(from elsewhere) 1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Mea

(from elsewhere)

1) The argument I have put forward is genetic pacification. Meaning that the purpose is not to change behavior but to forcibly remove people from the commons, the social order, and the gene pool, and continue the ongoing incremental suppression of aggression, and long term pacification of aggression in the world.

2) As far as I know the death penalty has little impact on certain demographics, possibly because it is statistically improbable that one will suffer it. However, through about 1900 we hung about .5-1% of people a year and the argument is that this was responsible for the genetic advantage of northern europeans everywhere they went in the world – the people who were otherwise were culled.

3) The evidence from the field, from sheriffs, from police, from prosecutors, is that the three strikes policy has been disproportionately effective. It has for example caused vast migrations between states of the organized petty crime conducted by the methamphetamine trade. And in the northwest its a common complaint that lower tolerance drives Idaho criminals into eastern Washington for example.

4) Conformity in this case is Non Aggression against Property En Toto. It is somewhat hard to argue that non-aggression is something we avoid conforming to. (If you have some other logic at hand I would love to understand it.)

One cannot create an intertemporal disincentive for the inter-temporally challenged and cognitively impaired. We can however, cull them if they engage in aggression, and if not we can pay them to behave.