Truely the extent to which you demonstrate the inability to think is only dwarfed only by your inability to pay attention. Continually correcting your crud is now becoming that repetitive I can begin to respond to it entirely by almost entirely by copying and pasting from previous posts of mine.

We do have the ability to mine asteroids. Just no-one has yet. Just like you could build a train track from your house to the sea, but no-oine has yet. All the bits are in existence. It doesn't exist now, but it's not beyond the scope of possibility to make happen. Well, it would be for you as your lack of ability to do math, perform feasibility studies, geological surveys, understanding physics etc would seriously hamper the initative, but it's achieveable for most.

"infallible" hardware is possible by explictly expecting and planning for failures, combined with 21'st century monitoring and maintainence. It's commonly not going to be the CPU that exhibits failures as these should all be on filtered lines and environments maintained, but more likely things with moving parts.

"Unsinkable" is possible, approached correctly and supplied suffiently. All three you listed was operating at a much lower technological level in terms of raw material refinement and suffered immensely from attempting to save money - which can't reconcile with other requirements.

Insulting you is rather pointless, but as you're doing a lot better job of it than me it does render it futile. But there again the entire premise of attempting to speak sense unto yourself is a little futile because as one thing gets cleared up you revlove back unto another previously ratified facet, usually based on irrational fear caused by lack of education and a desperation to have something to be scared of.

The major difference between the road law example you cite and monitoring/maintainence of systems is that the road laws are an artificial construct, so easily ignored by the humans operating in the system - creating almost all the problems within. Systems monitoring rules are not so easily bypassed, not being done by humans. Similar to the driver in your example it will observe the data produced by equipment in order to "anticipate" and "excersize common sense" avoiding "accidents". The possibility of failure still happening is expected, and thusly mitigations probvided. Wherever practical the laws of physics themselves should be the operating mechanics and thus failure impossible. There are no countermeasures, the system is the countermeasure.

Realistically, you are not going to be recieving payment for delivery of harsh words. You're not interfering with systems, not having any access to anything important and any attempt to would be noticed and recified rapidly. It's reasonably safe to assume that the random and unusual (harmless) things people will pay for are both unlikley to meet your needs or be applicable at the precise time you would require it. Starting to run out of reasons for anyone to pay you for something, and you had specifically suggested harming others as a way to recieve this payment. The only specified direction. It's almost infinitely unlikely you'd be in posession of any information it's not possible to obtain via a more reliable source. Getting on the space station is unlikely to be your call, and even if you was somehow in some position of regulation involving, any sensible system would be set so you can't abuse anything, requiring collusion from more than yourself - involving multiple people to accept bribes of something there is no use for - You'd actually avoided hitting into any of the real details, like how you're supposed to collect this payment after, or use it to get some more crack, let alone in time to stop your blood itching. This isn't ending life to save life, as this doesn't directly involve the loss of one to preserve a greater number. It's 1:1 or many:1, and doesn't lead to any direct saving of life. Just a representation of the most complex and least assured to succeed plan you could come up with on such short notice. Unless your plan is to attempt screw up as many others as you can as you ensure you're never granted the opportunity to do the same again.

Having them hand you money before you do anything is quite wise from your point of view, however from their point of view it's wiser to hand you the money after. To assume that can be resolved, it still doesn't cover how you'd actually get to spend this money, considering the cost to get there to give you the money, and the amount required to motivate you we can safely assume that w/e it is would not be benign - or why the cloak and dagger, one would just knock on the front door. It'd be cheaper.

The government of Asgardia probably won't know your medicianal requirements - it could find it out - what would know is your medical records, unlike the attitude you seem to expect, you don't "hit and hope" with space, things like medical checkups will be regular. Your "medical condition" would be known beforehand, in order that you can recieve the medicaiton you require. Unless you was just hoping to magically find some lying around in the middle of space it's likely this will require to be produced for you, something a lot harder to do and unreasonable to expect when you don't know it's required. As previously mentioned, this will most likely manifest as a public dispenspment machinery or your personal/private equipment that will fabricate it on demand. It doesn't matter precisely what medication it is, it currently exists so it can be made.

