Since there is no way to quantify losing ones life, i.e. we don't know if there's a heaven/hell, if you just phase out of existence, or w/e. So, since there is no way to prove that the criminal would in fact be receiving the same punishment as the victim we as a society have no right to kill those criminals we deem worthy of such a fate.

Further more, Locke states that all people have the innate right to life, liberty, and property, as such even if a criminal takes another's life we cannot rightly take theirs. Unless we as a society agree that people do not in fact have the innate right to life, in which case murder is no longer a crime. So the moment a government takes the life of one of its constituents (regardless of guilt) it throws away all rights of those constituents to keep their right to life. Furthermore, the moment a government takes the life of an innocent (an almost certianty) it has completely devalued the lives of its constituents.

So if a society is to remain just and right, it must noe continue the death penalty.

Gays aren't superior, they are equal... And how would denying them the right to get a divorce give them the moral superiority...?

Please think out your arguments before you post here...

...there'a barely intelligent life here on earth let alone elsewhere in the galaxy.

Fair point... but how will it be enforced? Jail time for those parents who have unlicensed pregnancies?... oh wait that will be punishing the baby way more than the parents...

I have no quarrels with your arguments about trying to limit the amount of babies born into poverty etc. But putting a license on breeding is a preposterous idea that wont work in reality.

-How would it be enforced?

-That would mean you would need a license to have sex.

-Talk about a waste of vital government funds and time.

-What purpose could this possibly serve?

-How would we decide who would be allowed to breed and who wouldnt?

-This is very similar to Hitler's ragimes to wipe out the Jews form Germany, only targetting idiots instead... When we really need to be addressing why these people are stupid in teh first place. If its genetics, then who are we to discriminate people based on birth defects outside of their control?

Then entire idea of a license to breed is ridiculously stupid..

The only way to enforce this would to somehow check people have a license to breed before they have sex... which would mean some sort of survelliance or police men in the bedrooms... but wait you can have sex pretty much anywhere, so you would have to implant a chip to make sure when people get horny they have their license... but wait thats ridiculous.

That would go against a fundamental theory of economics, supply and demand. When supply goes up (i.e. there being a lot of potential CEO's) the price (i.e. salary) naturally goes down. And no the demand is not so high that the salaries remain at the level where it would necessitate caps. =

Well, i would think that a ruler should be given credit for the decisions he or she made within his or her career, without being subject to the scrutiny of "well, would any leader have done it?" For all we know his opposition may have sided with hitler to avoid a conflict, but i do believe it was churchill's leadership in doing such things as opening the RAF and developing Radar that helped win victory over the Germans.

As for your site, i didnt read the whole thing, but the majority of what i did read were pure assumptions no backed up by evidence showing the evens were directly Winstons fault, or things like this:

"Churchill was the ruler and the Ruler is responsible for the Ruled" which is a ridiculous assertion to make... atleast a ridiculous assertion to make about a democratic country.

Alot of the time people who do things like this to children are only doing it because of mental illnesses or repressed psychological problems. I think that locking them up in the first case (for some of the cases) is a bad idea, i believe a lot of these people should be given psychological care, and yes jail time if necessary. As for whether or not child murder is better/worse than adult murder, i think it depends on a case by case basis, i.e. someone who shoots an asult in the head vs. someone who kills a child then mutilates the corpse, obviously the latter should get a harsher sentence, but all together i think they should be equal.

Well, i don't want to say that these people's ideas are better than other ideas...

but you must agree with me that inherently, some CEOs are better at being CEOs than other CEOs.

Therefor, it is a simply capitalistic idea that the most successful companies be allowed to pay for the best CEOs, putting a cap on salaries means after a company gets to a certian success point it can no longer legally intentivize the best CEOs to join their companies, as well as a companie that has also crossed that success point but is less successful.

"You might be right about equalizing the classes but a system can't help people as well as peope can help people. "

Ok, show me some statistics please. Furthermore, we can see in the U.S. that people don't help people to the extent that the millions of people in poverty can easily move out of it.

"Millions of poor people have gotten over it, and have climbed out of poverty through years of honest hard work. You might wanna look at history."

Again, show me some statistics.

"Of course people born into poverty have a big hurtle to jump over and of course poor people are not inferier to the rich.

Much of what you say is correct but please realise that socialism is not the answer."

Heres where i am coming from, look at this from my perspective:

You make all these claims, like people can overcome poverty, and that people do overcome poverty, and then that people can better achieve this than a socialized government. Then you ask me to produce some statistics, so i do. But,when i ask you to do the same, you claim you don't need to. Yet you continue to make these same assertions. So, please show me some statistics that back up your claims.

To clarify, im looking for some statistics that show that the majority of poverty in the U.S. (arguably the strongest capitalist nation at the moment, but pick another capitalist society if you would prefer) is the fault of those in poverty, and not a fault of the capitalist system, which helps those with money to keep their money.

"socialism is not the answer."-- i would like some reasons please... you have basically only said that people can help people get out of poverty better than a government, with no evidence whatsoever.