NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/dc/general/2956

Text File | 1992-11-18 | 3.2 KB | 77 lines

Newsgroups: dc.general
Path: sparky!uunet!hfsi!ata
From: [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Protest
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:27:59 GMT
Lines: 66

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Humphrey) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]
>>(Doug Humphrey) writes:
>>>
>>>The safety of the population is *directly* tied to the issue of dollars.
>>>
>>>>I guess we as a society are going to have to decide whether we
>>>>value all human life, or just certain ones.  If the answer is all
>>>>human life, then the economic argument becomes irrelevant.
>>>
>>>This is simply not true, and can not be demonstrated.  You can not
>>>
>>>Doug
>>>
>>
>>Well, I guess in your mind you've made the decision that human
>>life boils down to a matter of economics.
>
>Really?  I don't think that I said that.  Perhaps that is how
>you understood it though.  I do mean that it is not possible,
>in the administration of public policy and the operations of
>the government in its quest to serve the people, to divorce
>any subject completely from the concept of how you are going
>to pay for it.  Is that any clearer?

I think that there are two issues here that are being confused.
The first is placing a monetary value on life so that one may make
a decision on whether to *actively* kill that person.  That is, if
a certain monetary value is not met, then the person is executed
or killed.  The other is placing a monetary value on expenditures
necessary to *prevent* a human death.  This is placing a monetary
value in the passive sense.  I maintain that the two situations
are different and should not be mixed.  Although we quite
frquently do the latter, I don't believe that we have ever had a
policy of doing the former.  Perhaps you have an example of the
former being done?

>>Perhaps in addition, each crime a person
>>commits should have a positive or negative value to it?  If the
>>person's net value of a person's life doesn't equal the cost of
>>keeping them in prison for an average life expectance, then we
>>kill them? Is this what you are advocating?
>
>No.  I don't think that I said any such thing.
>
>>If so, what about a
>>poor person who is on welfare for a good portion of their life.
>>Perhaps, they will never substantially contribute to society
>>anything, and indeed will take from it more than they contribute.
>>Should we stop all their benefits so that they will die?  After
>>all, we could spend that money in more productive ways.
>
>Doesn't sound like a very reasonable to me, but it is your
>idea, not mine.

But it could be the end result of people's lives are reduced to merely
money.

>Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice [phone]

--
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  [e-mail]
HFS, Inc.          VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive     MS:601       |    Voice:    [phone]
McLean, VA  22102               |      FAX:    [phone]