The Problem of Profit

Jim Starluck

New member
This is a brief run-down of what I have come to believe is driving the majority of the economic hardship in the world right now, and the chief thing that needs to be overcome.


Within the existing economic paradigm, the majority of all production -- and when I say "production" I refer to the harvesting/gathering of raw resources, the cultivating of crops, the refining of those materials, the assembly of those materials into a more finished product, the delivery of the finished product to the end user/consumer and the providing of needed services -- is all driven with the intent to earn a profit for those who own the means of that production (the tools, equipment, facilities, etc. needed for the productive process).

I feel that this sets up a feedback loop which incentivizes behaviors that are damaging to the people who actually do the production (i.e. the workers), the end consumers, society as a whole, the environment... basically everyone and everything.


In short, for a company to survive, it needs to earn a profit. In theory you could get by just breaking even, but in practice you're either in the red or the black. If companies existed in a vacuum a modest profit would be sufficient, but of course they do not. Companies compete with one another, and in this competition profit is both the weapon and the objective.

When two companies are in competition, they leverage their profits against one another, and the company with the greater profits is at an advantage: it can expand faster, acquire resources more easily, and ultimately drive its competition out of business or absorb them into itself. What this means is that in the long term, a company is driven not just to profit, but to maximize profit and anything which stands in the way of this is an obstacle to overcome.

This seems intuitive, but the consequences are not as obvious.

We often look at a company's decision-making and assume they have the same values, ethics and morality that we humans do... but they do not. When a company is faced with a decision, the only factor that wins out is profitability. If there is a choice, and one option is ethically questionable but will earn the company greater profits, the company will opt for that option when at all possible.

Now, this doesn't mean that a company will always pick the least ethical option; it only looks at profitability. If the ethical choice will earn it a greater profit, it will happily pick the ethical option -- but not because it is ethical. The ethics of the situation is completely irrelevant to the company's decision-making. They just happen to line up sometimes.

This is also not to say that every company will eschew ethics for profit every time, because companies are ultimately composed of people, and sometimes they will balk at making the most profitable choice because of their personal conscience. If they keep doing this consistently, however, the profitable choice for the company becomes to fire that person and hire someone more ethically flexible. And if the company does not yield to this logic, it puts itself at a disadvantage relative to a company that does.

This is, incidentally, why I think psychopaths can succeed in business: they're capable of making the unethical yet profitable choice more consistently.

Now, here's the kicker.

When companies make unethical choices to pursue greater profits, many will say that they should be regulated; the government should step in and enforce the ethical decisions with laws and fines. And they might even succeed at this in some situations; take a look at FDR and the New Deal, for example.

Thing is, this situation cannot persist... because it just gives the companies a different avenue to pursue to maximize profit:

Undo the regluations.

Buy favors with politicians. Lobby. Bribe, if you can get away with it. Push your message in the media with a propaganda campaign.

Get the laws holding you back repealed. Make such laws illegal if you can. Roll back the clock.

This is essentially what has already been happening for the last several decades here in the US, and in my mind this is why we will not be able to safely regulate capitalism: because there will always be greater profits to be had in reversing any regulation.

In this sense, the profit motive is a beast which cannot be chained and safely domesticated, because it will inevitably start gnawing at the chains the moment you turn your back.


Instead, we must move past the profit motive entirely. Food must be grown purely because people are hungry, shelter built purely to house the homeless, healthcare provided purely because people are sick. The essentials that people need simply to survive must be provided as-needed, rather than monetized. Ideally, everything would become de-commodified, because sooner or later some asshole would start calling for charging money again.

This is part of why I'm not 100% convinced on the idea of worker-owned co-ops, because it doesn't remove the profit motive. It would still be feasible for a worker-owned co-op to make unethical choices for greater profits; it just prevents them from doing so at the expense of the workers, because the workers are the ones making the choices. But the motive is still there.


I don't know what the ultimate answer is; I have no idea what the solution will look like. I just feel deeply that we have to move beyond the profit motive, because that is cancerous.
 

Cassiel

New member
Jim?Starluck said:
We often look at a company's decision-making and assume they have the same values, ethics and morality that we humans do... but they do not. When a company is faced with a decision, the only factor that wins out is profitability. If there is a choice, and one option is ethically questionable but will earn the company greater profits, the company will opt for that option when at all possible.

This is a pretty common perspective, but I also think it's pretty obviously wrong.

