Is Murder a Bad Thing? The Answer May Surprise You.
The answer is usually no. Murder is pretty much always a good thing.
This may sound strange, as people are usually taught that murder is a very bad thing. This argument is largely rooted in human instinct, as all humans fear their own death, and then by proxy they fear the death of other proximate humans, as this indicates that their own death is much more likely.
This fear is little more than a vestigial instinct that is left-over from the days when the human species was still a feral, wild animal. Instinct is little more than a hallucination in the human mind, these instincts just happened to be hallucinations that were regularly beneficial for ensuring human survival in the wild.
That being said, we must understand that human instinct is still a hallucination, and beyond that it is a set of hallucinations designed to function in the wild, when we were feral animals, and it is not at all designed to function in contemporary society.
Physical pain is also a hallucination, much like the fear of death, just another hallucinatory sensation to vividly compel you to avoid death so that you will reproduce and ensure the survival and reproduction of your offspring. We must understand that any instinctive hallucinatory qualms are not valid concerns or valid rebukes of murder any more than methbugs under the skin of a meth-addict are valid reasons to pick at their skin until they bleed.
This leads us to the question, why is murder usually good? This is because the way our society is orchestrated along with technological advancements in healthcare. We have a very high life expectancy rate in the West, and when this is coupled with socialized upkeep for the elderly, this means that most all people will end up producing an economic net loss over the course of their lives.
That is, if a person lives out their life until they die of natural causes, this person will more than likely end up having cost more money to the country than they had produced. This means we have invested in this person over 80 years, just to lose money on that investment.
The logic here reasons that when this situation is practically a given in America, that the person will live their life out until they die of natural causes or otherwise die from an expensive medical issue, then murdering a person tends to always be beneficial to the country and society as a whole.
While murdering a person is seldom the outright best action possible, the point being made is just that murdering a person tends to be better than the no-action situation where the person dies a natural death.
Murder isn’t “a good thing” just because of how wonderful murder is, it’s rather that the natural result of human life is just so costly, so detrimental, and so problematic to the country as a whole, that even murder is better than this result. If random murder is a D+ on a test, no-action natural death is a hard F.
This graph helps demonstrate that given a person would die a natural death, there’s actually never a point in somebody’s life that murdering them is actually worse than letting them live.
The numbers are simple here. Anyone who dies a natural death will cost the economy $1,000,000; their entire life, despite their hard work, will amount to negative $1,000,000, a debt of $1,000,000 placed on the back of the economy.
At any point in this person’s life, if they were to be murdered, they would be guaranteed to at the very least produce less damage to the economy. Even at the bottom of the trough of childhood, the lowest yield before peak yield, this would still be a “good murder” for the economy.
Yes, the child has been a complete loss. $15,000 invested with no yield by the age of 14, the age they can legally work. Regardless, if this person was not murdered, they would have resulted in a net loss of $1,000,000 for the government by the time they died naturally. Even if this isn’t turning a profit, you’re still averting substantial losses.
This trough is the worst case scenario for a murder. If the person is murdered between the two instances where the person breaks even, then this person has actually turned a profit for the economy.
By being murdered between these two points, this person now has become an unquestionably beneficial force upon the economy. Where once this person was projected to be a net loss of $1,000,000, with 95% certainty, they have overcome those crushing odds and actually turned a profit and benefitted the economy.
“Natural death” here means anything beyond an unnatural death, and a natural death includes prolonged bouts with illness as well as natural causes. The only things that don’t qualify as “natural death” here would be unintentional injury.
Only 6% of people die from unintentional injury, while people over the age of 75 have the highest rate of death induced by unintentional injury. This means that even some of this 6% that technically wouldn’t qualify to be murder-worthy actually remains murder worthy like the general public.
Knowing that over 95% of people will die a natural death or in old age, this means essentially every murder is 95% certain to be more beneficial to the country than letting that person live.
The only way this would be untrue is if the person being murdered would have continued to live, but otherwise died of an unintentional injury at a higher point of net yield.
E.g. If a man is murdered after yielding $100,000, then this murder would be bad if in the case that the man not been murdered, he would have died after yielding the full $1,000,000, then died of an unintentional injury quite soon into his retirement, still having yielded a total of $500,000 after the cost of his retirement and healthcare is taken into consideration.