I don't do hypocrisy. I would do w/e it takes to survive, on an instinct level - and if pressured into a corner taking of life to preserve my own would be without hesitation - however if afforded the time to think(ie: more than 1 second reaction time) I would be weighing in variables and the decision wouldn't be based entirely on preservation of my own life, with the situation handled as the individual case merits. In the larger picture my personal survival is a minor detail, and sometimes the queen must be sacrificed to force a checkmate. I'm not so selfish that I think it's all centric to myself, even in my "inner world". I do have some skill with thinking "outside the box" however, so when placed in such situations I commonly walk out, as evidenced by my still walking, with the checkmate and the queen. When presented three options, make your own fourth. I don't pretend to defecate rainbows, I do however recognise the value to morality and ethics. These are what will ultimately result in this "ideal society" of which you speak, so should be thoroughly promoted. One should also strive to lead by example, It is unreasonable to expect of others that which you cannot expect of yourself. I am not perfect(although some claim otherwise, despite my attempts to curb this opinion) but my flaws do not extend to that of the average human.

But, yes, to get back "on topic" - For the record, I also recognise the place forfieture of life could have. I also recognise this would not be entirely "civilised" and a defacto declaration of failure. Thusly seek alternates. If it's feasible to provide for long term mass residential facilities in space, then it should be equally feasible to provide for reahbilitaion and detention facilities, also in space. For the attribution of resources example, scaricity would require to be resolved before the attempt unless you'd evision life in perpetual deficit, especially when finely tuned and balanced cycles are disrupted through natural population expansion. "Unmet needs" isn't a concept that's sensible to entertain in space - it seriously won't work - and thusly needs will require to be met to consider habitation long term safely. Sensibly, "correction facilities" would not be in the "residential facilities", but entirely seperated and isolated. The scale of resource attribution being met to make the construction of habitation facilities possible should render the fabrication of additional facilities reasonably trivial.

As to the use of prisoners for manual labour, similar exists under another term: slavery. It's not an entirely progressive concept. It can certianly be useful, but considering most tedious labour is already possible to take place by machine then by the time this will be taking place it's questionable what labour could be productive for them to do - and you also have to consider if they can be trusted to do it and how you'd actually force this labour out of them.

The "return to Earth" option is only a truely viable concept for those that "came from Earth" - a generation or more into "born in Asgardia" isn't going to be "right" to send to Earth, as a punishment. It's got nothing to do with Earth, and forcing our problems on Earth isn't a sensible long term solution, and even short term is likely to be incredibly problematic. With regards to establising correction/detention facilities on Earth's land, then you still have the problem of them leaving this facility. Even those that "came from Earth" would still be us dumping our problems we cannot solve onto Earth. The reception to the topic of punishment vs rehabilitation indicates the larger percentage would choose to persue rehabilitation options, more than custodial sentences. Indefinite incarciration I'd hope to be an incredibly rare occurance, reserved for those whom there are no potentially corrective options. For "correctional facilities" to be considered worthy of the title then those that pass through them should leave, in theory, capable of integration back into "larger society". In the interests of fairness, they should be granted the opportunity to prove themselves. Lifting them from Earth then is an issue that could of been avoided. Leaving them there just abandons the investment in their rehabilitation.

Personal attacks detract from your argument. Please desist, both of you. You are making the thread an unpleasant place for EVERYONE ELSE, even if neither of you actually care. I would appreciate it if both of you could first tell the other what it is you THINK they are saying, then clarify any discrepancies, then move on from that.

Both of your posts are so long, filled with anger, and difficult to read for those actually trying to find facts within the opinions.

Quite simply, the tl:dr of the matter is I maintain that a death sentence is a primative response to a problem we've failed in solving. Therefore, in the cases where rehabilitation is unfeasible, long term incarceration is the natural direction to lean towards - after acknowleging that exile to deep space is just a slightly slower death sentence, return to Earth equates to dumping our problems on them and is unfeasible for anything beyond the initial joining. I further maintain that in solving the issues that are presented with providing for long term mass residential facilities in the current environment will also provide for feasibilty to construct, operate and maintain detention/correctional facilities in space also.