The implication of a statement that "a company" is faced with a decision and "the company will opt for that option" implies that companies think and make decisions as a monolithic entity. But that isn't true unless the company is merely a pass-through company for an individual, in which case the company behaves the same way the individual does. Instead, the company's decisions are the product of the activities of many different minds.

And thus for your statement to be true - for the company to be governed by a profit motive - what really needs to be true is that the individualsThe Taxation of Executive Compensation, (NBER 2000) that provides a lot of juicy numbers, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xth

Strigix

Verified Xeno
Administrator
On the subject of regulations being insufficient, I think it's worth looking at the concept of regulatory capture.

Now, in practice, most regulatory agencies will, over time, become subject to regulatory capture. What does this mean? Well, that the regulatory agencies slowly shift from their original goal of protecting individuals from some unethical business practice or other, to protecting businesses and creating legislation that favors them and allows them to gather profit more efficiently.
 

Flectarn

New member
Pronouns
Comrade
Jim Starluck said:
This is part of why I'm not 100% convinced on the idea of worker-owned co-ops, because it doesn't remove the profit motive. It would still be feasible for a worker-owned co-op to make unethical choices for greater profits; it just prevents them from doing so at the expense of the workers, because the workers are the ones making the choices. But the motive is still there.

Multi-stakeholder models which anchor a coops decision making in the broader community, and strict by-law provisions against creating permanent classes of non-owner workers should go a long way towards mitigating these issues.
 

Jim Starluck

New member
Cassiel said:
This is a pretty common perspective, but I also think it's pretty obviously wrong.

The implication of a statement that "a company" is faced with a decision and "the company will opt for that option" implies that companies think and make decisions as a monolithic entity. But that isn't true unless the company is merely a pass-through company for an individual, in which case the company behaves the same way the individual does. Instead, the company's decisions are the product of the activities of many different minds.

And thus for your statement to be true - for the company to be governed by a profit motive - what really needs to be true is that the individualsThe Taxation of Executive Compensation, (NBER 2000) that provides a lot of juicy numbers, too.

Covered this in the very next two paragraphs:


Jim?Starluck said:
Now, this doesn't mean that a company will always pick the least ethical option; it only looks at profitability. If the ethical choice will earn it a greater profit, it will happily pick the ethical option -- but not because it is ethical. The ethics of the situation is completely irrelevant to the company's decision-making. They just happen to line up sometimes.

This is also not to say that every company will eschew ethics for profit every time, because companies are ultimately composed of people, and sometimes they will balk at making the most profitable choice because of their personal conscience. If they keep doing this consistently, however, the profitable choice for the company becomes to fire that person and hire someone more ethically flexible. And if the company does not yield to this logic, it puts itself at a disadvantage relative to a company that does.

It is not that every company always chooses the most profitable option -- and in retrospect I probably could've worded that more clearly. It's that there is a strong selection bias for companies that do.

A company that shys away from unethical-yet-profitable choices for whatever reason -- the decisions of the CEO, or the company's institutional inertia or culture -- will put itself at a disadvantage compared to a company that is more ruthless. Over longer spans of time, the ethical-but-less-profitable companies will be surpassed by the unethical-but-more-profitable ones, and the former will either be driven out of business or absorbed by the latter. And if individuals within the company try and steer it away from unethical-but-profitable behavior, the company itself is incentivized to dispose of them and replace them with individuals who are less restrained.

It's like a form of natural selection. The dependence of companies on profit will select for those which pursue profit to the exclusion of all else, and eventually those will become ingrained in not just the companies themselves but the broader industry as the known paths to success.


I don't have much confidence that we can reign this tendency in without dismantling the existing system entirely. There would need to be a strong counter-incentive to make companies refrain from unethical-yet-profitable choices.
 

Axiomatic

New member
I would also point out that choosing the more profitable action, regardless of ethics, presumes some kind of foretelling ability, some sort of future-sight. After all, you are not actually picking a choice that will lead to more profits, but the choice you THINK will do so. You don't actually know the actual amount of profit until the money comes in, and you never know the amount of profit in the alternate universe where you made some other choice.

In other words, you might do unethical actions not because they're profitable, but because you suspect that people are trying to dissuade you from making them in order to keep you from making a larger profit.
 

Nyvis

Active member
conscientious withdrawal of efficiencyreserve army of labour in Marx's works. And it's part of why I'm so skeptical of any attempt at universal welfare within a capitalist framework. The market will just adjust until those people are struggling again because it can't abide people not being desperate for work.
 

