[ExI] the octuplets mother and what it bodes for the future

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 16/02/2009 10.13, Dagon Gmail ha scritto:

> The diversity of genes we have implies that a percentage of people
> will be unable to compete in the global marketplace.

They can compete on the local marketplace.
Waiters, janitors and so on don't compete in the global marketplace,
only in the local ones.


> This is a constant figure - 5% of the potential job market are not
> classified as formally disabled (or after a while do gain that label
> in most modern democracies, if only by default) and simply cannot be
> fit in to the current employability system.

So?
We have to pay for the welfare of the disabled, then the unfitted but
not formally disabled, then of the people that find some jobs under
their status (from your old posts).

Are we cow that you want milk us? And without giving us shelter and food
and the care the cow deserve and need.


> If welfares are low, these people end up in prison.

Is this a bad thing?
If they are prone to go in prison without welfare, they are more prone
to go in prison with welfare, as they have more time in their hand to
break the laws.
Their basic need can be met by philanthropists (food, shelter, cloths).

> This is so consistent a pattern that we can conclude the genetic
> component transcend free will (no amount of threat will dissuade this
> percentage, not even executions) and the state will have to find a
> solution to deal with this.

Executions are a permanent solution, if they are not able to respect the
lives of others. Long jail times is also a good solution when they don't
respect the other's properties. If the component is mainly genetic, so
you thing they don't deserve the jail reserved for criminals, the
Italian way could be appealing: if they are "socially dangerous" there
is the criminal asylum for them. They are sentence a minimum term for
their crimes, then they are keep inside if they are considered "socially
dangerous" by the psychiatrists that care them there.

We don't let lions or tigers to roam freely around only because their
genetic make-up is different and let them feed on humans. Where is the
difference?

Prison are not for "evil" people, only for the people that don't behave
in a civilized way.


> In current market conform context, a prison inmate costs between 150
>  (near-third world conditions, alabama) to 400 (fully developed,
> denmark, scandinavia) per day.

We could delocalize all of this in Brazil or Myanmar, I would bet it
would cost much less than 100$ for inmate/day. and would do a better
deterrent.

> A welfare mom costs under 100 a day, probably closer to 50. Plus, a
> welfare recipient is kept dependent on the system, is fed and housed
>  and tends to not spread disease.

I don't like the idea of "dependent on the system" as I don't like the
idea of "feed him forever".


> The damage someone inflicts on society if cut of from necessities
> (addicts come to mind)

It is not.
People prefer to be on welfare and have time to do what they like
(Jihad? Crime? Babies someone else must feed?)
To work is not a pleasure for them and make you tired.


> range from 100K tot half a million a year in the netherlands. Junkies
> steal several objects a day, which amounts of debilitating economic
> damage. A group of junkies predating in an area can close stores in
> under a year wrecking regional business. The same junky in prison
> requires medical care far in excess of the mentioned 400.

You write about this like it is as inevitable as death and taxes.
Predators must be deal with and neutralized, not appeased. You can not
and must not depend on their goodness. If they are able and willing to
break the basic laws, they will have no problems do it with or without
welfare. Usually they will not consider the consequences of their
actions when they break the laws, so being on welfare will not change
their behaviours. If, like you write, no amount of threat will dissuade
them, how could they behaviour change only because they are on welfare?
Many of them do what they do because they like to do it, and other
simply are not able to control their instincts.




> A person cut of from an equitable income, or society itself by virtue
> of being stigmatized in this manner, tends to become pathological,
> consumes increasing care, often already has problems. So giving these
> people welfare can make sense, from a cost-cutting perspective.

It is insensate, because they will not respect any laws with welfare
they would not respect without. And you are only teaching them (and the
sane one) that bad behaviours will reward them more than good behaviours
(in the near term).

> I agree this is highly unsatisfactory for the critical tax payer.

It is not only unsatisfactory, it is a waste of time and resources.


> It is a no-win situation, and I consider it up the critical tax
> payer to come up with alternative means of reducing cost.

I know a few way to reduce costs, but I'm sure they would not appeal to
you and to other people willing to spend my resources.

