Murdoch.”

I agree with the above. However, the state has the power to limit monopolies in the media and other areas. It is up to the citizenry to push the state to do so.

Steele Redux also wrote:Indeed this completely echos Marx's predictions of the accumulation of capital.

Marx implicitly denied the possibility of a democratic state controlling the influence of capital and the power of organised labor to advance the interests of the worker in a free society. He could see only the possibility of a totalitarian state as outlined in the Manifesto to achieve these ends.

Steele Redux also wrote:I would fear for our country without a strong government broadcaster.

I agree.

You also wrote;

(Citing me) “To me the issue is not whether you are right or left, it is whether you are for a free society or a totalitarian society. Marxism on the left and Nazism on the right both produced totalitarian societies.”

"Whenever I hear about America being free (I note you personally did not specify a country) I really do struggle with the fact that it has the highest percentage of its citizens behind bars compared to any other country in the world. This is most certainly a product of the system.

My question is whether you consider as I do that incarceration rates as a significant measure of a system. Though simplistic the notion that a more equal distribution of resources may well lead to less crime and therefore less incarceration is not without substance. If someone like onthebeach proposes policies that would increase incarceration rates why would that not be considered totalitarian?”

continued

continued

Dear Steele Redux: The percentage of citizens behind bars marks a deep flaw in the US society. I think the main cause is racism. I was riding on a freeway in California with my son driving considerably above the speed limit when a state trooper ordered us to pull over to the side of the road. My son is blond and blue-eyed like me. My son and the cop had a friendly talk about baseball, and the cop told my son he really shouldn’t be driving that fast. He drove on observing the speed limit. Had we been Latino or black I doubt that we would have got away without even a citation.

The US has learned from the massive mistake of Prohibition to treat alcohol addiction as a health problem and to regulate its legal sale. However drug usage, sale or possession, unlike alcohol is treated as a crime. This is also related to racism since drugs seem a greater problem in the black community than in the white community. If drugs, like alcohol, were legal and regulated the prison population would be much smaller.

I believe that crime is largely due to economic inequity. However, there is a distinction between speech and action. In a free society one is free to advocate anything. One is not free to do what one wills. Whether what onthebeach advocates will increase incarceration rates is debatable. However, it is not totalitarian for him to voice his sentiments. It would be totalitarian not to allow him to voice his sentiments.