In opposition Brandon7 maintains that this is impractical, based on literally no evidence and continually making false assumptions based on poor or dated research, and that instead money should instead be spent on an island - the natural step for space habitation - which as well as hosting housing for 200 specially selected people would also support a booming tourist industry and still somehow manage to fit prison facilites on without actually doing a feasibility study on the concept or things like what would potentially attract the tourists or how to actually attribute the funds involved with making any of it happen.

There is little anger in my posts. I can be angry, and you will be sure to know of it when it happens. For determining facts vs opinion, the interwebs is littered with information and it would be wise to make good use of it, and check the reliability of the sources.

You two do realize this topic was about punishment of corruption, not islands, right? That was the other thread you two were doing battle within.

No, I wasn't aware this topic was concerning punishment of corruption. The title of the thread wasn't a clue at all. Neither was the content of my first paragraph, or the second.

I apologize to you and to Brandon7.

I had hoped that by bringing to your attention the fact that you two seem to take over several threads with your incessant back-and-forth that you might re-evaluate the methods you use to communicate. I realize now that my hope was in error.

I will see myself to other threads that have not yet been taken over by such rancor.

As a new nation we need to learn from the error of others in order to succeed. Corruption is in one way or another the reason of majority of mankind problems, so, seed the fear in the heart of the corrupts from the beginning!

Just a suggestion..

Your "suggestion",: MasterCh, seems to me barbarian.

State sponsored murder is something I hope Asgardia will never endorse. The taking of a human life is never an acceptable standard solution to a problem.

This is what I talk about, Bjorn Schrammel. +1 for the comment.

Read also this said by Niko Partanen:

I see few problems in death penalty: 1) How we can change the penalty for death person if we see, person was wrongly accused?

I'm relatively new to the site so please forgive me if i post similar things as those who have already posted i was just reading through the docs page that had proposed items for the constitution and thought a rewording / reiteration or perhaps an entirely new approach would be something to consider.

as far as crimes go I do believe that the punishment should fit the crime however one thing that I saw suggested multiple times doesn't appear as though it would work. If Asgardia ever takes off and is recognized as an actual nation I severely doubt that they will willingly accept murderers, rapists and the likes being sent back to terra firma in fact I'm certain that their home nations would most likely scoff at the attempt. perhaps set up a separate block or mine where they must earn their food and other amenities through labor with no access to the rest of the society.

If you kill, harm a child, or rape some one separate them to work. give them no luxuries, no contact, just work. If they don't work they don't eat.

If they steal, dine and dash, or damage property then make them work to pay off the debt. not as heavy handed as removing the thieves hand nor as light as a fine or stint in a cell.

If they are using drugs not approved by the country then send through a rehab treatment and make them do public service.

Prisons and cells should for the most part be unused unless the person proves that they are truly unfit for society in any way. they should not be shoved into over crowded cell blocks to live in the system with possibility of being released only to further spread the violence that initiated the issue in the first place. prisons should be used sparingly. an attempt at a new way of thinking should be offered alongside paying off the debt that any damages may have incurred.

The obvious problem with a death penalty is the cases where this is wrongly applied - and there is much evidence of this happening - as it is difficult to undo such an act. This IMHO is a strong enough reason to do away with it altogether. "Wasting" resources keeping a few people(max predicted, over a few hundred thousand that makes the current population) seperated from the main population is far more acceptable than wrongful termination. Termination as a default response is at best primative.

The concept of a death penalty for corruption itself is a little extreme. Remove them of the position, certainly. Some form of "punishment" might be good to apply, but "rehabilitation" seems the more logical choice. Corruption is certainly something that should be removed - preferably from being present in the model at all. Transparency of every stage should help to eliminate. Something like a governmental model of direct democracy would make things like "corruption" difficult to achieve in terms of governmental operations - it'd be difficult and cost-ineffective to attempt to bribe or subvert the larger population.

Attempts to "rule" via fear, coercion, or misinformation will not likely result in the outcome most would be happy with. Use of such techniques are not commonly deployed by those who would have your best interests at heart and should instantly raise distrust in those capable of thinking.

If you kill, harm a child, or rape some one separate them to work. give them no luxuries, no contact, just work. If they don't work they don't eat.