The point is plain as day that there is no point in a person’s life that murdering them wouldn’t be more economically valid and socially beneficial than letting them remain alive. Clearly this sounds like nonsense, and certainly this is naturally untrue.
Naturally murdering people is bad because those people are helpful laborers. The key difference in a natural existence is that there is no healthcare and there are no retirement pensions.
If there was no healthcare or retirement pensions, than most of these people would die of untreated natural causes long before they were able to burn through the $1,000,000 of profit they had created over the course of their lives. Instead, people fight the inevitable promise of death by constantly consuming endless pensions and more dangerously expensive healthcare procedures.
As colorful as this argument may sound, the point really isn’t that murdering people is always good. It’s only that in the current unnatural state of society that murder is always good. We have artificially created a situation where murder is always economically justified, and this is problematic when you look at the grand scheme of things.
The economy, thus the country, and thus the government, are seldom seen as a business. There is no big skyscraper that says “Economy” on it, there is no general store that says “Government store” on there. The thing is that these are much larger and broader scale entities than the smaller front-end portions of the economy such as individual businesses.
The economy is essentially like a stock broker that invests in human lives instead of stocks. The economy invests in your life, pays you, and keeps you alive because it hopes that you mature in a way that eventually turns a profit.
The economy as we know it only exists because countless people in the past have produced more benefit to the economy than they have taken, this means they died with a positive net yield, somewhere between the two points on the graph where the human investment breaks even. These people that died with a positive yield had this positive benefit left within the economy, and that benefit becomes the principle upon which the economy can then invest in return for profit.
The issue is that due to unnatural prolongment of death, people live long past their functionality, and beyond the dysfunction, sick people have any and all yields they have produced over their lives decimated by expensive medical care.
This causes most all people to actually induce debt for the economy, which can be seen in the current federal debt of $23 trillion dollars. We wouldn’t be in debt if every tax payer was turning a profit, and clearly they’re not doing this. One can shift blame onto other areas of the budget, and these should all turn a profit as well, but human upkeep is one of the largest and least profitable areas of tax expenditure.
This is not good, because just like any business, the economy has to turn a profit in order to stay in business and continue to function. If the economy keeps yielding at a loss, year after year, eventually it will collapse, just like any business that consistently can’t turn a profit and goes further and further into debt.
This is the problem with human-oriented society, as attempting to orchestrate society in a manner that is pleasing to people is often extremely expensive and economically non-viable. This means that while it may be nice to live this way, you’re essentially enjoying the pleasure of cutting yourself and slowly bleeding to death.
As much as many people will argue it’s not pleasant to be murdered, this is a silly fear, and it is about as rational as a child being angry with their imaginary friend. Upon being murdered, a person is dead; they don’t have any sort of feelings or opinions about having been murdered, so to think that they would be upset about their being murdered is to entertain a fantasy that is actually physically impossible.
The point still stands that there is no capacity for anyone to justify or attempt to validate a society that exists in a state where murdering somebody, at any point in their life, is unquestionably the most valid economic decision that can be made. This is given you have a single opportunity for a random murder, and if this opportunity is not taken, then this person then dies a natural death.
While in the current state of the American economy, murder is always superior to dying a natural death, not all murder is created equally. The graph demonstrates that the ideal time for somebody to be murdered is at peak yield. This is the point where the person starts to cost more money to keep alive than they produce by working, be it by health related causes or retirement.
This point ensures that each person produces the highest yield possible. That being said, there is still no universal graph for all people. Some people will be born and never break even, some people will have good health and work into their old age, continuing to turn a profit. While the point of peak yield may vary, be it birth or at 100 years old, the fact that this is the most optimum point to murder somebody does not change.
There leaves the question of healthcare, “How much healthcare is too much?”. This is a matter of value. So long as a person produces more yield when given the medical treatment than they would when denied that medical treatment, then the person should receive that medical treatment.
Say Joe, he is 64, he has a broken leg, and it costs $1,000 to fix it. He will only yield $500 of work before he is unable to work functionally anymore and he must retire. This means there is no justification treat his broken leg and Joe should be euthanized.
