First “positive liberty” used to mean the old (going back to the ancient Greeks at least) idea of the control of reason over the passions.

And government intervention hardly helps such self control – in fact it undermines moral development and leaves people adult sized children.

But also the idea of “postive liberty means lots of nice goods and services for the poor” does not work either.

In fact as there is more government intervention (more attacks on “negative liberty”) so, over a period of years, there is MORE poverty than would otherwise have been the case.

The material universe and the human mind are structured in such a way (either by God or by chance or by whatever) that use the of violence (government intervention) is both an attack on liberty (of the nonaggression principle sort) and an attack on long term prosperity and the reduction of poverty.

In short:

Statism gets it all wrong.

However, if we’re going to go back to early Danish law I am rather fond of the concept of “weregild” (or “man-price”). It did seem to work fairly well in eliminating blood feuds and providing compensation for the death of a relative.

I think you’re right there is some merit to an attempt at compensation. (assuming it’s in conjunction with other penalties)

Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work any time soon, as we seem to have lost most of the concept of personal honor, so declining the challenge wouldn’t carry the stigma it should.

I’m afraid it strikes me that most of the people who would be prepared to shoot each other over “matters of honor” or “respect” tend to be members of street gangs. I suspect they are not the most polite of people.

Admittedly this is just speculation – I have no personal experience with the matter.

I’m not much of a fan of trial by combat (or its cousin, trial by ordeal), as neither bears much resemblance to the search for objective truth which should be the foundation of any rational system of justice. However, if we’re going to go back to early Danish law
I am rather fond of the concept of “weregild” (or “man-price”). It did seem to work fairly well in eliminating blood feuds and providing compensation for the death of a relative. And, for that matter, I wish that we could return to the concept of duelling; if one had to be prepared to back up one’s words on the field of honor this would be a far more polite society. Unfortunately, I don’t think that would work any time soon, as we seem to have lost most of the concept of personal honor, so declining the challenge wouldn’t carry the stigma it should. Too bad.

Forgive me if I twit a bit.

Well sir, what about “Trial by Combat?”

An established feature of Anglo-Saxon precedent, carried forward into Norman times.

Seriously, I have been well aware of the precedents (and history) of Common Law [and Equity - now submerged someplace] for almost 60 years, and practiced at Common Law for about the same time, and regret its slow demise by codifications.

My point was not any one society or social order, though ours ( of Anglo-Saxon [and DaneLaw] derivation in large, but not sole, part) seems to be the last in the “West” to deploy death as a social instrument.

The “East” is another matter.

I’m not sure about crimes “against humanity”, since to my knowledge there is no established historical precedent for that in the common law.

Societies and humanity are impacted adversely by crimes upon individuals, and for those reasons of adverse impacts, retaliations and preventions have become commonally established in various forms.

If there is such a thing as justifiable homicide, as in “self-defense” or defense of one’s child. There can well be other forms of justifiable homicide established as a commonally held interest of the individuals in a society. Death can have a social function.

Justification for the death penalty comes from two very simple premises:
1. Life has infinite value
2. Degree of punishment for a crime on society should be proportional to the costs to the society.

You appear to be attempting to justify the death penalty not per se, but for murder in particular. It seems to me that your simple premises, if accepted, also justify it for manslaughter, and indeed for ‘reckless endangerment’. Could it be they are too simple?

Contrast The Guardian’s take on that MP’s “political stunt”, with The Guardian’s own George Monbiot and his silly “war crimes” antic with Josh Bolton.

Or to Clare Short’s resignation.

People who believe that “the state” should provide for the needs of others are proponents of human slavery. It’s that simple, and we need to continually rub their noses in it. If you can take, by force, the product of my efforts than to you I am nothing but a slave. The mere fact that you have some “need” (real or perceived) gives you no right to my property, and it doesn’t matter whether you take it at gunpoint or by proxy (via the ballot box).

Not saying there shouldn’t be social welfare, but calling it a “liberty” is a cheap retorical trick and needs to stamped out to clear the field for the real debate on the totalitarian state’s intrusion into private lives and property.

Guess it depends on the cause, huh?