> - excluding the value of personally owned assets used in the
> production of
> goods or services, such as factories, workshops, machinery, vehicles,
> equipment, and agricultural land.
Why exclude these things? Surely the ownership of these things (the means of
production) is as or more important than wealth in the form of money or
precious materials.
Legally, the argument inevitably fails on three grounds:
a. the EU does not have the right in law to introduce a death penalty across
the European Union;
b. I suspect it comes into conflict with EU human rights legislation; and
c. while there is a precedent for criminalising possession of certain
material things, there is no prior precedent for the EU making death a
recognised punishment for them - the fact that the EU maintains friendly
relations with countries that do is not internally relevant.
More generally, why the death penalty? Provocative, but hardly rational or
effective. Surely deprivation of civic rights and confiscation of said
property combined with forced labour / community service would be a far more
effective and economically useful punishment for those endeavouring to
maintain inequality. Alternatively we could expel such people (after
confiscation) to countries where their abhorrent practices are regarded as
being somehow 'acceptable' or 'normal', or swap them with countries from
whom we receive refugees, who would also be able to benefit from the
subsequent redistribution of wealth.
Best Wishes for the Season to all Critters,
David.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dr David Wood
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
[Algorithmic Surveillance and Social Exclusion]
Centre for Urban Technology (CUT)
School of Architecture Planning and Landscape
University of Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 7RU
UK
+44 (0)191 222 7801
[log in to unmask]
www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/d.f.j.wood/
///////////////////////////////////////////////////
|