Correspondent Interview with Dr. Greevos Slaughter
C: Dr. Slaughter I am conducting this interview to clarify some of the views you expressed in a recent lecture. For the record, you are now a Professor Emeritus holding a Doctor of Philosophy degree in Economics?
Dr.S: Yes, but it might be more correct to say I specialize in economic philosophy.
C: In a recent lecture you stated that you hoped we would one day make murder legal, that our society would decriminalize it, is that correct?
Dr.S: Yes, that is what I said and what I advocate.
C: Would you admit that this seems a bit radical? Could you clarify for our readers what you mean?
Dr.S: Well, as I have said on my lecture circuit it is my conclusion that much good would result from our decriminalizing murder. I advocate taking it out of the criminal justice system, except maybe for murder against public officials, and putting it into civic law and civic lawsuits. This would give people the opportunity to prove that the deceased had economic value, and if they didn’t then it wouldn’t make much of a difference if they were gone. Certainly people would have some sentimental or emotional grief and feeling of loss, and that is to some degree economically measurable.
C: You don’t think life, anyone’s life, has inherent value?
Dr.S: No, I don’t, only value in what they are either producing or have potential to produce, and I believe that is calculable.
C: How do you feel about such slogans as “Black Lives Matter?”
Dr.S: They don’t, not simply because someone is black, or someone is alive. What I mean is that whatever color a person has or might be, if they are not producing, or making some contribution, or have a proven mathematical chance of making a contribution their life in fact doesn’t matter. Some people have worth and others are worthless. If someone were to kill a worthless person that can only be a gain for the world. If a black person has a valuable skill, putting a good education to work in the market, someone making a good living, necessary to provide for his or her family then if they were killed there would be an excellent case in court to sue for damages to sustain or restore that economic value, and maybe some penalty for the pain of loss.
C: Do you mean then that if a poor, uneducated black person were killed, having no job or maybe simply a menial one, that there should be no penalty?
Dr.S: Well, a small monetary penalty if they actually had a job, otherwise no. I also think that we can determine if such a person will amount to anything based on family or broken family, whether or not they can read by the third grade, what zip code they live in, and various other factors. These people can be killed without any real societal impact. Think of how much money our whole world would save to kill off such people. All the mentally handicapped, all the homeless, all the idiots, and there is no respect here in my mind as to race or ethnicity; the Appalachian white, the Native American, the African American, and even idiot babies of the wealthy. Our prisons would be small if not empty, no mental institutions, no need for welfare payments or sustaining of the handicapped that can’t make a contribution. Think of the oxygen and natural resources we would save by ending the competition for these things from worthless people.
C: What about those who overcome obstacles and become productive, you know, rags to riches, or poverty to wealth, against the odds becoming inventors, entrepreneurs, great men or women of art or industry? Doesn’t this show inherent potential in each human being?
Dr.S: One can’t make universal moral principles or economic ones based on exceptions. Yes, once they have made themselves an exception then we would all hesitate to kill such a person because we would be sued for the loss, which would be a substantial monetary penalty from killing such an exceptional person.
C: Some have compared you to Nazi Germany with such ideas. How do you respond to that?
Dr.S: Some of that is historical nostalgia for a societal philosophy that used to value people in a non-economical way. I am speaking as a modernist that has cut himself off from a non-mechanistic view of purpose or value. In short, our modern world should have little criticism of the Nazi’s idea of culling worthless people, although we should be against it from a racial or nationalistic sense. The Nazis thought Germans had intrinsic value because they were Aryan, and I am certainly above any such nativist or tribal prejudice.
C: The anti-abortionist crowd, the anti-euthanasia crowd, and the anti-suicide by choice crowd would be your opposition would they not?
Dr.S: Definitely, but they hardly matter anymore. Their political clout is as weak as their moral philosophy. Listen, if we did away with murder as a crime we could forget all this gun control business. Kill whom you will but realize their family can sue you if you actually killed a worthwhile person. There should be no penalties for killing worthless people. Road rage and anger killings would be dampened by some great public liability cases but otherwise yes, we would be able to kill annoying people and people might be less annoying if they knew people they annoyed could kill them without facing prison, or even as now, having the state kill them back-which if my views became law would completely take this heinous capital punishment off the table of social concerns.
C: I believe that came from a very old idea that taking a life for a life showed the value of life, but with no intrinsic value then it seems the dead, whoever we might have killed, have had no intrinsic value only a monetary one.
Dr.S: Very good, you get it now. Abortion and euthanasia are best seen as economic choices, free to keep women working or pursue life as you please, ending lives before they bankrupt your family, etc.
C: Thank you doctor for this interview. I only have a few background information questions for our readers. Are you married and have a family? Are you still an acting professor?
Dr.S: No, I don’t have a family and at present don’t have any teaching responsibilities. And thank you for your questions.
C: One thing more (as the reporter pulls an automatic from his waist band), I confess to finding you annoying, and your views evil and dangerous. However, following the line of your thinking, and as it seems you have no one that will sue me…BANG! (As the reporter leaves the room he isn’t sure to feel bad about what he has done, or not).
[This is a satirical imaginary tale]
By Randy Nabors