Just go to every jail in the country, and move all the signs at the entrance doors and gates, transferring those on the outside to the inside and vice-versa. Thus, the sign showing the name of the prison will be on the inside, and the one saying “exit - please don’t pass through this door if you aren’t supposed to” will be on the outside.

Yeah, that kind of fits right in with the idea Neill started and I finished.  Now we just need to find someone to writethe script.

I jumped down to the bottom here to address Dave’s wife’s statement that killing and imprisoning people are crimes. Crime is whatever the law says it is. If a law is passed saying that the government can kill and imprison people, then it is no longer a crime to do these things. Brutal dictators who do many horrible things to their people usually are careful to pass laws that make their actions legal.

Oh, and you might get a kick out of studying some of the laws that the US Congress has passed in the last few years. Also, throw in Georgie’s executive orders.

Actually, if the one in ten is a politician that might take care of the whole problem.

This thread made me think - I can’t wait for somebody to write the book.  It also reminded me of what my dad used to say every time I got hurt…“Should I step on your toe so your _____ doesn’t hurt?”  Wouldn’t randomly shooting 10 people be a lot like stepping on your toe?  It might take the focus off the real problem for a while, but it wouldn’t actually do anything more than make two sore spots   How’s that for the non-intellectual simplistic view of the issue?

If we pass a law to kill one out of every ten people every year, how long before the population drops to that important rate where genetic diversity is risked?

Additionally, how would mass murder by the government reduce crime?  Are you inferring that crime is population-related? 

What would happen if one out of every ten people convicted of a crime were executed every year? 
    1.  How many jails would empty, thus causing high unemployment rates in the industriial machine that is a judicial system? 
    2.  Would the crime rate truly be reduced?  Does the death penalty really reduce crime?
    3.  What would happen if large percentages of those who had died for the ‘cause’ were to be later proven innocent?

So many questions and so little time.

stretch - 23 December 2008 12:47 PM

If we pass a law to kill one out of every ten people every year, how long before the population drops to that important rate where genetic diversity is risked?

Additionally, how would mass murder by the government reduce crime?  Are you inferring that crime is population-related? 

What would happen if one out of every ten people convicted of a crime were executed every year? 
    1.  How many jails would empty, thus causing high unemployment rates in the industriial machine that is a judicial system? 
    2.  Would the crime rate truly be reduced?  Does the death penalty really reduce crime?
    3.  What would happen if large percentages of those who had died for the ‘cause’ were to be later proven innocent?

So many questions and so little time.

I see a few other problems we haven’t considered before, inspired by stretch-ing my mind…
First, it would be impossible to do it at random because even if you numbered everyone and used a random number generator, there would be folks who figure out how to stay off the list.  Darwin says that over time, more and more people will figure out how to stay off the list.

Second, the policy would be ridiculously expensive to execute (pun intended).  Can you imagine the difficulty of finding and maintaining a crew of assassins or cops or soldiers that could be trusted to do this job?  This actually highlights one of the major realizations everyone should have about government programs:  they are expensive and wasteful because they aren’t really very good ideas.  Good ideas don’t cost money, they make money.

Third, stretch’s #3 and my #2 really depend on how sheepish the population is.  I think someone (me?) mentioned The Lottery by Shirley Jackson earlier in the thread.  I’m reading John Taylor Gatto’s “Underground History of American Education” and a couple days ago when we had our friends over for dinner, Cindy pointed out one of his major points: American schooling is more about getting conformity than anything else.  And that anything else includes education.  In fact the book provides evidence that there are forces in the public education system with the intent to prevent learning.  Smart people tend to be eccentric, and eccentricity is not pliable by the commerce engine.  The elite are terrified of it.  Look at us!

Dave Scotese - 23 December 2008 03:24 PM

Smart people tend to be eccentric, and eccentricity is not pliable by the commerce engine.  The elite are terrified of it.  Look at us!

I think smartness itself defines a certain type of elite, don’t you?

That’s an excellent question.  I had to look up where “elite” comes from to answer.  The Latin root is that of “elect” - judged by many.  It would be very fortunate if smartness was more readily recognized by many, and used to justify higher social status, but I think it isn’t.  The popular people are known for being pretty, rich, powerful, or simply in the media a lot.  Their smartness is generally questionable.  Nerds?  C’mon.

However, If you meant elite in the sense of those with excellence, then of course it does.  Like China’s meritocracy - but the power granted to the elite tends to corrupt the process and then only smartness of a particular type (manipulative?) defines a certain type of elite.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a system existed that did not suffer from the subjectivity of our kind?  No matter what system you follow, judgement will be made - based on looks or smarts or popularity. 

Honestly though, looks fade, popularity is fickle.  But intellegence stays,m adjusts, and (yes) manipulateIn the end.

I think.

I’ve proudly been a “nerd” for decades.  Maybe a geek - I leave that definition up to others to decide.  I will not adjust my demeanor/interests to accomodate those in my proximity.  Or not much anyway.  I might smile or handle my long blonde hair, but I will do so while discussing the wonders of hydrogen bonding, or just exactly what is so cool about the speed of light.

I get respect.  Believe me, that is no small thing.  Those oif us who are women have had to work harder to get that than men.  We have been held under the particular subjectivity that includes all aspects - looks, popularity and particular intellegences - not necesarrily ‘smarts’.  No, it is not fair, but it IS the way that it is.

(Grrr!)

I think the subjectivity, where it produces bad outcomes, generally cancels itself out if people are free to be subjective - to decide for themselves how to do most of what they do.  The examples of subjectivity that is bad that I can think of (being jaded and extremely disdainful of authority) is mostly in government - probably because no other institution is permitted by law to enforce rules as brutally as governments do.  But really, I think subjectivity tends to make life diverse and interesting so I view it as a good thing.  I place the blame for most troubles on people’s tendency to abandon maturity and instead “just follow the rules.”

You may like a particular employer who refuses to hire you because of some stupid subjective criteria, but if you look around, you’ll find another one who want to hire you for the same reason the first one doesn’t want to hire you.  Or you may only find an opportunity to start a company that hires people like you, specifically because the stupid subjective decisions of all the other employers leave a large amount of talent unused.  In any case, over time the subjective criteria will prove to have a positive or a negative effect - if people on the different sides of it are allowed to continue using it.

If free will were indeed free, then the natural subjectivity that would occur would be a fair and leveling force.  But (and I am agreeing with you here) most people opt for the simple road, that of following laid-out rules.  They have abandonded thought and decision.

Sot he subjectivity that results is one of compliance rather than opinion.

And that makes me Grrr!

(I too believe deeply in questioning authority.  have always had a problem with it.  Life is more full.)

The government doesn’t have to kill anyone. There is a simpler solution. Send all the immigrants back to their own countries – the Brits back to Britain, Irish back to Ireland ect. This would cut unemployment and give everyone a fair chance to earn a living and therefore lower the need to commit crimes. Or they could cut the medical care for the elderly, say over seventy, [not that there are too many grannies with shotguns.] but I think that solution has already occurred to them. And as a final thought, dole out as much free illicit drugs as possible. The dealers will leave and their customers will do the job of elimination themselves.  Problem solved