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

[i_eron]

Perhaps it had worked in the past. But the present is really different from the past. There were just 100 million people in the whole of Africa in 1800 or even 1850. Now there is a billion, growing fast. Colonialism is just not possible today. Look how the West has bravely plunged into Libya which has a small population, all neatly spread along the coastline like on a plate. A similar casus belli in Syria somehow goes unanswered. Why? Simple. There are 21 million people in Syria, in a 2D geography, not 6.5 million in a 1D one. Too difficult. There is no way the West could carve itself a place in Africa for the convicts

[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

[shkrobius]

That these Liberian tribes raided the colony proves nothing. American and Australian colonies by and large coexisted unharassed

[i_eron]

All right, let us just agree to draw different conclusions from the Liberian experiment.

Yes, the French do love Polanski, perhaps he will now even replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn as their favorite presidential candidate.

But you are talking about 2.3 million Americans now in prison. The ones that are on parole or on probation should probably be added, bringing the total to 7.2 million. Not many of them are famous as talented film directors or brilliant socialists. A large majority of them are black and male. Also, presumably, a large majority of them are criminals. This is not a combination of qualities that would be easily voted in by any democracy.

[poltorazhyda]

>Please notice that in most examples of colonialism it was a large and competent (plus technologically advanced) nation conquering a small-incompetent-backward one

[i_eron]

Russia has colonized the _empty_ part of Eurasia. There were exceptions, right, but the bits with significant population were conquered one by one, by a much bigger country.

The whole of Latin America and Caribbean (and Spain has colonized about two thirds of it) had a population of 39 million which has quickly fallen to 10 million according to wiki. And the rich Spanish monarchy could draw soldiers from its Italian and other European possessions. Spain was bigger than its American colonies. People typically look at the world in its current proportions (actually, in the proportions that were when they were at school). The proportions were very different onceThe Dutch have colonized Indonesia via trade domination, it was not a "typical" military conquest

[shkrobius]

Practicalities can be addressed, given the desire. Interesting that you repeat word for word objections to penal colonies in the 17th and the 18th century (hostile natives, low productivity of lands, uncertainties of transportation, etc.) These are not new concerns. Precisely because Africa is poor and overpopulated it might be open to this kinds of deals, and its "modern governments" are often quite impotent. Where there is a will, there is a way

[i_eron]

I am sorry, "practicalities can be addressed" is precisely the comment by a theoretician (or a design engineer) than makes me feel most uncomfortable

[shkrobius]

And in what way these Congolese are different from the Cherokees? If you want security and minimal comfort, but no liberty, then prison works just fine. But so is slavery. If you hold liberty as a natural right, then you cannot trade it for comfort. Furthermore, beeing free is a job. If the convicts do not want to fight for their freedoms, there will be no liberty and no comfort either.

[i_eron]

Congolese are different from Cherokees in that there are many more of them. That they have Jeeps and radios and writing and modern personal weapons and even airports and helicopters and missiles. It is absolutely impossible to live as a separate commune in Congo, but it was possible to live separate from the Cherokees. So sending people to Congo means giving them a fighting chance to integrate in Congolese society, but no chance to form their own.

[i_eron]

Oh, I have remembered what it reminds me of.

Vladimir Voinovich, Moscow 2042 (an ironic anti-Utopia written in 1986; the future (communist) Moscow republic is separated from the (socialist) rest of the USSR which is essentially a colony called "the First Ring"):

- Но эти люди, - спросил я, - которые были виновны в беспорядках первого дня, я надеюсь, понесли наказание.

- Еще какое! - сказала она. - Председатель государственного комитета по удовлетворению потребностей и начальник Внубеза были осуждены и...

- ...и расстреляны! - догадался я.

- Ну что ты! - возразила Искрина. Это никак невозможно. У нас в Москорепе смертная казнь навечно отменена. У нас есть только одно наказание - высылка в Первое Кольцо. И эти люди были туда высланы.

- Ну и напрасно, - сказал я. - Я, конечно, понимаю, что при коммунизме отношение к людям должно быть гуманным, но гуманизм гуманизму рознь, и злоупотреблять им не следует.

- Не волнуйся, дурачок, - Искрина погладила меня по голове. - Они же были высланы в Первое Кольцо. А там смертная казнь еще не

[shkrobius]

A more obvious parallel would be excommunication of Jews by their congregations. That people have natural rights to life, property, and liberty does not mean that other people are obliged to guarantee them these rights under any circumstances.

[i_eron]

If one thinks it is wrong to strip people of their freedom and thus sends them far away to die or be slaves there, it is hypocritical. One cannot say that one is not concerned about their fate - because this fate is the direct consequence of one's actions.

Yes, 200 years ago it was possible to send convicts away into a life in liberty, or at least a fair chance of that. Now it is not possible. The world has changed too much. The devil is in the details, in the "practicalities".