Aaron Fox

Member
conscientious withdrawal of efficiencyreserve army of labour in Marx's works. And it's part of why I'm so skeptical of any attempt at universal welfare within a capitalist framework. The market will just adjust until those people are struggling again because it can't abide people not being desperate for work.
That is until the need for labor is largely eliminated through technology.

Then again, I've been looking into ideas and a conclusion that I'm at is... the technological context has shifted so massively our preconceptions and assumptions are no longer valid in many fields. The reason that slavery and serfdom lasted for so long? The technology wasn't simply there to make it nonviable. You may have the principles of, say, a steam engine, but that is absolutely useless without everything else that goes into a steam engine as well as well as the economic incentives of having such engines. You have to have the tools to make the tools to make the tech and the economic environment to make it viable as it were.

We're seeing something similar with our technological context. That is why authoritarian laws and statues are becoming more and more common everywhere, nation-states understand that -under the mentalities of self-preservation- what freedoms and rights under the current preconceptions and assumptions are dead due to the new technological context.

In the coming decades, you'll be seeing restrictions on pretty much every right imaginable. Freedom of Speech? Has to be checked because some idiot with more ideology than sense planted some memetic weapon in it. Freedom of Press? The Press was never a real counter to government and is more than willing to undermine shit if it means a good buck so it has to be restricted, defined, and categorized. The right to privacy? So fucking dead that its caracas is a bloody smear especially if some idiots with more ideology than sense decide that using hacked biokits to create synthetic plagues is a good idea (and given that the price and knowledge tag of genetech has been falling thanks to computing... well... let's just say it would be problematic that privacy continues). It only gets worse from there. If it ends up anything like my future-history setting "A New World: A World of Conflict and Sorrow", just call me a prophet because I somehow pulled a Stand on Zanzibar on everyone.
 

Nyvis

Active member
Then again, I've been looking into ideas and a conclusion that I'm at is... the technological context has shifted so massively our preconceptions and assumptions are no longer valid in many fields. The reason that slavery and serfdom lasted for so long? The technology wasn't simply there to make it nonviable. You may have the principles of, say, a steam engine, but that is absolutely useless without everything else that goes into a steam engine as well as well as the economic incentives of having such engines. You have to have the tools to make the tools to make the tech and the economic environment to make it viable as it were.

I disagree with that to some degree. Sure, technology influences the evolution of modes of production heavily. But slavery wasn't a necessity at any point in human society. We just felt like making others do the hard work. We could have gone with no sugarcane, if no one wanted to do the backbreaking work. Cotton was only one of multiple textiles and we had clothed ourselves before widespread use of it. Even further back, some palace economies managed fine with a system of corvee labour rather than outright slavery.

We're seeing something similar with our technological context. That is why authoritarian laws and statues are becoming more and more common everywhere, nation-states understand that -under the mentalities of self-preservation- what freedoms and rights under the current preconceptions and assumptions are dead due to the new technological context.

In the coming decades, you'll be seeing restrictions on pretty much every right imaginable. Freedom of Speech? Has to be checked because some idiot with more ideology than sense planted some memetic weapon in it. Freedom of Press? The Press was never a real counter to government and is more than willing to undermine shit if it means a good buck so it has to be restricted, defined, and categorized. The right to privacy? So fucking dead that its caracas is a bloody smear especially if some idiots with more ideology than sense decide that using hacked biokits to create synthetic plagues is a good idea (and given that the price and knowledge tag of genetech has been falling thanks to computing... well... let's just say it would be problematic that privacy continues). It only gets worse from there. If it ends up anything like my future-history setting "A New World: A World of Conflict and Sorrow", just call me a prophet because I somehow pulled a Stand on Zanzibar on everyone.

That's just excuses. Which is the problem with rights. They're just concessions you got out of the bourgeois state, and it only needs an excuse the population can accept to drop them. Technology provide one, but it's not the only thing that'll get you there. Patriotism and war works just as well for example.
 

Jackie

Is this thing on?
Operations
Administrator
That is until the need for labor is largely eliminated through technology.

