Laws against murder ought to be removed

[Scotty]

Now I realize we're all raised with the notion that violence is no solution to our problems. But I think we all know it certainly CAN be. An I'm thinking that allowing people to kill dysfunctional members of society, or those who are non-productive, or even merely irritating, would produce a tremendous improvement in the quality of our society and the individuals who reside within it.

Just think of all the irritating, annoying, stupid people who make life difficult being eliminated from our society! Would that not result in a major improvement? Oh I grant you there'd be some unfairness on an individual level, what with the inevitability of idiots shooting people for no good reason, or just because they enjoy it. But such people would certainly wind up being targeted themselves and removed from society. So on a macro scale this wouldn't really be an issue.

And so the end result would be all the weakling and fools would be removed, and what would be left are strong-minded, careful people with quick reflexes who know how to behave and how to take care of themselves! This could not help but have a tremendousy positive affect on the cohesiveness of our society.

People would probably stop driving slow in the passing lane, too.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Scotty

[GostHacked]

You'd eliminate about 4/5ths of this boards posters if that was the case.

[Scotty]

You'd eliminate about 4/5ths of this boards posters if that was the case.

Well, I can certainly see how that would be problematic for the individuals concerned, but would it not make society a better place, in the end?

[Topaz]

You'd eliminate about 4/5ths of this boards posters if that was the case.

Didn't you maean 5/5?

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, I can certainly see how that would be problematic for the individuals concerned, but would it not make society a better place, in the end?

Are you including yourself in this grand scheme? Will you volunteer for the first lawful execution?

[GostHacked]

Didn't you maean 5/5?

No, 4/5ths for sure.

[scorpio]

Just think of all the irritating, annoying, stupid people who make life difficult being eliminated from our society!

And who would be the arbiter?

[betsy]

Deleted. On second thought, I think that joke was in poor taste. I also didn't mean to make light of Scotty's topic. Sorry.

Edited March 21, 2011 by betsy

[Scotty]

And who would be the arbiter?

The beauty is that everyone would have that right. Kill anyone you want to.

[Scotty]

Are you including yourself in this grand scheme? Will you volunteer for the first lawful execution?

Of course not! But the system doesn't depend on volunteers. You can certainly kill anyone who's trying to kill you - if you can. It's survival of the fittest!

Edited March 21, 2011 by Scotty

[scorpio]

You can certainly kill anyone who's trying to kill you - if you can. It's survival of the fittest!

Yeah, it's called self defense.

[Michael Hardner]

[sarcasm] Why is the government putting its nose into MY business of how I settle MY personal beefs ?[\sarcasm]

[Pliny]

An excellent example of Social Darwinism. Someone accused me of promoting that one time. Even though I hold true to the principle of the sanctity of person and property.

[ToadBrother]

Well, I can certainly see how that would be problematic for the individuals concerned, but would it not make society a better place, in the end?

Since your society would descend into anarchy and ultimately into tyranny (think warlords and slaves), I'd say it would get very bad before it got slightly less bad as order and justice were restored. Apart from a very small number of psychopaths and sociopaths, humans are social animals who create codes of conduct, we would end up with wanton murder being outlawed and the state regaining a monopoly on its application.

[ToadBrother]

An excellent example of Social Darwinism. Someone accused me of promoting that one time. Even though I hold true to the principle of the sanctity of person and property.

Not even Social Darwinism, as vile as it is, is this bad. Social Darwinism and the whole eugenics movement was about selective removal from the gene pool under the bizarrely mistaken idea that removing variety from the gene pool would create a healthier species. This is simply calling for the removal of all restraints of behavior. It wouldn't be the "less fit" getting killed, it would be anybody unlucky enough to be caught without a means of defending themselves. You wouldn't end up with a population of winners, you would end up with a very small population of depraved monsters.

Actually, I think what would happen would be the general populace would demand order be imposed, or it would be imposed on them, and the depraved monsters would quite properly be swinging for the highest tree.

[Pliny]

[sarcasm] Why is the government putting its nose into MY business of how I settle MY personal beefs ?[\sarcasm]

That's sarcasm because your implication is that some people, I guess those promoting the concept of limited government, would settle their business that way.[sarcasm] Ha! Ha!...er... pardon me...crafty smile [\sarcasm]

[dre]

Now I realize we're all raised with the notion that violence is no solution to our problems. But I think we all know it certainly CAN be. An I'm thinking that allowing people to kill dysfunctional members of society, or those who are non-productive, or even merely irritating, would produce a tremendous improvement in the quality of our society and the individuals who reside within it.

Just think of all the irritating, annoying, stupid people who make life difficult being eliminated from our society! Would that not result in a major improvement? Oh I grant you there'd be some unfairness on an individual level, what with the inevitability of idiots shooting people for no good reason, or just because they enjoy it. But such people would certainly wind up being targeted themselves and removed from society. So on a macro scale this wouldn't really be an issue.

