Comment

10 Most Absurd Right-Wing Lunacies This Week: Pity the 1% Edition

5
subterraneanhomesickalien1/26/2014 12:03:33 pm PST

Well those higher tax rates for this tool would probably lessen the probability that he or his progeny would be standing in front of a concrete wall with ten rifles pointed at their chest in some future catastrophic economic and political collapse by the existing democratic government of the United States, due to lack of funds.

So if I were he, I’d just take the less messy option.

And I have a question.

Is the devastation of a million lives through underhanded scheming with their money worse than the murder of a single human being? And is the same punishment that is sometimes meted out against the latter crime(death) a acceptable punishment for the former?

I mean that million loses everything they have , and yes some do in fact have their lives shortened due to lack of an ability to pay for medical treatment and cures. Which can lead to a much larger body count that the murder of one individual.

This isn’t meant by me to make an individual murderer into something inconsequential, murder is the taking away of another persons right to life on this planet, which is the most basic of all rights. I’m just trying to shine some light and give perspective to something that doesn’t cause the direct deaths of a million, but can cause the indirect death of many thousands. And to understand if that in fact is a equal or worse crime.

This is something I’ve been thinking about since the financial crash of 2008. And though I am anti-death penalty, I still can’t find myself being that forgiving of those that cause the torment and anguish of hundreds of millions of people through their own selfish scheming and greed, to go unpunished for that.

So what I’m asking is this: Is the guy that kills a man in a bar fight worse than the man who financially obliterates the lives of a million?