Yes, I think it’s impossible to keep the yes votes under 50%. The poll for this thread has no bearing on reality, I do not believe people will not commit mass suicide by voting no. And the vast majority of people will encourage their friends and family to vote yes so that they don’t die. And I have nothing to worry about because I’m voting yes.
I wonder how the poll voting would shift if the options were; vote ‘yes’ to be killed at any time; vote ‘no’ to not be allowed to be killed. The only practical chance between this and the proposed legislation would be that yes voters in this vote could kill other yes voters and that seems like it would be murder in the OP.
I think (hope) we can agree that people who would vote yes because they want the right to kill people, or because they want to see a bunch of people killed, are psychopaths. Right?
The rest of the yes voters would be people who are afraid to end up in the legally-killable no pile. They assume that the psychopaths, plus people like themselves, will add up to more than 50% in the final tally, which is reasonable.
But what percentage of people are psychopaths? I don’t know the answer to that, but is it less than 50? I’m pretty certain that far less than 50% of the population are psychopaths. Would you agree with that?
If you stipulate to psychopaths comprising a minority of the voting population, then all that has to happen for the law to fail is for all non-psychopaths to vote no! The nos would absolutely swamp the yesses! Problem solved, and nobody gets killed! Why is this so difficult?
Because fear, obviously. Not fear of a non-existent psychopathic majority, that would be ridiculous. It’s fear that the rest of your fellow citizens will be too afraid to do the right thing and vote down a law that only a psychopath would like. A literal case of being afraid of fear itself.
I think you’re framing this whole thing as a vote about the voter themself and what status they hold, where I’m seeing it as a vote about whether this is a good law that should be passed or not.
No, it’s an option between one choice that has no down-side, and one choice with a downside of “can be legally murdered”
Why everyone wouldn’t pick the first choice is beyond me.
Actually, to use your analogy, it’s more like everyone is standing by the side of the tracks. No voters are voting to keep everyone and everything the same. Yes voters are voting for the right to stand on the tracks while they derail the train into the crowd.
You keep saying that! What do you mean “no down-side?” Giving some people the right to kill other people with no consequences? That doesn’t bother you at all?
Should it? I’m not doing the killing. And I’m not responsible for anyone’s actions except my own and my children. And I’m not making anybody kill anyone. If asked I would say “Even though it’s legal, don’t do it”.
You have much less respect for the law than I and presumably other no voters in this thread do. The law means something to me. I acknowledge the possibility of bad laws, and the need to defy them, but except for those rare edge cases, I respect the law and consider it sovereign. I would never intentionally support a bad law or one that is morally wrong.
The downside of a bad law is the negative impact on behavior, society and my fellow human beings.
Of course, that depends on one’s definition of “bad” and “morally wrong” doesn’t it?
As **cuahtemoc **said, there’s plenty of downside. Even if you aren’t personally going to be targeted for killing, living in a Purge-style murder-is-okay society could have a thousand different negative repercussions (economic, social, psychological, moral, practical, etc), even if you aren’t in the target group.
I was going off your statement that "If asked I would say “Even though it’s legal, don’t do it,” which implies that you don’t believe the law is a good idea.
You seem to be suggesting that only the prosecutor gets peremptory strikes. Or, in fact, that one’s voting record would not be a strike for cause (which are unlimited, unlike peremptory strikes). Forming a jury at all would be impossible, so no-voters defending themselves could just about always count on a mistrial. The prosecution would have to clearly demonstrate that a killing was wholly unrelated to the ballot measure before it could go to trial.
You’re facilitating the killing. You’re obviously facilitating the killing. You’re very explicitly facilitating the killing.
If you vote yes, you’re explicitly voting for two things.
- I want it to be illegal to kill me.
- I want it to be legal to kill certain other people.
Voting no is a vote for “I don’t want it to be legal to kill anyone”, of course.
It’s possibly worth noting that this is a reformulation of the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma. The major difference is that it’s not just two prisoners, it’s umpteen prisoners, and the outcomes are:
1: Voted Yes and you win. You’re safe. And complicit in murder. And suspected of murderous intentions yourself.
2: Voted Yes and you lose. You’re safe, and a pariah.
3: Voted No and you win. You’re safe, and not a pariah.
4: Voted No and you lose. You’re at risk, but not a pariah.
I am. That’s why I’d vote yes no matter what. I vote in my self-interest and while my self-interest generally revolves around a stable happy populous. For this particular law being on the do not murder list trumps everything else.
No, I don’t believe killing people is a good idea.
. . . but if you’re going to kill someone I’m ok with it being me.
But the odds that it’ll actually happen are really low, because the vast, vast majority of yes-voters merely did so to cover their own butts.
Allegedly.
I don’t agree with this. I want it to be illegal to kill me. I want it to be illegal to kill anyone. But I want it to be illegal to kill me so much, that I’m willing to overlook those who would vote against their own self-interest. That’s on them. Not me.
You have one way, and one way only, to ensure that it’s illegal to kill you, and that is by voting ‘yes’.
Don’t worry, I and all other no voters will still recognise the obvious, explicit, literally-written-down-with-your-vote-next-to-it fact that you voted in approval of people being able to legally kill us, and treat you accordingly.