The Jail System

Introduction
Jails.  Prisons.  Correctional Facilities.  Places to keep the dangerous away from the innocent.  Fundamentally prisons and similar institutions have been around for a very, very long time.  Historically they haven't been used as a long term holding cell for punishment like modern jails, but instead they were holding cells for people awaiting punishment or their trial.  This stance will address both the modern jail, past instances and a glimpse into how jails may occur in an ideal society¹.

Stance Summary
Historically the jail was useful for it's time.  In the modern era however the jail has warped into something deviant and encourages criminal behavior.  Rather then evolving with culture and technology, it has devolved with the state.  We are at a time now - technologically and culturally - where the jail system is not necessary, especially in it's current diabolical nature.  As it exists today, the jail needs to disappear.  For crimes with victims, the perpetrator can be made accountable to compensate the victim.  For crimes without victims, see the suggested reading section.


Personal Actions Based on Stance

None at this time.  Luckily I've had little experience with the modern jail system, and I prefer to keep it that way.

Expansion
Past Jail Systems
According to Wikipedia² and my own understanding of history, the jail system has always been a temporary place to hold people.  It's intent was to hold people prior to their prescribed punishment or trial.  Punishments may have included penal colonies, indentured servitude or even galley slaves³.  All of which weren't directly costly to the tax payers.  This excludes Debtors prisons who were designed to hold people, at least until the debtor, his family, or someone coughed up the necessary funds to release him; and also excludes the wars that galleys were used in as war always costs the citizens something whether financial or moral.  The use of indentured servitude, debtors prisons, forced penal colonies or galley slaves are not morally adequate alternatives to prisons, but financially it is a a better option when compared to the modern system.

Modern Jail Systems
Unfortunately in the early 1800's the modern jail, who's intent was also to hold people as part - or all - of their punishment, started to come into being. 

Modern jail systems punish the perpetrator by removing him from society at the expense of the people in society. One of the fundamental flaws I see in this system is that the victim gets little financial compensation while the perpetrator gets his liberty removed.  How is that Just?  Should not the perpetrator compensate the victim for their loss?  Why should the victim have to be forced (via taxes) to pay for the incarceration of the perpetrator and then be forced to deal with the difficulties imposed by the actions the perpetrator did to the victim?  At least in the past Jail systems the victims weren't taxed an average of over $22,000 per year, per innmate⁴, (in California it was over $47k⁵or the equivalent of $38 Billion dollars a year.⁶  This number could be much higher due to unseen costs (forced removal of 1%-3% of the US population from the work force, bigger workforce = more wealth creation possible) as well as many of these numbers were calculated with a 1.6 Million inmate population size⁷, more than 7 million people at end of 2009 were in Jail, Prison, or on probation⁸.  Nor does it include potential savings in Judges and trials and related things that could be reduced.

So financially the modern jail systems is abhorrent.  Nor does it do much in the way of actually "correcting" the deviant behavior.  Isolating perpetrators away from "good" and productive citizens, and forcing them to be in an intimate setting with people of potentially much more deviant behavior.  Let's face it, it is not customary for people to leave jail being of purer heart & better intentions.  So not only is the modern jail system financially costly, but culturally and morally costly as well, especially to those directly affected.

Future Jail Systems?
What do people (non-inmates) desire most from Jails?  Ideally it is out of a sense of justice and desire for protection (rather than revenge or hate).  If someone does something bad the thought goes, he should be punished, it should be made sure he can't do it again, and hopefully the victim gets compensated for undue suffering.  Often the priority is in that order, but that isn't morally proper.  It should only be about trying to 'right the wrong' - which is impossible to truly do because that would be to undo the past.  The best thing known to the author that the justice system can do to attempt to right the wrong is to help the victim, primarily through victim compensation, and from that stems any "punishment" or "protection".  So if the primary method society has available to 'right the wrong' is victim compensation, why do we need jails at all?  Protection for the populace and Holding Cells are general concerns.

Future Jail Systems - Victim Compensation
If person A steals $100 from Person B, is it just victim compensation if Person A returns $100 dollars to Person B?  Using the old Law of Retaliation (an eye for an eye), No.  Maximum just compensation would be
person A should not only return the stolen $100, but to then deprive himself of the same (eye for eye) and give it to person B.  So Person A should then give an additional maximum amount of $100 dollars.  This works even in non-financial issues.  If Person A stabs Person B, just victim compensation isn't such that Person B gets to stab Person A in retaliation - though it's possible that both parties would prefer this over financial compensation.  In such a situation Person B has had to pay for medical care, maybe loss of work-pay due to the injury, and other such things which say equates to $15,000.  Just victim compensation could be treated such that Person A has to pay back to Person B the total cost of these things - $15k, and like above, then deprive himself of the same by paying an additional maximum amount of $15k. 


