Wrong to guillotine the richest 400 Americans?

[nursebenjamin]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

[Haven]

It would be morally wrong to do so because it would be the killing of other human beings, which is murder, and murder is absolutely wrong. Besides, killing another human being for his or her wealth is the height of treachery and selfishness.

Keep in mind that I am no conservative: I am both a socialist and an ardent supporter of Occupy Wall Street. I just think murdering (and especially in such a brutal way as the guillotine) for money is the height of evil.

[McCulloch]

There are less severe ways to redistribute wealth. Rather than look at medieval simplistic solutions, one should do the much more difficult task of looking at the causes of inequities and address them.

@haven07, the guillotine was invented to make capital punishment less brutal. It was swift and sure, unlike other forms of capital punishment of its day: the breaking wheel; beheading with a sword or axe (which typically took at least two blows before killing the condemned); hanging, a form of death that could take several minutes or longer; burning at the stake; firing squad.

[ThatGirlAgain]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

The great majority of that wealth is not in cash. It is in stocks, bonds, real estate and similar items whose cash equivalent depends on current market value. Selling all of those stocks, bonds etc. would cause significant drop in that market value, resulting in substantially less cash being recovered than the original nominal value. It might even trigger a widespread large scale sell off of everything with variable value. A great deal of the 'on paper' wealth of not only those top 400, not only the country but the entire world could simply disappear.

Such a sell off would discourage investment in businesses, meaning no new jobs. Companies seeking to keep their stock values from going all the way down the toilet would cut costs, and the easiest way to do that quickly is layoffs. Charities and pension plans are big time stockholders and would have to cut back on what they are shelling out. With lots of cheap bonds around, governments would need to jack up the interest rates for new fund raising resulting in deeper deficits and/or cutbacks in services.

And what do you think will happen to the net proceeds from this confiscation of money? Do you really think the government is going to give it to the poor? Or is it going to wind up in the pockets of those who provided the most financial and other support to the incumbent politicians? And with Super PACs around that means large corporations and wealthy individuals who will never be named.

Still interested in the idea?

[Darias]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

This scenario reminds me of a Harvard lecture I saw (on YouTube).

It's essentially a "greater good" argument, a rather extreme one.

Another would be: You're a doctor. You have 5 sick people in your care who all need different organ transplants. If they don't get the transplants, they will die soon. Unfortunately they are near the bottom of the waiting list. Suddenly, a healthy man comes in for a check up. You could save all 5 if you kill him and give them his healthy organs.

Would that be morally permissible? Under "the greater good" idea, it probably would.

But if rights are vested within the individual. If they are endowed by the Creator, or if human rights are naturally/logically self-evident, then we have a different outcome. If people are seen as ends in and of themselves rather than the means to an end, then people's life and property cannot be stripped from them for any cause, even if the cause is well intended for "the greater good."

The idea that certain people can be used for the betterment of society as a whole makes a mockery of human rights. Minorities would be right to fear the majority.

What if governments could save money to pay their debts or build new programs by having all criminals executed regardless of the severity of their crimes?

What if South Carolina barred Mexican Americans and Hispanic immigrants from moving to or living in the state for the "greater good" of the "real/white" American community?

These scenarios cannot be justified by Utilitarian "morality."

Kantian ethics would be more respectful to human rights in this regard. The healthy innocent person wouldn't have his organs taken from him and the rich people (by inheritance or hard work) wouldn't be murdered and have their things stolen.


We can envision better solutions to the problem. Rich people could simply give more, and if left alive, could continue to receive income to give more.

Healthy people could give one of their Kidneys and sign up to be an organ donor.

The thing making these more moral solutions would be the consent involved and the dignity and rights of the individual not being violated.



Of course my argument borrows heavily from here so I'll give him credit:

[center][youtube][/youtube][/center]

[100%atheist]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

Morally, it would be wrong to guillotine anybody.
In a very short run, it might be economically justified to nationalize and redistribute wealth of 400 or any other number of richest Americans. However in a longer run, it will probably make no positive implications.

One Russian joke says (in my frivolous translation):
1917, October, Revolution. A Decembrist's granddaughter hears loud sounds on the street and sends her housekeeper to check what's going on.
- It's Revolution!
- Great, my grandpa dreamed of Revolution! And what do they want?
...
-They want to get rid of rich.
- Well... it's sad, my grandpa dreamed there will be no poor.

[East of Eden]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

If you are a materialist atheist, probably not. See the 100,000,000 victims of the Communist experiment. Whoever came up with this sick OP needs to read Atlas Shrugged.

Besides, Obama would no longer be able to raise money from rich people in private so he could demonize other rich people in public.

[micatala]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

As with those above, I find the suggestion morally reprehensible.

It is also way more extreme than is needed even if one thinks the end sought is justified, and as pointed out, probably would not work due to the unintended or unthought of side effects.

All we need, in my view, is a slightly more progressive tax structure. This does not need to be punitive to "the rich." It simply acknowledges that it is reasonable for those who are better off to contribute to the overall society in greater proportion. One can certainly make the case that they receive greater benefits from the overall stability and structure of the society than those at the low end.

I personally would not go over 40% for the highest marginal rate, and am even OK with lowering the rate if we can close sufficient loopholes to close the gap between the stated rates and the effective rates.

[Abraxas]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

If you are a materialist atheist, probably not. See the 100,000,000 victims of the Communist experiment.

There are no 100,000,000 million victims of communism. These numbers have been debunked more thoroughly than those who claim the moon landings were a hoax. Further, you have been made aware these numbers are fraudulent at multiple points in the past, your continued reliance on them is telling.

Whoever came up with this sick OP needs to read Atlas Shrugged.

Now that was uncalled for, disagree with the OP but calling for every functioning brain cell to be burned out of his head in the most painful and grueling way imaginable is a bit much, don't you think?

Besides, Obama would no longer be able to raise money from rich people in private so he could demonize other rich people in public.

Oh dear, then we might have elections not based primarily on how much money you can raise. What a horrifying thought.

[East of Eden]

If the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the poorest 50% of American households,[1] would it be wrong to guillotine those 400 Americans and redistribute the wealth? Living in poverty kills way more then 400 Americans per year. We could actually save tens of thousands of lives by sacrificing these richest 400. Would it be wrong to do so??

If you are a materialist atheist, probably not. See the 100,000,000 victims of the Communist experiment.

There are no 100,000,000 million victims of communism. These numbers have been debunked more thoroughly than those who claim the moon landings were a hoax. Further, you have been made aware these numbers are fraudulent at multiple points in the past, your continued reliance on them is telling.

What is telling is your denial of the facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_ ... _Communism

Now that was uncalled for, disagree with the OP but calling for every functioning brain cell to be burned out of his head in the most painful and grueling way imaginable is a bit much, don't you think?

Although I agree with the message, I have to agree with you a bit there, it isn't the best written book.