Then again, I've been looking into ideas and a conclusion that I'm at is... the technological context has shifted so massively our preconceptions and assumptions are no longer valid in many fields. The reason that slavery and serfdom lasted for so long? The technology wasn't simply there to make it nonviable. You may have the principles of, say, a steam engine, but that is absolutely useless without everything else that goes into a steam engine as well as well as the economic incentives of having such engines. You have to have the tools to make the tools to make the tech and the economic environment to make it viable as it were.

We're seeing something similar with our technological context. That is why authoritarian laws and statues are becoming more and more common everywhere, nation-states understand that -under the mentalities of self-preservation- what freedoms and rights under the current preconceptions and assumptions are dead due to the new technological context.

In the coming decades, you'll be seeing restrictions on pretty much every right imaginable. Freedom of Speech? Has to be checked because some idiot with more ideology than sense planted some memetic weapon in it. Freedom of Press? The Press was never a real counter to government and is more than willing to undermine shit if it means a good buck so it has to be restricted, defined, and categorized. The right to privacy? So fucking dead that its caracas is a bloody smear especially if some idiots with more ideology than sense decide that using hacked biokits to create synthetic plagues is a good idea (and given that the price and knowledge tag of genetech has been falling thanks to computing... well... let's just say it would be problematic that privacy continues). It only gets worse from there. If it ends up anything like my future-history setting "A New World: A World of Conflict and Sorrow", just call me a prophet because I somehow pulled a Stand on Zanzibar on everyone.
Do you suppose this as an inevitability or something else?

I suppose the question I really want to ask is, Is this the future you fear or the future you seek?
 

Aaron Fox

Member
I disagree with that to some degree. Sure, technology influences the evolution of modes of production heavily. But slavery wasn't a necessity at any point in human society. We just felt like making others do the hard work. We could have gone with no sugarcane, if no one wanted to do the backbreaking work. Cotton was only one of multiple textiles and we had clothed ourselves before widespread use of it. Even further back, some palace economies managed fine with a system of corvee labour rather than outright slavery.
That isn't really the case. I've gone through arguing this sort of thing and really, it's supported by history. Humans have always congregated where there are low risks and a good economy. This is basically part of the human condition. Given that farming has always been literally thankless, low-economy work despite the fact that it is fucking vital for survival after we started farming, people have to be forced (either through slavery, serfdom, by law, or even simple peer pressure) to farm because the people that want to farm is never enough to feed everyone. You've got to remember that kingdoms first sprang up because the leaders could manage the farmland the best. You've also got rather strict hierarchies because kingdom/empire stability of food and order trumped everything else.

If you go say the Nile and core of China and other locales where fertility is (comparatively) stupid high compared to the rest of the world are the exception, they're really not as fertility is basically another technology in how much it is a multiplier and Ancient Egypt is probably one of the most rigid, static hierarchies (and this is despite their stupidly high sex equality of the time) of the ancient world and well into antiquity. When the majority of the population had to farm to feed everyone (we're talking something on the order of 80% or higher here), then you have to keep people farming. There have been attempts to romanticize farming but those always failed in the end. So you have to ensure people are farming at all costs. It is until farming mechanization became an actual thing that economic prosperity was considered more vital than food production and order.

The Cotton Gin, oddly enough, helped slavery in the US because the only cash crop that was really worth it in the Deep South was Cotton, and before then you had to pick each seed out, individually. That is why plants like flax and wooly/leathery animals were the primary source of textiles and clothing and not cotton. Even then, most of the reasons for slavery down there were heavily sociological with a(n unhealthy) bit of economical.
That's just excuses. Which is the problem with rights. They're just concessions you got out of the bourgeois state, and it only needs an excuse the population can accept to drop them. Technology provide one, but it's not the only thing that'll get you there. Patriotism and war works just as well for example.
Wow, that... I'm not going to reply to the first part. Rights are fluid structures, not static. Always have, always will be... and have been always been tied to technological and economic (mostly technological) contexts. If the technological context shifts in such a way that a series of rights and freedoms (or in the case of serfs and slaves, the lack of them) are either unenforceable or deadly/extremely problematic to the general population, then they are dropped.

As technology develops, so does the inaccessibility of knowing how it works even with an education.

Then there is the thing that Russia let out of Pandora's Box, genuine memetic weapons. Weapons that, simply put, shake the foundations the idea of free will at best. Every time such weapons get used in fiction, it gets ugly. Stupidly so. Destructively so. Hell, if you strip Chaos with the magic mutating bullshit, it is something of an end-point of memetic weapons.

Then there is the fact that, as hated as it is, the moral calculus is in play... and that is a deep dark place in of itself.

