The ghost in the box

[shkrobius]

If liberty is inalienable natural right, as we hold it, how can the convicts be deprived of liberty as just punishment? The Bible does not consider imprisonment (as opposed to jailing before a trial) as the lawful mode of punishment. There is no "tradition" justifying this barabarian practice except for the perverted sadism of Germanic pagans,

Comments

[kobak]

Thank you bringing this topic up again! Prisons are absurd, it is clear. The question is what to do instead. When UK was sending convicts to America and Australia, it obviously didn't ask indians and aborigens for permission. I wonder how you imagine something like that in the modern world. You can say that USA is big enough and there's enough place for "internal" exile, as your story about desert town of rapists hints; but even if so, this solution would clearly be impossible for a small country.

It's also interesting to note that incarceration is accused here in being both (a) unnaturally cruel and (b) unearned award. It's either one, or another.

P.S. By the way, Jeremy Bentham is hardly Victorian: he died in 1830, I looked it up.

[i_eron]

1. I have made an Afghan comparison once - "И краснеют, коль завидят шапку нашу невзначай". I believe very much in looking up the real facts and then thinking a bit, as opposed to seeing the warring countries metaphorically. And in the importance of demography ( "Демография - это судьба"2. I am no Batman, but I think you are wrong - the technology gaps are closing. Also, the organizational and the ideological gaps are. The national nuts - hm, is it the "nuts and bolts" or the "nuts and berries" variety? Because if you are referring to the anatomical variety, I am reminded of the hated Spengler again. Yuck

[poltorazhyda]

1. The principles of governance do not vary according to geography. As far as demography is concerned, the history of colonialism shows us that it is quite possible for a small but competent nation to conquer and administer a large but incompetent one

[i_eron]

1. Competence is not enough. Yes, it was possible occasionally. Please notice that in most examples of colonialism it was a large and competent (plus technologically advanced) nation conquering a small-incompetent-backward one. The British rule in India was an amazing exception, not the rule (so to speak). India was not only especially backward, it was also "softened up" by the Moghuls - the foreign rule and the associated communal/religious difficulty was the way of life before the British. I guess you may call this "incompetence".

But the modern nationalism itself was invented by the French Revolution and it took a century (or even more) for it to take hold outside Europe. I have read a bit recently about the unexpected British triumph in Burma and the unsuccessful attempt of the French on Madagascar. Would you call the victorious XIX century Madagascar a "competent nation"? Puh-lease. But perhaps you may call the French incompetent

[shkrobius]

Any country would do, including France. Your initial concern was about small countries; those that do not have much territory or overpopulated. The US is not such a country.

[i_eron]

I have mentioned France to suggest that even they would not agree. No country has even agreed to accept a significant number of Guantanamo prisoners

[shkrobius]

Why do you think the locals will necessarily be hostile?

[i_eron]

One can imagine a peaceful local community looking forward to cooperate and trade with the new arrivals that would settle next door. However, the reality in these countries is very far from pastoral. Every "peaceful local community" already has bandit parasites preying upon it. It might be the local "officials", kind of all-powerful country barons, as in most of India now. It might be some "rebel" bandits. Or pro-government bandits. But this niche is never empty

[shkrobius]

You yourself suggested an example of Liberia. Neither did the emancipated slaves integrate nor were they harassed. That it ended badly does not undermine the fact that it worked for many decades. The Liberians never planned to repatriate to the US and Canada, while it can be expected that the colonists will.

In fact, I think you are wrong for another reason, too: in no time the locals and the colonists will start to mix and settle. These settlers would partake of both words and temper bad passions on both sides.

[i_eron]

The emancipated slaves in Liberia have succeeded in suppressing the local population and becoming the ruling elite. They have found and occupied the niche I was talking about. I wonder if this is what you mean by success - unleash the American convicts on a local population that cannot defend itself from them.

Anyway, it was >150 years ago. It cannot succeed now. Just imagine sending the convicts to Liberia now. There are 10 times more people in Africa now compared to back then. And now many of these people have machine guns and know how to use them.

The world was empty. Now the world is full. The next colony, if at all, will be on Mars, not in Liberia. We somehow have to find the solution within our own borders, not send people somewhere else.

[shkrobius]

Why do you say they "suppressed" the local population. As far as I know, they peacefully blended with it.

I think you are overly negative. The locals will be delighted to have any influx of $$$.

[i_eron]

Well, the governing elite has consisted of their descendants until 1980. Does not sound much like "blending". The freed slaves were racially very distinct from the locals. I do not know much more than Wiki about the history of Liberia. According to it, there was not much "peaceful blending

[shkrobius]

Only 2-5% of the Liberians are the Congoes. The total number of repatriated slaves was <15,000, these "descendants" are a heavy mixture of the colonists with the locals. That they consider themselves the superior race is their fantasy, in reality they are mutts and the conflict is the city vs the country. I repeat that the slaves blended with the locals peacefully. Their "descendants" are the locals that happen to hve a remote American ancestor in one of the many lineages.

[i_eron]

The point is that Liberia was conquered by Americans, the locals were suppressed and the immigrants to Liberia from the USA were given the power. There was no pretense of democracy. The locals were given no say in selecting the governor, who later became first "independent" president. Frequent conflicts have followed. Perhaps the immigrant descendants have eventually mixed with the locals, it is only natural. But at least for the first couple of generations the division was clear - the Americo-Liberians were in power, the locals were subordinated and rose violently against the governing elite. The elite was distinct from the indigenous population in culture, dress, habits etc. Not only the elite has considered itself superior, the natives considered it distinct and foreign. It is not important (I think), how large was the actual racial difference. What matters is this mutual feeling of being different

[shkrobius]

The locals were hardly angels. They raided the colony repeatedly from 1820s to 1870s. In any case, the control of the colonial government was over a very small territory: it was a country more on paper than in reality. I think you are repeating someone's narrative intending to invent historical wrongs. If your source is Internet, you should be cautious. I do not think that Liberian history even exists as a nonpartisan account, with most of the historical documentation long destroyed by the sides involved in the conflict.

[i_eron]

I am not an expert on African history, I am not even particularly interested. I have read a book a long time ago that said something about Liberia, now I discover that what I remember fits with the Wiki article on Liberian history. The article looks serious, but you are right - it might be biased. It looks to be written from the anti-colonial sentiment, which is common now but was not common back then. But I hope the facts are still correct. Anyway, you suspect I repeat "an invented narrative". I do not like "inventing historical wrongs", but you do not challenge the validity of any specific fact, only the general bias, which I am not defending. So let us stick to the facts