Who should be sacrificed for the common good?

[Agit8r]

according to the Indiana deputy attorney general, Teachers

 

[JBeukema]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

You tell us, you're the one fixated on the "common good".

Tell us big guy, who should be thrown off the cliff so you can have free __________

Fill in the blank.

Wait, so we're no longer glorifying those who give their lives for the common good?

 

[JBeukema]

Well, for starters, disabled people. Then the non-working seniors. After that, a random annual culling of 10% of the underclass.

They are just lazy, shiftless, non-producers. Like going shopping for 9/11. Easy peasy sacrifice.

Why not just start with the Jews, Pollacks, Roma Gypsies, fagots and retards?

But if we kill the Congressfolk... you know, that might not be such a bad idea...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

Oh well, Wall Street Bankers, CEO's, anyone who works for "big" oil or "big" pharma, anyone who is not in a union, accountants, people who live within their means, teapartyers, people who drive SUV's...

Feel free to add to the list.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

according to the Indiana deputy attorney general, Teachers

Really? Got a link to that?

 

[JBeukema]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?
People who are exposed to carcinogens?
People with respiratory trouble?
Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

Artificially supporting the weak, slow, stupid, old, and sick creates an unnecessary, unsustainable strain on already limited resources and, on the whole, weakens the species.
This is intolerable; The Common Good is best served by severing this support.

Now where have I read that before? *looks over at picture of Charles Davenport*

 

[JBeukema]

Artificially supporting the weak, slow, stupid, old, and sick creates an unnecessary, unsustainable strain on already limited resources and, on the whole, weakens the species.
This is intolerable; The Common Good is best served by severing this support.

then we should end medicare and SS immediately...

Absolutely. The resources wasted here are better used elsewhere.

and abandon our infants to fend for themselves.

Those that are sickly and/or fail to thrive? Certainly. Weed them out.

While what you say is true from an extreme pov...

It is true, period.
The Common Good is best sevred by what is best for the species, by what gives it the best chance to survive. Wasting resources on luxuries such as supporting the weak, sck, etc runs contrary to this and must be stopped.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/1403965021]Amazon.com: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (9781403965028): Richard Weikart: Books[/ame]

 

[JBeukema]

Correct.
Increasing criminal pentalties for nothng more than a supposedly intolerable intent is nothing more than attempt to impose morality.

criminal law is an attempt to impose morality.

That's half the story...

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

then we should end medicare and SS immediately...

Absolutely. The resources wasted here are better used elsewhere.
Those that are sickly and/or fail to thrive? Certainly. Weed them out.

While what you say is true from an extreme pov...

It is true, period.
The Common Good is best sevred by what is best for the species, by what gives it the best chance to survive. Wasting resources on luxuries such as supporting the weak, sck, etc runs contrary to this and must be stopped.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Hitler-Evolutionary-Eugenics-Germany/dp/1403965021]Amazon.com: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (9781403965028): Richard Weikart: Books[/ame]

You should also reference Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood and eugenics.

 

[dilloduck]

Mosquitos

 

[JBeukema]

Correct.
Increasing criminal pentalties for nothng more than a supposedly intolerable intent is nothing more than attempt to impose morality.

criminal law is an attempt to impose morality. So is religion and much of what we call education.

False.
Criminal law is nothing more than a deterrent against people violating the rights of others.
Murder isn't illegal because it is wrong, it is illegal because it violates the rights of the victim.

The rhetoric of 'rights' is a moral argument.

Simply violating someone's 'rights'- if they exist- doesn't logically lead to criminalization of behaviour unless it is assumed that it is 'wrong' to infringe upon those rights.

 

[JBeukema]

Apparently you dont have any real argument since you've already gone to personal attacks. Surprise Suprise.

Not at all. If you had actually worked for a living you would know that virtual all work is dangerous if not for workplace safety codes.

That is absolute nonsense.

Using this logic, we should also have the government create homeplace safety codes

You mean like building codes and banning lead-based materials?

 

[JBeukema]

Conditions of the Working-Class in England Index

 

[Zander]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

Great question! I like the idea of stupid people being sacrificed. After all, they are stupid and we do have a knowledge based society and economic system....

Yep, stupid people should be required to do all the shitty, dangerous jobs that can kill them if they make a mistake (with the caveat that these stupid people cannot hold jobs where other non-stupid people can be hurt by the inevitable mistakes that will occur - after all stupid people are stupid.) It will teach the stupid to pay attention....or else they'll be dead. It's a total win/win for the gene pool.


