Would you support eugenics?

[Murdoch]

16 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Sure I'll give it time, but in the meantime unproductive members of society are dead weight. 

 

You guys think eugenics is all Nazism and killing jews, but its not. You aren't selecting certain traits of people. You are selecting people with a positive economic value.

Who decides what members of society are unproductive, and what happens once the unproductive members have been eliminated, and you're in the "least productive camp". I'd suspect you'd be the next in line. Morality aside, there's no way to implement what you speak of, without it turning into an absolute shit show.

 

Eugenics wasn't all Nazis, Churchill famously had a eugenics programme, people were sterilized in the UK too. The Nazis killed the idea stone cold dead, because they took it to its natural conclusion.

[Acorn Eyes]

4 minutes ago, Kloaked said:

Plenty of people have been able to live who had cancer thanks to treatments that they willingly went through.

 

But you're bringing up specific things we don't have a cure for yet. What about something as simple as pneumonia or the flu that could kill infants?

Pneumonia or the flu doesn't cause unproductiveness.

[Monkey Dust]

As automation is coming for our jobs, who the hell would be left under your plan?

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

Who decides what members of society are unproductive, and what happens once the unproductive members have been eliminated, and you're in the "least productive camp". I'd suspect you'd be the next in line. Morality aside, there's no way to implement what you speak of, without it turning into an absolute shit show.

 

Eugenics wasn't all Nazis, Churchill famously had a eugenics programme, people were sterilized in the UK too. The Nazis killed the idea stone cold dead, because they took it to its natural conclusion.

Because of natural human bias, who decides who is unproductive is a difficult task. But I'm sure with AI on the rise there's a way to help accomplish just that.

 

As long as you're least productive and not negative productive you're good.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 minute ago, Monkey Dust said:

As automation is coming for our jobs, who the hell would be left under your plan?

Those who aren't a burden to the economy.

[Acorn Eyes]

15 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

....How. Just how are criminals, that steal other people's money and fruit of their productive effort, a net profit to society? You realize that bribery and theft of goods is actually the opposite to society?

 

On paper sure, things like crime is bad and hurts people. 

 

But you need to look deeper and past simple conclusions.

Here's a great article to start: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21233/economics/the-impact-of-crime-on-the-economy/.

[Monkey Dust]

7 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Those who aren't a burden to the economy.

But that will be everyone?

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

On paper sure, things like crime is bad and hurts people. 

 

But you need to look deeper and past simple conclusions.

Here's a great article to start: http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/21233/economics/the-impact-of-crime-on-the-economy/.

No this is not an argument, this is an Anarcho-Capitalist fantasy well into the realm of Lunacy: This wouldn't encourage the economy but it would encourage complete and utter social breakdown within hours since everybody would steal and nobody would trade or work honestly for a living and you'd end up in a mad max post apocalyptic dystopia for a few weeks while a massive Fascist organized force would raise and basically destroy them.

 

Also I fail to see how allowing or condoning theft would match with the Non-aggression principle. So let me actually qualify that: not even Ancap loons would support this.

[Acorn Eyes]

1 minute ago, Monkey Dust said:

But that will be everyone?

If everyone wastes other's money in larger amounts than they earn yes.

[Acorn Eyes]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

No this is not an argument, this is an Anarcho-Capitalist fantasy well into the realm of Lunacy: This wouldn't encourage the economy but it would encourage complete and utter social breakdown within hours since everybody would steal and nobody would trade or work honestly for a living and you'd end up in a mad max post apocalyptic dystopia for a few weeks while a massive Fascist organized force would raise and basically destroy them.

 

Also I fail to see how allowing or condoning theft would match with the Non-aggression principle. So let me actually qualify that: not even Ancap loons would support this.

There's almost no correlation between GDP and crime. It's such a complicated relationship that to simply say that "Crime is BAD!" is incorrect.

 

Is no crime good? Yes. 

Can it happen, probably not. 

 

But criminals contribute society, even if its through selling crack to people on the streets. They're converting goods into money.

[Monkey Dust]

4 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There's almost no correlation between GDP and crime. It's such a complicated relationship that to simply say that "Crime is BAD!" is incorrect.

 

Is no crime good? Yes. 

Can it happen, probably not. 

 

But criminals contribute society, even if its through selling crack to people on the streets. They're converting goods into money.

But keeping people in jail costs a fortune, plus the costs of the police service and the courts, all of which costs the tax payer.

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

There's almost no correlation between GDP and crime. It's such a complicated relationship that to simply say that "Crime is BAD!" is incorrect.

 

Is no crime good? Yes. 

Can it happen, probably not. 

 

But criminals contribute society, even if its through selling crack to people on the streets. They're converting goods into money.

Ever heard of correlation does not equal causation?

 

There is no correlation because we have a rule of law in society where theft is greatly discouraged even on the more marginalized places of society theft is not rampant and it's very localized. Society functions because of this rule of law that ensures people's right to property. If you introduce a society with no punishment or solutions to theft then private property would cease to exist and the economy would crash down into nothingness in like days. Most wealth would be utterly destroyed as complete chaos would result and then people would defend themselves and start killing each other and then the one with the most weapons and soldiers wins by default.

 

The impact of theft is minimal because theft itself is minimal, not because magically there's a positive impact introduced by theft.

[Acorn Eyes]

7 minutes ago, Monkey Dust said:

But keeping people in jail costs a fortune, plus the costs of the police service and the courts, all of which costs the tax payer.

That's why there's a problem with the jailing system.

[Acorn Eyes]

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ever heard of correlation does not equal causation?

 

There is no correlation because we have a rule of law in society where theft is greatly discouraged even on the more marginalized places of society theft is not rampant and it's very localized. Society functions because of this rule of law that ensures people's right to property. If you introduce a society with no punishment or solutions to theft then private property would cease to exist and the economy would crash down into nothingness in like days. Most wealth would be utterly destroyed as complete chaos would result and then people would defend themselves and start killing each other and then the one with the most weapons and soldiers wins by default.

 

The impact of theft is minimal because theft itself is minimal, not because magically there's a positive impact introduced by theft.

Enter Brazil

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Enter Brazil

Brazil is nowhere near a completely lawless society. It has sections with very little oversight but guess what? Drug gangs basically enforce their own property anyways.

[2FA]

54 minutes ago, Acorn Eyes said:

Sure I'll give it time, but in the meantime unproductive members of society are dead weight. 

 

You guys think eugenics is all Nazism and killing jews, but its not. You aren't selecting certain traits of people. You are selecting people with a positive economic value.

That LITERALLY was the Nazi doctrine, getting rid of "unproductive" members of society. Are you forgetting they massacred hundreds of thousands of the disabled and elderly?

[Misanthrope]

12 minutes ago, DeadEyePsycho said:

That LITERALLY was the Nazi doctrine, getting rid of "unproductive" members of society. Are you forgetting they massacred hundreds of thousands of the disabled and elderly?

This is an interesting point: People think that if they're personally not racist or anti-semitic, they can't be Nazis. They forget that Nazis where brutally oppressive of many many other members of society includying any and all political enemies and the cases you mention as well.

[WkdPaul]

Locked, LTT isn't the place for these types of topics.