16 votes

Statist Morality: Not Only Do The Stupid Deserve To Suffer,

but they ought be be locked in cages or mental institutions for their stupid decisions even when no harm is done.

I propose we all write our legislators demanding comprehensive IQ reform to fix gross injustices of nature. I am suggesting extensive IQ redistribution programs. Stupid people dealt a bad hand should get at least one ace up their sleeve so they can be occasional winners. I am also suggesting a progressive IQ tax to further even the playing field.

A prisoner survey was published by the Board of Trustees of Western Pennsylvania in 1927. Conducted by W.T. Root, Jr. titled; A Survey of 1,916 Prisoners in the Western Penitentiary of Pennsylvania concluded "the median intelligence of every racial group of prisoners lies either in the middle borderline or upper moron group of intelligence."

Considering how many more millions of people are incarcerated in the United States today than 1927, it can be concluded with certainty society is experiencing an epidemic of stupidity. The current fiscal health of the nation dictates we can no longer afford to incarcerate or institutionalize stupid people at exponential rates.

If the trend of intelligence deteriorating as quickly as family values continues, the median intelligence of every racial group in society will fall well below the upper moron group of intelligence. It is quickly approaching a matter of national security and vital state interest. Put plainly, we are talking about our very survival as a human species. Our very survival depends on establishing new social programs to start redistributing IQ.

I know many libertarians would be against redistribution or taxation under normal circumstances based on the non-aggression principle, and so would I, but this is clearly a self authenticating exception to the rule. I know I can count on your support!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pain, scarcity, and the

Pain, scarcity, and the potential of violence are natural evils, inherent in reality. Since these evils exist naturally and necessarily, managing our defense from them, even if it involves force, sacrifice, cooperation, etc., in a necessary evil. These aren't moral judgments, in the sense of Thou shalt, thou shalt not. Can you understand the difference, yet? If not, perhaps that's because on your own moral system, which you've not clearly described, they are the same thing. But in normal language, they are not.

It is one thing to say

pain or scarcity are natural. It is quite another to claim they are evil. To do so would require valid premises for such a theory because all evils are based on theories. Normally people do not describe a concept of voltage, a difference in potential, as evil. You are still conflating nature with human action.

For argument sake let's just toss the word evil completely out the window and substitute bad. Pain is bad. Scarcity is bad. Etc. What is a rule to delineate bad? We might formulate a rule of bad in terms of quality, comprising certain observable elements. When applying a rule of bad we might say this widget is inferior to that widget due to measuring the following observable elements, therefore it is bad.

However if we want to talk about harm instead of quality we use the term evil. In order to formulate any rule of evil, evil must be comprised of certain observable elements so that it can be measured and meaningfully distinguished or the rule is arbitrary.

On what premises are pain, scarcity, and the potential of violence concluded to be evil? Is your only premise something one prefers to avoid for the rest of their life?

Looks like

you're just not very familiar with the English language. Note the different senses of the term, for future reference.

1. evil
adjective \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\

: morally bad

: causing harm or injury to someone

: marked by bad luck or bad events
evil·er or evil·lerevil·est or evil·lest
Full Definition of EVIL
1
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2
a archaic : inferior
b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive
c : disagreeable
3
a : causing harm : pernicious
b : marked by misfortune : unlucky

— evil adverb, archaic
— evil·ly adverb
— evil·ness noun
See evil defined for English-language learners »
See evil defined for kids »
Examples of EVIL

She drank an evil potion.
The city has fallen on evil days.
It was an evil omen.

Origin of EVIL
Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
First Known Use: before 12th century

So your premise

is because some dictionary defines evil in an arbitrary manner that is what you choose to believe? Dam BILL3, your fans are going to be disappointed if they realize you are the kind of guy who believes any old arbitrary bullshit someone tells you to believe. Your fans might have thought you were an independent thinker able to separate metaphors, slang, or other colorful uses of language from arguments when pursuing truth. It must be a great evil for you to disappoint them so willingly.

On what premises are pain, scarcity, and the potential of violence concluded to be evil other than someone told ye so?

That's great

Merriam-Webster is arbitrary, and your definition is the right one. Love you guys, the gift of humor is not to be taken lightly.

Truly,

a gift of humor is not to be taken lightly. Perhaps you would care to share what you call your blind faith in a supreme evil that can manifest anywhere, anytime, as anything?

This was a great answer to the "Libertarians believe'

folly. Thank you.

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15