Even the father of capitalism itself outright stated that the Government must be the one to keep everyone within capitalism in check because one group will eventually try to screw everyone else over.
Do you suppose this as an inevitability or something else?

I suppose the question I really want to ask is, Is this the future you fear or the future you seek?
It is an inevitability, given human nature which is more towards the Hobbesian side of things than anyone else. Some idiot will try to use bioweapons to carry out genocides and/or 'cull the human population'. We've got absolutely no shortage of those idiots running around trying to carry out their ideals and we've got enough fiction that has that as either the initiator of the plot or as the reason why the setting is the way it is.

We've already seen what memetic weapons as we currently understand it can do, they've tipped the scales in the largest espionage operation known to man via Russia who is led by a posse that wants to 'good old days' of the USSR back, damn the costs.

We are only going to have less unrestricted freedoms in the future at best, because of these idiots.

I've posted a thread asking about privacy on SB years back, and Zor's words still apply today: technology (in this case digital recording technology) has made privacy dubious at best and when combined with the fact that Moore's Law is being applied to biotech, you're going to get into a situation that some idiot will try to initiate a scenario that really has only really one good ending: put privacy behind the shed and put it down and embrace the digital panopticon.
 

Nyvis

Active member
That isn't really the case. I've gone through arguing this sort of thing and really, it's supported by history. Humans have always congregated where there are low risks and a good economy. This is basically part of the human condition. Given that farming has always been literally thankless, low-economy work despite the fact that it is fucking vital for survival after we started farming, people have to be forced (either through slavery, serfdom, by law, or even simple peer pressure) to farm because the people that want to farm is never enough to feed everyone. You've got to remember that kingdoms first sprang up because the leaders could manage the farmland the best. You've also got rather strict hierarchies because kingdom/empire stability of food and order trumped everything else.

I literally talked about corvee labour as an alternative. My point was never about all forms of coercion.

Wow, that... I'm not going to reply to the first part. Rights are fluid structures, not static. Always have, always will be... and have been always been tied to technological and economic (mostly technological) contexts. If the technological context shifts in such a way that a series of rights and freedoms (or in the case of serfs and slaves, the lack of them) are either unenforceable or deadly/extremely problematic to the general population, then they are dropped.

As technology develops, so does the inaccessibility of knowing how it works even with an education.

Then there is the thing that Russia let out of Pandora's Box, genuine memetic weapons. Weapons that, simply put, shake the foundations the idea of free will at best. Every time such weapons get used in fiction, it gets ugly. Stupidly so. Destructively so. Hell, if you strip Chaos with the magic mutating bullshit, it is something of an end-point of memetic weapons.

Then there is the fact that, as hated as it is, the moral calculus is in play... and that is a deep dark place in of itself.

Even the father of capitalism itself outright stated that the Government must be the one to keep everyone within capitalism in check because one group will eventually try to screw everyone else over.

Oh wow, capitalists said we have to relate to it in the form of concessions, "rights" and restrictions on the worst abuse, so it must be an absolute truth. Let's bow down and follow their dictats and only fight within those bounds! Or maybe this is exactly what they want and the fact the "father of capitalism" said so should tell you what it's about... Maintaining capital even if the price is to contain it a bit. The fact they've given up on even that is just a consequence of how far we've fallen. As for restricting the rest of the population "for its own good", it's just them projecting how awful they are on the rest of us.

Also memetic fictional weapons aren't a basis for removing our rights in reality. Because they don't exist.

You can attempt to sell the same degradation of rights to people on the basis of fearmongering no matter the context. There's always a next threat to take away one more of the concessions you got under liberalism. It's usually bullshit and often, it doesn't even work, like most of the "security" measures taken during the war on terror. The goal is always control, not your own good. And that's always what'll happen if you're at the mercy of a measly few rights rather than actually empowered by your society.

Edit: fuck it.

It is an inevitability, given human nature which is more towards the Hobbesian side of things than anyone else.

If this is your view, I don't think any argument will get anywhere. I don't even know why you bothered coming here, in a place where most people will disagree?

Remember, this Hobbesian view was developed by elites afraid of the masses to justify keeping them in chain.

I've posted a thread asking about privacy on SB years back, and Zor's words still apply today: technology (in this case digital recording technology) has made privacy dubious at best and when combined with the fact that Moore's Law is being applied to biotech, you're going to get into a situation that some idiot will try to initiate a scenario that really has only really one good ending: put privacy behind the shed and put it down and embrace the digital panopticon.