> I assume considerations like "humane" or "just" or "with longterm
> implications in mind" have no value to you in this discussion,so let
> me kick off with some suggestions

It is humane to burden good people with the costs of keep fed and happy
a bunch of criminals?

> * when a person clearly unable to contribute more economic value than
> he or she consumes, that person is marked for euthanasia

This is what a socialist would do, national or international it is the
same. I'm not.
I'm only concerned with people that use violence against peaceful men
and women.

> * when a person clear consumes more than he or she produces in
> economic value, that person is marked for euthanasia

Why? He/She can be supported by bleeding hearts like you.
I remember something... you are on welfare.
So you are talking about a course of action that only help you and that 
cost you nothing. Read the citation at the end of this message.

> * when a person consistently uses criminal means to acquire goods,
> euthanasia

This depend.
If it is an hateful crime, like homicide or rape, I would dispense with
the "eu" prefix. I would support "tachitanasia".
If he only rob people, I could accept to keep it in a jail and force him
to work to feed himself until he have repaid the people damaged; if not 
he can starve. Either ways the problem will be solved.

> * As above, low cost internment in a caged environment, slave labour,
> tent camps etc. I think you cannot reduce cost much below 50 unless
> you can marketize these people as a resource. Organ harvesting?

We could outsource the keeping, I wrote before, to other countries if
they are not willing or able to feed themselves. Say China. Or Somalia.


> * I suggest you look at a slow escalation if you implement harsher
> methods, i.e. what other cost cutting measures can you apply? Smokers
> cost ten to fifty times as much as they cough up in taxes - hence
> maybe start making some tough decisions regarding smokers (drinkers?
> Child abusing parents?)

I talked about scrapping welfare.
People want smoke?
They can, as much as I must not foot their healthcare bills.
Where is my problem?

> * Parents routinely give inherited ailments to parents. I think
> parents who can afford genetic screening should be held accountable
> for the societal impact. At the very least they should be made to
> pay.

So you are harsh with good people and weak/sweet with criminals.
Your idea of welfare is that productive people must pay when they do
something wrong, but unproductive people must not pay for the wrongs
they do and be paid for do nothing.

It is "interesting".

> * Sociopathy costs society dearly in human misery. A full 5% of
> people can be diagnosed as being psychopaths, and they can and do
> have high-paying jobs. Nevertheless their actions have perpetuated a
>  culture of exploitation, dumping, theft, corruption and significant
>  human tragedy. I am for testing people for sociopathic lack of
> empathy, and forcing these people on lifelong psychiatric councelling
> and making sure they don't enter jobs where they can damage society
> or impact other people's lives.

If you are for testing people for sociopathic lack of empathy, I am for
testing people for sociophatic excess of empathy.
People like you are full of empathy for themselves and their likes and
void for empathy for others.
What are you able to do and to give? Nothing I suppose. So you are like
the old/ugly women that, unable to give bad examples, are only good to
give good advices other must follow.
In Italy there is a proverb that apply to you, it say:
"Let arm ourselves so you can go to combat"
"Armiamoci e partite".

> Please let me know what you think on these treatments to address the
>  scum that damages and exploits society - and make sure you pay less
>  taxes. Because that is a cause to fight for, at any cost, to make
> sure you pay less taxes.

I'm against treating the sociopaths forcefully.
If they want be treated, we could do. If they don't want to be treated
we can not do anything to change them.
If they behave in the wrong ways, jail them.



I leave you to meditate to a passage of C.S. Lewis from the The
Screwtape Letters
http://www.mylibrarybook.com/books/676/C.S-Lewis/The-Screwtape-Letters-1.html


> There is here a cruel dilemma before us. If we promoted justice and
> charity among men, we should be playing directly into the Enemy's
> hands; but if we guide them to the opposite behaviour, this sooner or
> later produces (for He permits it to produce) a war or a revolution,
> and the undisguisable issue of cowardice or courage awakes
> thousands of men from moral stupor. This, indeed, is probably one of
> the Enemy's motives for creating a dangerous world's a world in which
> moral issues really come to the point. He sees as well as you do that
> courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every
> virtue at the testing point, which means, at the point of highest
> reality. A chastity or honesty, or mercy, which yields to danger will
> be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was
> merciful till it became risky.


Mirco