Zero Policy Law: A better world?

like i said before

ALL murder is does not hurt society if in one case, namely yours, it does not hurt society.

 

The problem is getting rid of all of them. Once they start to realize that a single man is behind their diminishing numbers, they will all set out to get rid of you. And once you're dead, I doubt anyone will carry out your work, or will even have the potential to.

Even if you do manage to create a utopia, it will not last very long. Our imperfections will catch up. Corruption will plague the very system you thought was made perfect that governs the land. New rulers will have opposing views, and perhaps will even abolish them.

 

also, who would determine which murders are ok

certainly murdering in war is not punishable by death

what about government military operations outside of wartime?

would we kill these people or would be create a state in which it is only permissible for the government to kill people. a hypocritical state.

 

Quite. It helps it.

It also promotes the lessening of unneeded emotions in humanity, such as fear. If within a place, no one murdered, no one would never feel the need to fear, walking home at night. Going to bars alone. Having their kids wait at the park until they get off from work after school.

Similar to The Giver, except, not such a contained and enclosed environment.

Achieved to such a degree, we as a species would begin an evolution. Once people begin to notice life getting just that more bearable, with a lesser number of tragedies and terror, we'll start to lean in favour of zero tolerance for those who do nothing but hurt us. We'll become stronger.

"In snowy terrain, the wise man creates a shield for himself, not a cannon. Thereby protecting himself, and letting the elements take care of his enemies."

All by the basis that the force which first created the motion was no longer present, or did not leave, in it's place, a suitable curator.

I've been researching the function of stem cells, along with a very curious creature: the (see: Turritopsis Nutricula.
If, much like the reversion of this species condition and stage in it's aging, & much like what the process does to the jellyfish, if organs could be chemically aligned the same way to revert in age, much else wouldn't call for anything that we haven't already been able to obtain.

(see:Clean blood of the same type. (see:The constant strengthening of bones. Maintaining strong muscles. Working to maintain a tight grasp on all 5 senses.

Basically, if we can replicate the process by which the jelly fish reverses it's (see:Senescence, theoretically, we can, as a people, achieve a longer living human being. By then, I'd imagine humanity could come up with a system which contains the means of achieving these 'extra years'. A sort of accomplishment system, if you will.

All of this, however, adds up to support one thing: As long as the power behind getting rid of these people and implementing/maintaining these laws never shows a gap or a weak point (living and being protected), there should be no opposition as to why humanity as a species couldn't continue on in an upward slope of progression, implementing laws on throughout many years on the same train of thought of positive reinforcement. It's been observed before.

The same line of people who do now. The lawyers, the jury's, etc. The money saved by not keeping these evils in our jails, or even having prisoners who are in jail manufacture some renewable resource into useful products (like the hemp oil/paper), could go towards education on a massive level. Our population will evolve, we will become smarter. The upward slope has been observed much throughout history. The process determining the innocence of someone on trail will be stronger, more secure. Soon, they will be made by, in simplest terms, smarter humans.

Truly, it will be a hypocritical state. But, it's already a hypocritical state. We kill killers, now. It isn't as though a new evil will surface. As well, submission to universal logic in which progression and positivity is the goal has been observed throughout history to work. (see:FDR's 19th fireside chat is a perfect example of that.

The United States is trillions of dollar in debt with other nations. Their government owes Japan some $650 billion. They owe China $300-400 billion. Again, the amount of money that would ultimately be saved from this would be enough to slowly but surely start paying these nations back.

It would allow us to have the resources to gain positive influence in other nations. Less hate, less war. Less debt, less hate. If China's military alone were to, for lack of a better word, team up with another superpower, under strong and true leadership, there would be a massive imbalance in the 'nuclear stare' situation that the world faces right now.

Sooner or later, it will have to be that the center, massive power would attract the smaller sections around it. Different, varying examples of this process have been observed in all kinds of ways.

See gravitational pull and the (see:Spread of Communism that stemmed from Soviet Russia.

Before and after this simulated system, zero tolerance does only good.

 

like i said before,

i do not agree that killing these people is "good"

at least not from a utilitarian stand point

people can be re purposed for more productive activities without simply killing them off in mass numbers because they do smoething you disagree with


also, even with zero tolerance laws like this. people will still commit murders

it has been proven time and time again that the death penalty does not deter crime