Future Jail Systems - Protection
Actually, negate "protection".  That should be in the realm of people and the protection services available, not directly in the Justice system.  However, people do want a jail to remove from society known threats.  Say, the situation of someone who has repeatedly murdered people (serial killer).  Should he be just be forced to pay for all those murders as described above?  Should he be thrown in jail for life?  What if he doesn't have enough money to pay victim compensation for the number of people he's killed?  That is a plausible scenario as the financial compensation for a whole life is probably quite high.  In such a scenario the perpetrator would probably end up dead or being forced to move to a different society secretly to avoid creditors and people who want to kill him; at which point the serial killer cycle starts anew or he stops.  However, in the international age it's hard to run away from your past.  One can't move to China and leave your murderous deeds behind.

The above is a very simplistic approach which doesn't take into account a market approach to how such Justice things could be dealt with; for example how Insurance Companies would contribute.  This and other alternatives are discussed in the additional reading, see Bob Murphy's work.

Future Jail Systems - Holding Cells

better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer⁹

William Blackstone, a famous British judge, jurist and politician, discussed that it is of utmost importance not to infringe upon the rights of the innocent, even if the guilty are then free.  This author tends to agree, but does not think that it is either One or The Other.  If Victim Compensation is done similar to as discussed above then there isn't any reason to hold a guilty perpetrator for his punishment, as any punishment to be received is financial which requires that a perpetrator work to afford his debts to the victim or his estate.  If Protection is done similar to as discussed above, in Bob Murphy's works below or based on a similar foundation then there isn't much of a reason to physically hold someone while awaiting a trial.  No reason to remove him from his family, friends, and workplace.  If the accused doesn't show up to his prescribed trial to defend himself then there is a greatly increased chance of being found guilty.  Judgments, when done with financial Victim Compensation as described above, in today's technological age are difficult to avoid or "run away from".  To do so would be to severely limit the perpetrators life life style; which - in sense - is just.  One either pays the financial penalty or can no longer use a credit card, buy a house, get a loan, due to his huge debts incurred by his violent actions found guilty of.  Thus holding cells could be reduced severely if not eliminated over time.

Closing
The Jail system and related systems is too big to cover completely in one stance, nor even in a whole book.  If the topic is of interest please refer to the additional reading section below.  The listed sources are good and enjoyable reads.  In the end however, the modern jail system is broken and few disagree.  This stance details how the author feels the jail system could be dramatically improved.  What is at stake here is not just the billion dollar price tag the current system has, but also the cultural and spiritual effect.  While not discussed, there is a price paid culturally when Justice is perverted into a punishment system, away from focusing on righting the wrong but instead on correct the behavior of deviants.  To treating adults as children that need to be brainwashed into good citizens, rather than letting the deviants attain some sense of personal responsibility. 

Sources

1. Ideal Society - Link
2. Wikipedia: Jail - Link
3. Wikipedia: Galley Slave - Link
4. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Expenditures/Employment - Link
5. California's Legislative Analysts Office: Jail Costs - Link
6. CNN: Money - Link
7. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prison Inmates 2009 - Link 
8. Bureau of Justice Statistics: Total Correctional Population - Link
9. Wikipedia: Blackstone's Formulation - Link

Suggested Reading

• Victimless Crimes - Link
• Bob Murphy: Chaos Theory - Link 
• Bob Murphy: Possibility of Private Law - Link
• Murray Rothbard: For a New Liberty - Ch12, The Courts subsection - Link

Romans 13

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities.  For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.  Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good.  But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.  There fore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.  For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.  Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.  Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

Romans 13:1-8 (NAS)

Introduction
Authority is one of the bases of human relations and human action.  Whether we like it or not, we all submit to authority at given times.  When we are kids, we submit to the authority of our parents.  We learn from our teachers (sometimes voluntary, other times not so), we listen to what people have to say and submit our mind to theirs if we deem them worthy.  We all also submit generally to some form of State.  There are two very different forms of authority in this regard then, there is the voluntary authority, and coercive authority.  This stance address both aspects and how I think that Romans 13 fits into this.

