Pay To Not Save A Life - I Am Planning A Legal Murder

[beavis]

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

Billions of people died because of the way money flows through society, and it will continue until people change how they think about money and the value of Human life. I have a very surprising plan of how to change how people think. I'm going to kill someone without breaking any laws, and I'll invite police to the event to make sure its done legally, and I'll invite news reporters to show the world this shocking event of legal murder. Before I explain the details of this premeditated murder (which will be done legally), some research on the price of Human life:

GiveWell's research found that Human lives can be saved for less than $1000 each.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell
http://givewell.org

"Esther Duflo: Social experiments to fight poverty" says between $300 and $10000 per life saved.
http://ted.com/talks/esther_duflo_social_experiments_to_fight_poverty.html

Most people think you can't put a value on Human life, but that's not true, because "supply and demand" is accepted as the measure of value by most people, and there is a price that anyone can pay to save a life. If people thought a life was worth more than that, they would pay it and the price would increase as the cheaper lives are saved. It is an economic fact that the cheapest Human lives are worth around $1000 each. As I see it, a person is worth as much as they can help the world.

This legal murder I'm planning starts with a thought-experiment, but it will end with someone really dieing. This thought-experiment would be very hard to set up in reality, but its the idea that's important to understand before redesigning it to be easier.

The "pay to not save a life" thought-experiment:

Einstein becomes terminally sick in a country where hospitals only save you if you can pay. He has no insurance. He will die within a week if he doesn't get a million dollar operation. The sickness he has is very predictable. Everyone of the many thousands who had it died within a week without the operation, and everyone who got the operation lived until old age or something else killed them. We know "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the legal way to say it in USA) that Einstein will die within a week if he doesn't get the million dollar operation, and he will live a normal life if he gets the operation.

Gandhi is planning to pay up to the million dollars to save Einstein's life. Combining all the money everyone else is willing to pay, it totals much less than a million dollars unless Gandhi pays. Einstein will die within a week if Gandhi does not choose to save Einstein's life.

Gandhi has no legal obligation to save Einstein's life, but he plans to as soon as he can get to a bank and the hospital.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt", Einstein will live a normal life if nothing interferes with his operation.

Kaczynski pays Gandhi 10 million dollars in exchange for Gandhi not paying for Einstein's operation and not paying  anyone else to or any other indirect way of getting Einstein's operation to happen, unless someone else changes their mind and decides to pay their own money for it with no influence from Gandhi (direct or indirect influence) to do that.

Within a week, Einstein dies.

Kaczynski paid for Einstein to die without breaking any laws. Its legal because Gandhi had no obligation to save Einstein's life. Kaczynski had Einstein assassinated, is an accurate statement, because Kaczynski paid for a future to occur where Einstein dies. Kaczynski does not go to jail because, similar to billions of people dieing from how the money flows in society, it is not illegal to pay somebody not to save somebody else's life.

End thought-experiment.

This is satire, but I think we should really do a more practical variation of this.

It would be very hard to find somebody about to save a life when they don't have to and also willing to not save the life for enough money, so we would probably have to set up such a situation. For example, maybe a game-show in a hospital where money is already allocated to save 10 peoples' lives who will probably die in the next week if they don't get an expensive operation, and the players of the game-show do some kind of gambling or game playing or negotiation with eachother to decide how many of those people should be saved and how much money should go to each of the players. It would work better if the players get a lot of money in exchange for the hospital patients getting a little less health. They would indirectly be paying the organizers of the game-show to not save some of those 10 lives. They would indirectly pay for murder, but that's "murder" in the reality of it, not "murder" in the legal definition of it.

I first had this idea in my "How many dollars is a Human life worth, if a vote would choose a tax to pay it?" thread on the Bitcoin forum:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29211.0

Can you think of other ways to do this general idea of paying someone to not save a life when they don't have to?

When the world realizes its been doing this and billions have died from it already, paying for people to not save lives, people will decide to reorganize the world to stop most of that. 1 life to save millions or billions? Lets do it. That's much better than the cost of wars.

I use the least force needed to solve problems. I don't start fights. I don't argue for no reason. If someone hit me I would probably ask them why they did it instead of getting angry, but I would not let them hit me. As I see it, to save the most number of lives and improve the world most efficiently using the least force, we should kill (by paying somebody not to save the life of) an innocent person, an indirect premeditated murder without breaking any laws, with police invited to make sure its done legally, and news reporters invited to show the world how profoundly sick society really is where its legal to pay someone not to save a life and this happens to billions of people indirectly.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti

Who wants to help plan a legal murder to change how people think about money and the value of Human life?