And so the end result would be all the weakling and fools would be removed, and what would be left are strong-minded, careful people with quick reflexes who know how to behave and how to take care of themselves! This could not help but have a tremendousy positive affect on the cohesiveness of our society.

People would probably stop driving slow in the passing lane, too.

Thats just a recipy to create a dysfunctional third-world hell hole.

[ToadBrother]

Thats just a recipy to create a dysfunctional third-world hell hole.

It's a recipe for someone having to reinvent first and second degree murder charges.

[Michael Hardner]

That's sarcasm because your implication is that some people, I guess those promoting the concept of limited government, would settle their business that way.

But why should government be involved in protecting the weak from murder, or being sold into slavery if they don't need to protect them from anything else ?

I have my devil's advocate pants on here.

[Oleg Bach]

My son once said "I wish I could bop all the jerks in the head" - I told him that there are millions of jerks and by the first day of bopping - your poor hand would fall of from the wear and tear. It is NOT our job to destroy evil - the nature of evil is as such...that when interacting with it - IT grows stronger...when you kill you cause more killing..."blessed is the peace maker" - I know of people and all they want to do is wage war..in one form or another _ I being a veteran of the cosmic wars...now suffer from post tramatic stress..was it worth the fight - did I win the battle? NO - I wasted my time...an old lawyer once said to me..."You have given this to much time" - translated - OUR SYSTEM IS UTTERLY CORRUPT AND YOU WILL NEVER HAVE VICTORY.......as for killing the useless....Lets start at the top and work our way down..because in the end - a useless person rich or poor is still considered an "undesirable" - I repeat.. my mantra....Royality means loyalty....Those bureacrats that betray their own country men and woman...will NOT be rewarded..

The powers that be will say this......."HOW CAN WE TRUST YOU AND EXPECT REAL LOYALITY - WHEN YOU COULD NOT BE LOYAL TO YOUR OWN". ALL henchmen and woman will be rendered to the bottom of the heap in time..They actually believe they are climbing up...when in truth they are decending.

[Wilber]

Thats just a recipy to create a dysfunctional third-world hell hole.

Of course. For one thing it assumes people will act as individuals which they will not. The effective ones will seek allies, first in their own defence, then to eliminate others, which will result in exactly what you describe.

I like the idea of eliminating slow drivers in the passing lane though.

Edited March 21, 2011 by Wilber

[Scotty]

Since your society would descend into anarchy and ultimately into tyranny (think warlords and slaves), I'd say it would get very bad before it got slightly less bad as order and justice were restored.

Hey, I didn't say there'd be no laws or rules! Let's say you can't use anything other than a hand gun - without silencer, just to keep things sporting. Also, you can't organize kills. That is, you can't take a dozen friends somewhere to kill someone. You have to do it by yourself. No hiring people to do it either. Taking money to kill people would be illegal. All kills have to be public and recorded.

Of course, that means everyone you know will know you killed someone, so they'll all be somewhat wary around you. And of course, there's nothing wrong with revenge killing. So if you kill someone, their friend or relative can come and try to kill you too. Those who pile up the kill scores are pretty quickly going to find themselves unwelcome most places, and probably shot 'just in case' by others.

[ToadBrother]

Hey, I didn't say there'd be no laws or rules! Let's say you can't use anything other than a hand gun - without silencer, just to keep things sporting. Also, you can't organize kills. That is, you can't take a dozen friends somewhere to kill someone. You have to do it by yourself. No hiring people to do it either. Taking money to kill people would be illegal. All kills have to be public and recorded.

Of course, that means everyone you know will know you killed someone, so they'll all be somewhat wary around you. And of course, there's nothing wrong with revenge killing. So if you kill someone, their friend or relative can come and try to kill you too. Those who pile up the kill scores are pretty quickly going to find themselves unwelcome most places, and probably shot 'just in case' by others.

Your whole point is an absurdity. The whole point of society is to mediate such acts. Your thought experiment is ludicrous on the face of it. People form governments for the very precise reason of preventing this sort of thing.

[Scotty]

Your whole point is an absurdity. The whole point of society is to mediate such acts. Your thought experiment is ludicrous on the face of it. People form governments for the very precise reason of preventing this sort of thing.

I think they form governments to keep other people who have formed governments from invading them.

And to see the garbage is taken out and the pot holes filled. That's basically it.

[cybercoma]

Now I realize we're all raised with the notion that violence is no solution to our problems. But I think we all know it certainly CAN be. An I'm thinking that allowing people to kill dysfunctional members of society, or those who are non-productive, or even merely irritating, would produce a tremendous improvement in the quality of our society and the individuals who reside within it.

I can see how that was the case in the Antebellum South, as just one example.