While we would lose $500 either way, on the front end or the back end, the aversion is just because there is no reason to do work if it amounts to nothing. This should sound familiar, because this is what we do with horses, and it works very well.
Granted, most casts of medical ailment are not this benign. Many people are facing hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of medical treatment when they at best only have the potential to yield a tiny fraction of this money once they have been treated. Unfortunately, most of these people remaining alive after the treatment will otherwise be unable to work to produce return on this investment of medical care.
Medical care, just like any other instance of spending money, is an investment. If there is a very low likelihood that the investment will provide a return greater than the amount of money that is invested, there is no reason to make that investment. This same logic is true with stocks as it is with healthcare. This is clearly not a functional system to defend, as people attempting to defend and demand that these poor losing investments be made has already resulted in 20 trillion dollars of federal debt.
Granted not all debt can be sourced to medical bills and retirement, but again, these investments are just some of the lowest yielding and most substantial investments that the federal government puts money into.
While a functional system to ensure that all human lives remain viable investments for the nation as a whole is necessary, this does not mean murder is the only option here. There are profound steps that could be taken to ensure that the cost of human upkeep is reduced substantially, all while human health is improved on top of this, and as an added bonus this cost-effective optimization of human upkeep substantially reduces greenhouse gas emissions as a side-effect, simply due to the nature of cost-effective living. (Link)
I understand the concern “This is just killing the poor”. Again, this is a bold statement. This is to argue that there is no possible way for most poor people to turn a profit, or a positive net-yield over the course of their lives. This is completely untrue; because the only reason even the poorest performing people in society are unable to turn a profit is because the upkeep costs are so high. The world was built upon the backs of the poor, and this certainly was not due to the fact that the labor of the poor is unprofitable, at least historically this was untrue.
If a person currently makes $1,000 a month, yet costs $10,000 a month, clearly this is a 90% loss per month, this person is a bad investment. The issue is that we can easily reduce the cost of living to $1,000, even to $500, just with simple reorganization of society to make it more cost-effective for humans to be alive.
This person who is currently a terrible investment in a free-standing individualist consumerist economy actually becomes a valid and profitable investment in a society orchestrated around cost-effective principles rather than individual economic freedom. The price of economic freedom is extremely high, and this is the major reason why people fail to be profitable.
This is no benefit to the rich either. Most all of the income of the rich does not result from their own labor. It just results from their money. Their money is invested in businesses, that money creates a profit, but the rich person does not do any labor to actually produce that money. If the rich person was alive or dead it wouldn’t matter, that money alone would still create the profit by itself.
The yield of the rich, like all people, would be determined by their labor, the actions that their physical body actually produces upon the world. To give a person credit for labor another person has done is irrational, just as to give a person credit for labor that money alone has done is irrational in the same sense.
The rich person doesn’t need to be alive for that money to work as an investment and turn a profit, so these people would still need to work and produce physical or intellectual labor that yields greater than their upkeep just like anyone else. This system is especially challenging to the rich, as their lifestyles are often inordinately wasteful, while their labor is largely done by money rather than themselves. This means the burden of luxury would weigh upon their yield just as heavily as the burden of healthcare does upon the common man.
The tragedy here is that we currently live in a country where economics dictates that a person being murdered is almost always more beneficial to the economy than that person being alive.
This means that if everyone in the country were to be murdered tonight, that 95% of these murders would actually benefit the economy. This is in a very friendly estimation considering that all people are given equal capacity to yield up to $1,000,000 for the economy, which unfortunately for many people is not true.
Still, even if everybody was a “million-dollar man/woman”, were these people to be murdered, as an infant or as a successful worker, then these murders would be economically beneficial 95% of the time, with the only 5% exceptions being people who would have died of unintentional injury at a point of higher net yield than they are currently at.
Unfortunately, 95% of the time, a person’s murder is always a good thing in today’s America. That doesn’t mean it should be. We need to act in order to ensure that everybody’s murder is no longer economically justified at every point of their life, and these actions includes reforms to not only healthcare and retirement, but also to the systems of human upkeep which cause substantial ravaging of a person’s net yield due to the economic inefficiency of the American lifestyle. (Link)