Stance Summary
To be frank, either Paul is talking about submitting to all authority; as the English translation seems to imply, or he isn't.  Most Christians I know go with the latter explanation.  That Paul isn't saying to submit to ALL authority, but only where that authority doesn't go past God's commandments.  Considering the amount of time Paul spent in jail he obviously didn't think he had to submit all the time, every time.

That is not however, what Paul says in Romans 13.  It blatantly says to be in subjection to the authorities.  Something seems to be wrong then with the generic interpretation; how can we be in total subjection to the authorities and still fulfill God's commandments that go against what the authorities say?  I think it's simple, we are to be in subjection to those authorities that meet the "from God" profile given by Paul.  "For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.".  If the authority that be isn't of God, then it isn't a true and righteous authority.  "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil", "Do what is good and you will have praise from the same" & "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing".

How are we to then judge good behavior and Godly authority?  God's commandments are a good place to start.  Also, see the Primary Foundational Principle¹ listed below as my personal starting point.


Personal Actions Based on Stance


Expansion
Interpretation
An modern example about how a strict, English interpretation of Romans 13 seems to be wrong would be the Nuremberg trials; soldiers had to be punished for their crimes against people despite just following orders.  They were submitting too much to the Nazi government, they willingly violated God's commandments (in this particular case the judges weren't worried about God's commandments, just country laws).  To think otherwise implies that if your governing authority commanded you to murder someone, you should do it; despite this going against God's commandments.  I do not know of any Christians who think that a Nazi, who murdered Jews in cold blood should not stand for his crimes just because he was submitting to authority.

Why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says?
The question remains then, why can we so loosely interpret what Paul says?  We have to because otherwise it doesn't theologically and morally match up with what we know of the rest of the scripture.  So either there is a contradiction, or Romans 13 is misunderstood, or the rest of the bible that discusses morality is misunderstood.  I believe that the Bible is the word of God and thus Romans 13 isn't a contradiction.  Nor do I think that the rest of the Bible is misunderstood in this particular sense, so Romans 13 itself seems to be misunderstood.

If it is misunderstood, how?
I think there a couple different things here.  Firstly, as it is written in the NASB, it can be interpreted as written above that only the authority that can be seen as from God is the true authority, and that only the true authority should be submitted to.  Similar to how Christ said that you will know the true prophets by the fruit they bear.  You will know the true authorities by the fruit they bear.  That authorities fruit may be viewed differently by different people.  As Paul talks about in 1st Corinthians 8², people can sin against their conscience as not all people have the same knowledge of what is good and proper.  In this chapter Paul talks about people who understand that meat sacrificed to idols is okay to eat, and others having "a weak conscience" think that they shouldn't eat it.  We are then asked to not let our liberty be a stumbling block to others, so that in our knowledge we don't encourage someone else to sin against their conscience.

Liberty, Exousia, and Authority
Interesting thing here, the greek work for Authority (Gr exousia³) that is used throughout Romans 13, is the exact same word used here in 1st Corinthians 8:9

But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB)

Can't find the term authority?  It's the term liberty.  Let me switch the words for easier reading.

But take care that this authority of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. (NASB, modified)

What does authority mean here?  It means liberty.  It means personal responsibility.  The power of choice.  Which is in fact the primary definition of exousia even though it is generally translated as authority in the Bible.  Read some of these⁴ references to exousia in Luke for further, interesting readings.

Because of this unique definition of exousia (both Aristotle and Plato used it to mean the power of choice, or free will) I will also contend that in addition to submitting to the governing authorities except where it conflicts with God's commands, that this section of scripture may also mean (either exclusively or in addition to) that the true governing authority (or Higher Power as some versions translate) is really God's Higher Liberty.  The free will that God has given each of us.  Allow me to transpose how this section of scripture might read with a liberty mindset.

We are to submit our liberty to God's Higher Liberty, for there is no true liberty apart from God.  Resist God's gift of liberty or free will to people and you resist God's ordinances, and those who do oppose will receive condemnation.  We were not given liberty so that we can be a force for evil, but to be a force for good.  For those we submit to are not to be forces of evil, but forces of good.  Do you want to have no fear of freedom of choice?  Then do what is good, and good will be done to you.  Do what is evil and beware, you will reap the consequences for your actions.... (pay taxes, love thy neighbor, and so forth)

Disclaimer, I do not mean to re-translate the scripture here, I in now way studied every original greek word, and use to write this.  I wrote it simply to help get across the liberty message that may be available in Romans 13.
 