This is, again, nonsense. Biotech doesn't work like that. Get down from the fantasy world and the fantasming about the basilisk for a second. We haven't cracked anything beyond small modifications to existing organisms, and it always requires large investment we can track.

The weapon of the day is a low tech IED, not some unproduceable and easily trackable biotech. The problem has never been technology. It has always been the society producing individuals who want to go out of their way to hurt others.
 

Comrade Sophia

Technoschizic Militia Goth
Administrator
Pronouns
She/Her
Then there is the thing that Russia let out of Pandora's Box, genuine memetic weapons. Weapons that, simply put, shake the foundations the idea of free will at best.
Okay so, you really need to read some more philosophy. I'm not trying to condescend here, but this is not the case. There's an entire field of metaphysics as it relates to free-will and determinism. For example I don't believe in free-will, I believe we are ultimately programmed by our environment and our environment is determined or can be changed by our society. Thus my profile picture and why I lean heavily into memes like:
42ly5d.jpg


This, in turn informs my politics, I don't believe anyone is ultimately responsible for their actions and so I oppose punitive justice in favor of a rehabilitative justice that provides new influences to counteract the prior programming. Likewise, I want an education that focuses more on making sure people are aware they're being programmed, to be skeptical, to want to learn; rather than recite facts and figures and be a cog.

So no, this does not shake the idea of free will, the notion of free will has been in question forever.
 
Last edited:

Aaron Fox

Member
Okay so, you really need to read some more philosophy. I'm not trying to condescend here, but this is not the case. There's an entire field of metaphysics as it relates to free-will and determinism. For example I don't believe in free-will, I believe we are ultimately programmed by our environment and our environment is determined or can be changed by our society. Thus my profile picture and why I lean heavily into memes like:
View attachment 12


This, in turn informs my politics, I don't believe anyone is ultimately responsible for their actions and so I oppose punitive justice in favor of a rehabilitative justice that provides new influences to counteract the prior programming. Likewise, I want an education that focuses more on making sure people are aware they're being programmed, to be skeptical, to want to learn; rather than recite facts and figures and be a cog.

So no, this does not shake the idea of free will, the notion of free will has been in question forever.
My... biases... would go into the roller coaster that was my life. Then again, I've seen people who don't want to learn or be rehabilitated a few times in my life. Those -from what I remember- always ended in disaster. Hell, I've been in a mental hospital once. A. Mental. Hospital. These experiences have also made my politics go from 'Democracy uber Alles' -I was a very wide-eyed idealist in my youth- to my very authoritarian -at least to most people here. Hell, my little brother went through at least three or four different ideologies before he settled on his current pragmatist one.

That is why I support the Death Penalty as the Punishment of Last Resort. Why I want the Senate to be appointed by the state legislatures again (because, in all seriousness, making Senators directly elected effectively eliminated local politics in the US as a whole). Why I don't support pro-privacy anymore. Why an epiphany I had evolved into the 'technological context of history'.

I scare myself at times, and I don't want to go into politics but events pushed me to go into politics if that makes sense.
 

Comrade Sophia

Technoschizic Militia Goth
Administrator
Pronouns
She/Her
Then again, I've seen people who don't want to learn or be rehabilitated a few times in my life. Those -from what I remember- always ended in disaster.
So the problem is we as a society made them this way, what justice in murdering them for a thing they do not have control over?

Hell, my little brother went through at least three or four different ideologies before he settled on his current pragmatist one.
If I might suggest I'd not use terms like "pragmatist", everyone this their politics are the pragmatic ones.
 

Aaron Fox

Member
So the problem is we as a society made them this way, what justice in murdering them for a thing they do not have control over?
You would think, but there are people that are just simply a danger to everyone and themselves no matter what, and that's what I'm going to say on the matter.
 

Hakazin

Member
Pronouns
Female
You would think, but there are people that are just simply a danger to everyone and themselves no matter what, and that's what I'm going to say on the matter.

Do these people actually exist, or is it just a convenient rhetorical device to justify capital punishment?
 

Aaron Fox

Member
Do these people actually exist, or is it just a convenient rhetorical device to justify capital punishment?
They do, even if they are rare. They're the ones that are completely unrepentant in their crimes and enjoy it. That is all that I'm going to say on the matter.
 
Top