From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: abortion
Date: 13 Apr 92 08:52:04 GMT
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera

In article <1992Apr12.125307.10994@husc3.harvard.edu>, olson@husc9.Harvard.EDU (Charles Olson) writes:
>"I'm also vehemently, adamantly opposed to the death penalty, in any and all
>circumstances.

StM is puzzled by this attitude.  "Let's see.  That means that if we have, say,
a mass-murderer whom we are CERTAIN will continue his killing spree first
chance he gets (you DID say `any and all circumstances'), that gives us two
choices:  We can either let him go on killing, or we can support him (with the
best of medical care, of course;  given that we're confining him, to do
anything less would amount to a death penalty) for the rest of his life.  I
know of very few (if any) people who'd advocate the former course of action.
And the latter has the following problem:  Suppose I need some MAJOR medical
care, but can't afford it (or, for that matter, suppose I'm unemployable).  If
I kill a number of people, I'm assured of food, shelter, clothing, and medical
care (all but the last may be somewhat substandard, but remember, I'm facing
the prospect of doing without entirely) for the rest of my life.  If I DON'T
become a mass-murderer, I'm going to be unable to provide myself with any of
these amenities.  This provides me with a pretty damned strong incentive to see
how many people I can kill in the shortest possible time.

The obvious objection to this argument, of course, is "Provide at least minimal
food, shelter and clothing, and the best medical care available, to everyone in
the society.  Here we run into a problem that economists call "incentive
compatibility":  If I've got enough to get by on without working, why should I
work?   Now, you can make whatever theoretical arguments you want as to why
most people might want to engage in SOME work to improve their standards of
living; however experience has shown that there actually ARE quite a few
people who'd rather live at a rather minimal standard than work for a living
(I've known several such people).  So this workaround has the productive
members of society subsidizing the unproductive members.  This means that the
incentive to work is further attenuated, which results in yet more parasites,
which further attenuates the incentive to work....

Now, I don't claim to have even the foggiest idea of what the percentages of
leeches would be in such a society.  There are far too many other factors to
permit any estimate of the percentage;  all I can say with any confidence is
that the percentage will NOT be zero.

So what we end up with is a society in which some people support others, simply
because those others don't want to work.  I personally find the idea of such a
society EXTREMELY repugnant.

Whch bring us to the point of all this rambling:  Do you REALLY want such a
society?  If not, then you MUST support the death penalty in SOME cases (and
no, penal colonies will NOT get you out of the dilemma, since by condemning a
person to a penal colony, you're increasing the likelihood he'll be murdered,
considering what he'll have in the way of fellow inmates.

>"OK, I'm done, let's take these out and burn them... oh man, anybody got
>a forklift?"

Don't worry about it.  My termites (genetically engineered to eat only the wood
from soap boxes) are voracious enough that they should be able to handle both
my soapboxes and yours.