Closing
I take all of this to basically mean, obey the government on this earth, unless you have the knowledge and understanding that states otherwise.  I do not, and can not encourage someone to go against what their conscience tells them.  I do not want my liberty to be a stumbling block, and I do not want to cause someone to sin against their conscience.  Does that mean we should be content with the limited knowledge we have and not seek to be free?  1st Corinthians 7:21 says "Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that."⁵  The term Free here literally means to be become a free man, a different word than exousia, the freedom of choice.  So we should all strive to continue our understanding of God's Law and God's Higher Authority, but nor should we worry about continuing as slaves.  Most of us, specifically people residing in a Western countries, more specifically America and Britian, we are at best serfs, at worst slaves. "If you are able also to become free, rather do that."⁵
Sources

1. Primary Foundational Principle - Link
2. 1st Corinthians Ch8 NASB - Link
3. Strong's Dictionary - exousia G1849
4. Luke's use of exousia - Link
5. 1st Corinthians Ch7 NASB - Link

Suggested Reading

1. Primary Foundational Principle - Link 
2. Religious Roots of Liberty - Link
3. A Peccancy - Link

Cleanliness

Introduction: 
Clean products are everywhere today.  Is that beneficial or detrimental?  Is there such a thing as too much cleanliness?  There are TV shows that go from home to home and clean up messes, organize houses, and attempt to clean up people's lives through it.  Today we shall address how I view cleanliness, slovenliness and sterility.  The author does recognize that these terms are somewhat relative, as they should be.  Different people see muck in different places, or even not at all. 

Stance Summary:
I am not the cleanest person in the world, nor am I what is known as messy.  I am organized, I don't like things on the floor, I like dishes put away, and things in an appropriate place.  I appreciate a clean space that can be efficiently used.  Dirty clothes in the hamper, books on a shelf (unless you need them for something besides waiting to be read, then desk or piles are acceptable).  However, when it comes to germs and food I may be a little less clean than normal.  I do not like, and maybe even detest, consistent sterility.  Clean:  good.  Sterile: bad!  A sterile environment is an unnatural state on this world.  I feel that having too clean, too sterile of an environment tricks our body in to letting down it's innate defenses.  Then, when the body encounters the real world it loses an advantage it had before. 



Personal Actions Based on Stance:
Some may find my food habits detestable.  I have been known to just rinse bowls and plates after using them.  I use the same cup for days on end before I put it in the sink.  My cast iron pots have food residue on it that could be weeks old, or it could just be from this morning, I really don't know.  I will use a knife for at least a few days before washing it, maybe a whole week or more, I don't really keep track.  it is not uncommon for a a knife I use to have food that is dried and stuck to the blade that I may decide to scrape off, or just keep using as is.  My skillet utensils (tongs & spatula) also can go days or more between cleanings.  I can easily use it on 5 different meals while grease and food particles are stuck to it.

Before the reader becomes too disgusted with me, let me clearly state that I abhor mold.  Mold is disgusting and has no place in the kitchen except the compost bin.  Rarely do I ever leave any food out long enough to mold on my utensils, cups or knives.  If I did, I would be thoroughly disgusted with myself and make sure that the item gets thoroughly cleaned, or dare I say it, sterile.

Expansion:
Despite the behavior above, and as stated, I don't like mold.  I find a moldy environment a detestable one that I wouldn't want to live in.  Nor does that position need to be readily defended as most people feel similar. 

I do also feel that there are environments that are much too sterile.  This does not mean to imply that all sterile environments should be banished.  It can be argued that some sterility is important, say if someone is sick, the body should be given a break from the outside attacks so it can focus on what is already inside the body.  That is good and proper, but once the body has healed and is no longer fighting anything and it has no need for any defense, it seems to become lax.  Similar to a vaccination I suppose, where a patient receives a dose of a low level disease so that the body can learn and adapt to fight off the stronger version of the disease.  So if the body is never given a chance against simple bugs found outside, or around the home, it will suffer horribly when it comes in contact with food poisoning, or a strong strain of influenza, and other common, but potent diseases.


Sources:

Closing:
In the end, all I want is the middle, the plain ol' healthy clean. Not too dirty, not too sterile.