Enforced labour is defacto slavery - definitely not a progressive concept. Considering the levels of automation currently are capable of performing most menial labour tasks, then by the time this would be applicable it's questionable what "work" would exist for them to do, making them do it just for the sake of it's them doing it doesn't strike me as a particular mature response and further it's questionable if they can be trusted to perform said task. Try to force me to do something and I'd be seeking ways to make it break itself preferably killing you in the process, with no regard to my own life as if things are that bad it's already over. What ever the outcome is, it's certainly not going to be what you're expecting. There's nothing I cannot weaponise. People placed into desperate sutiations will do desperate things. Quite how to ensure slavery is another thing - withholding food would likely represent a human rights violation, and with space generally things like access to life support systems and food are likely to be considered default rights, and provided - to prevent people hoarding all the air/water/food etc and metering it out for profit. Again, desperate people, desperate things - you can't let people in space suffer from desperation, ever, or it'll never work. You'll have things like the great toilet paper wars of 2150, where neighbour kills neighbour for toilet paper as they the only ones with some left and isn't sharing after it'd spent some time acting as a currency and they've hoarded it. If avoiding the concept of a death penalty for the ethical and moral dillema it brings then attempting to causing death by starvation as a tool to ensure compliance against their wishes should be an equally unacceptable route to follow.

With regards to prison populations, especially with the "rehabilitation" option being generally favoured I'd not expect a significant (<2% of population) requirement for short term cell usages and a much much lesser (<0.01% of population) requirement to utilise long term/indefinitely. Sensibly, such facilities should be remotely isolated from residential faciilites. By building specific facilities for we should result severely in excess of our requirements. This excess could potentially be rented to Earth, although that may raise some headaches with defining if they should actually be in prison - rules of one country do not apply in another, and many corrupt systems regularly detain without reasonable cause. The physical remoteness of such facilities should provide for mitigation of escape opportunity, which is ideal for long term incarciration.

@Phicksur,

Now, you have seen what I have been putting up with!

Asgardia should never use something so utterly ineffective as the death penalty. It is only a penalty if the person sentenced to it cares about living and since Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street. It makes sense to have a place on world that is under Asgardian juridstiction to send those folks for rehabilitation and if possible reintegration back into Asgardian society. Housing people of a corrupt nature anywhere on the space station that will eventually be in orbit is too risky and potentially places the lives of the citizens at stake

@Phicksur,

Now, you have seen what I have been putting up with!

Asgardia should never use something so utterly ineffective as the death penalty. It is only a penalty if the person sentenced to it cares about living and since Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street. It makes sense to have a place on world that is under Asgardian juridstiction to send those folks for rehabilitation and if possible reintegration back into Asgardian society. Housing people of a corrupt nature anywhere on the space station that will eventually be in orbit is too risky and potentially places the lives of the citizens at stake.

@EyeR,

Are you done? Cause I am, so, from now on just leave me be. We do not need your unwarranted hostility

Are you done? Cause I am, so, from now on just leave me be. We do not need your unwarranted hostility

Um, whut?

If you say so.

Asgardia will not have the facilities to house criminals right from jump street

Asgardia has more potential to build facilities to house criminals before it has potential to build facilities to account for it's population. One of them is going to be a much smaller number. Elseways there was specific intent to avoid account for such. So there will be ability to house criminals "right from jump street" unless specific intent was otherwise. The outer space treaty suggests there's not going to be a world under Asgardian jurisdiciton. By having a facility that is seperated from the citizens residential facility there is no risk to common citizens.

No death penalty. We must avoid instances that allow corruption, avoiding the factors that produce corruption. Solo eliminando los factores que producen la corrupción se puede eliminar la corrupción. El instinto del hombre desde su gestación es aprovechar las oportunidades en medio de dificultades economicas o medicas. Si eliminamos estos factores, eliminamos la corrupción. Sin hablar de la educación.

Done "right" money isn't a factor. Certainly not if we can consider sensible mass residence of the stars.

Deportation to country of origin - as previoulsy covered in this and similar threads - is only a viable concept for those that actually have a country of origin - what happens when they've been born in Asgardia?