[Kestrel]

Only thing that makes sense to me is zeitgeist movement.But we must grow up.Murder never did essential good,or make a point.

[personalreality]

you know that zeitgeist is just a word the describes the "character of an era", it is not unique to now or any specific movement. 

stupid movie.

and murder makes a great point. 

[Stillwater]

Giving charitable donations to humanitarian causes is important, worthy, and meaningful.

That said, most of the regions of the world where people are in constant risk of starvation are like that for social reasons, rather than any lack of wealth. Places where you see children starving in commercials are generally being run by paramilitary groups which are creating artificial scarcity and selectively oppressing segments of their population, or where powerful indsustries have seized control of all the raw materials and amenities in order to use the natives as slave labor for exporting their own resources.

Giving money to causes like Oxfam does save lives, but it is also important to notice that it also tends to build a culture of dependancy- in the best cases, the people being served have no other means to support themselves, and become reliant on charity as a stable way of living; in the worst cases, the supplies see their way back to the same paramilitary groups who were the source of the suffering to begin with, and end up feeding armies. In order to truly save lives on a grand scale in these situations, what must be done is literal social revolution: regimes must topple, armies must be routed, predatory industries must be exposed, and people's belief about the structure of their societies must change.

So saving lives is in a narrower sense about money, yes, but to free people from the conditions that brough them to the brink to begin with, we need to recognize that it is social institutions that are the real source of the suffering, and set our sights accordingly.

[Kestrel]

personalreality
They didn't invented word-big deal,it is idea behind it(movement) that makes sense,even if the idea is not new-so what,it only counts if idea is good one.You obviously don't no-movies,not movie.Idea is in short-resource  based economy,not greed based madness,etc.etc.Way of reason and science,not tradition and superstition,to fulfill ours capacities...for other..I don't no what you mean,and frankly I don't care.
Stillwater
I agree,but we are the ones that support the system,people should grow up.

[personalreality]

firstly, i only half understood that response.

secondly, wait....no secondly, i didn't understand any of your response, so nevermind.

i know what you meant by "zeitgeist movement", but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is no such thing as a "zeitgeist movement" unless you mean to imply that you hop on the bandwagon of whatever movement is hip right now, because that's what zeitgeist means.  you can't just take a word and change the meaning to suit your context.

[blis]

You could pay people not to donate organs.

My step-dad's on dialisys. I've wondered what would happen to him if he lived in america and couldnt afford it. Would they just let him die?

[Kestrel]

Zeitgeist is just a word,first movie who appeared was under that name,in that time movement didn't existed,only later they add "movement"part.Why,because movie was some kind of hit on youtube and they keep the name to be recognized wide.There is nothing particularly new or ingenious about it(basic idea of movement),it is just something that makes sense,unlike current society.Movement wants to uncover wide faultiness of our society and give alternative(important because we using resources at scale far greater that is sustainable).I recommend to you to watch(it is free to download,or stream) "zeitgeist addendum",for me it is best of them all,third part is also great,it is "zeitgeist moving forward".I presume that you watched first,I watched it  long time ago,frankly it is not that fresh in my memory and important(if I recall correctly is about religion).Considering "hop on the ...hip right now",I don't think it is just "hop" and "hip",movement have some program,goals,etc.They have claims that makes sense,(about economics,social structure...)etc.I keep myself critical but some things make sense more than others.

[beavis]

Stillwater, that's probably true, and my goal in writing this "pay to not save a life" thing is to get people to see the real problems in society instead of just throwing money at it or thinking more about who to vote for.

About  Zeitgeist Movement, it is where I got the Jiddu Krishnamurti quote, and I agree with many of their ideas but think they haven't thought a lot of it through to how it would be practical. There are at least 2 versions of Zeitgeist Addendum, and this is the only I watched (just watched a few parts of the other) and recommend to watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg It has 2 times as many views. I've also posted this in Zeitgeist Movement's forum at http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&func=view&catid=8&id=347190&Itemid=100114&lang=en but you have to pass an online test to get an account there to post, and it took me a few hours of reading through their documents and videos before I passed it the third time I tried, and I already knew much of it.

[CFTraveler]

If you succeed in this endeavor, are you going to feel ok about being responsible for  deciding that someone should die to prove a point?
Don't answer the question, I don't want to know the answer.