Oh, and cripples too - they get all the good parking spots. Fuck 'em.

 

[JBeukema]

Rousseau: Social Contract

 

[Londoner]

You tell us, you're the one fixated on the "common good".

Tell us big guy, who should be thrown off the cliff so you can have free __________

Talk Radio has misframed the issue.

It's not about stealing from one group in order to give to another (even though our current subsidy-&-bailout system steals from the taxpayer to give to corporations).

[FYI: Reagan largely reversed welfare from the poor to corporations]

The questions is this: do we want to live in the kind of society which bails the Reagan family out?

During the depression Reagan's father was jobless and unable to take care of his family.

FDR gave him government assistance.

FDR saw it as an investment in the American people -- and you might agree that the investment paid off. He didn't think the Reagans were welfare queens. He believed that if poverty destroyed fewer people, than more people would go on to lead productive lives -- and this would raise the level of competitive excellence in the country: FDR didn't want to leave men like Ronald Reagan crushed by poverty, untapped. Just as we pay taxes to invest in roads and bridges (which are necessary for commerce), we pay taxes to invest in the solvency of the middle class consumer, whose productivity and consumption are necessary for a healthy economy.

America loses when we have a group of offshore billionaires who make more money than they or their heirs could ever spend, while a growing population of working poor require debilitating debt just to afford medicine and education. When your distribution system leaves too many hard workers in dire poverty, the country eventually suffers because too many people can no longer afford to consume. In 3rd world countries this is not a problem because their economy doesn't depend on domestic consumption: their workers have always been too poor to consume. The American economy, however, is different: it depends on high levels of middle class consumption, which consumption was made possible because the government ensured that middle class wages and benefits were tied to economic growth. In fact, because the middle class had money to spend, the capitalist was forced to invest and add jobs. Unfortunately, the mechanisms which created middle class demand were removed by Reagan, who told us jobs and benefits would trickle down. We got punk'd: the jobs trickled overseas and the benefits evaporated. As a result of falling wages and disappearing benefits, we had to put middle class consumption on Master Cards and Visas: this broke the bank. Meanwhile, there is so much money on top that Wall Street has to invent derivative ponzi schemes just to handle the disproportionate demand for high returns. This kind of distribution system is toxic because it takes money away from the real economy of goods and services and diverts it to the speculative Wall Street casino. America swallowed poison in 1980.

Back to the essential point about the free loader myth: FDR bailed Ronald Reagan out because we benefit when good Americans are not destroyed by poverty. If we invest in Reagan's Star Wars, and if we invest in (subsidize) companies who ship jobs overseas, and if we invest in bailing out the S&Ls and AIGs, than we can invest in the solvency of the middle class. It's not a hand out, unless you listen to talk radio. We don't want to leave the next potential Ronald Reagan crushed by poverty. We want to invest in our most valuable resource. You've been lied to by professional agitators.

 

[percysunshine]

Who should be sacrificed for the common good?

To be fair, I would propose doing it alphabetically. Let's start with 'A'....

 

[kaz]

Workers who work around unsafe conditions?

People who are exposed to carcinogens?

People with respiratory trouble?


Who else should be sacrificed by getting rid of "job killing regulations?" Feel free to suggest your own

#1 to get rid of is the minimum wage. No one makes more then they are worth, the minimum wage prevents you from working if you're not worth $7.25 an hour, and that's all it accomplishes.

#2 to implement the fair tax and make the US a tax haven rather then a tax death trap. At least eliminate payroll and corporate taxes which are just job killers and incent companies to go offshore.

But just a few others would be to et rid of repatriation of money taxes, let unions have market power but not government power, eliminate government regulations to force union membership for any job, eliminate government requirements preventing buying cars from car companies (you have to buy them from resellers), eliminate government medical insurance mandates, eliminate obstacles to offshoring work, eliminate unemployment insurance, force foreign socialist governments to pay their share of US pharmaceutical research by eliminating price controls, eliminate all monthly tax filings and go to annual, eliminate withholding of taxes and have employees mail in a check so they know what they are paying.

 

[JBeukema]

We've already seen what happens when we do things you way

 

[dilloduck]

What set of circumstances enabled some people to have far more money than other people ?