Utopia?

[ElDiabloJoe]

After a thorough following of the latest thread (13 pages at last check) on Homelessness in The Village, I was reminded of my friend's theory. Tell me what you think.

I mention his name for four reasons: 1, AFAIK, he is the creator of this theory; 2, He lives thousands of miles from here so the chances anyone knows him are slim; 3, His name is part of the theory; and 4. I want to give credit for creation where credit is due.

My friend, his surname is Stroup, told me his theory about Utopia, or "Stroup-topia" if you will. It is very simple. Is it ideal? I wonder.

His theory was this: Get the country's absolute brightest minds from a wide variety of fields (commerce, government, arts, etc.) and put them in a room to fulfill one single task. That task is to assign a point value, 0-10, for every crime, transgression, rule violation, etc.

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

From one murder, or a decade of jaywalking, or more than a couple burglaries committed in their misspent youth, once a person has reached 10 points, they have proven themselves to be an unredeemable burden to society in general and the population as a whole.

Could work, maybe?

[retiredguy123]

Wow. You would be terminating a lot of people. But, people can't even agree on the death penalty for any crime. A jury just rejected it for a guy who committed 17 murders.

[ElDiabloJoe]

Wow. You would be terminating a lot of people. But, people can't even agree on the death penalty for any crime. A jury just rejected it for a guy who committed 17 murders.

Not me. I would not be terminating a lot of people. I’m not advocating mass termination at all. It’s a theory, not a proposal. I’m putting forth a theory I heard of a society with consequences, not of imposing that immediately upon our society. It’s an illustration, an idea, a discussion point, not an actual proposition.

Perhaps a society where everyone knows from a very young age that their actions have eventual consequences might produce a better society for the law abiding and self-accountable folks while protecting them from those who are neither.

Might be best if there were a grace-period, like the points do not start to accumulate until the age of 12 or something. Except for the highest point items of course, you don’t get off scot-free of murder just because you did it five days before you turned 12 or whatever age the appointed geniuses chose.

[Rainger99]

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

Jaywalking is .25 so after jaywalking 40 times, you are going to execute someone? I would think that everyone on this board has jaywalked 40 times before high school.

[Stu from NYC]

Jaywalking is .25 so after jaywalking 40 times, you are going to execute someone? I would think that everyone on this board has jaywalked 40 times before high school.

Before junior high

[PugMom]

am i mistaken, or does China already have a similar system? social points given according to the type of citizen you are, ie: good, bad, or ugly, lol

[Bogie Shooter]

There’s a movie “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that comes close.

[PugMom]

There’s a movie “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that comes close.

:bigbow:

[Berwin]

Sounds a little like that Star Trek TNG episode where they visited a planet where the penalty for any transgression was death and Wesley fell into a garden plot and was going to be executed.

[Annie66]

Not me. I would not be terminating a lot of people. I’m not advocating mass termination at all. It’s a theory, not a proposal. I’m putting forth a theory I heard of a society with consequences, not of imposing that immediately upon our society. It’s an illustration, an idea, a discussion point, not an actual proposition.

Perhaps a society where everyone knows from a very young age that their actions have eventual consequences might produce a better society for the law abiding and self-accountable folks while protecting them from those who are neither.

Might be best if there were a grace-period, like the points do not start to accumulate until the age of 12 or something. Except for the highest point items of course, you don’t get off scot-free of murder just because you did it five days before you turned 12 or whatever age the appointed geniuses chose.

I think the Developer would be violently opposed simply because the number of home buyers would be significantly diminished.

A different idea would be to deport all the offenders with 10 points to Australia, just like the Brits did years ago.

[RICH1]

A Vigilante Crew can handle this!

[dougawhite]

You should be able to remove points when you do above average good things, like saving a life or volunteering so long at a food bank.

[hypart]

Who doesn't Jaywalk? If there's no car coming within miles, you still wait for the light to turn before you cross the street?

If you don't jaywalk then that should be a 5 pointer at least for being stupid.

[Caymus]

I think the Developer would be violently opposed simply because the number of home buyers would be significantly diminished.

A different idea would be to deport all the offenders with 10 points to Australia, just like the Brits did years ago.


Or follow the concept of the 1981 movie "Escape from NY" and build a giant jail.

[GmaLisaG]

Wow. Just wow.

[RickyLee]

After a thorough following of the latest thread (13 pages at last check) on Homelessness in The Village, I was reminded of my friend's theory. Tell me what you think.

I mention his name for four reasons: 1, AFAIK, he is the creator of this theory; 2, He lives thousands of miles from here so the chances anyone knows him are slim; 3, His name is part of the theory; and 4. I want to give credit for creation where credit is due.

My friend, his surname is Stroup, told me his theory about Utopia, or "Stroup-topia" if you will. It is very simple. Is it ideal? I wonder.

His theory was this: Get the country's absolute brightest minds from a wide variety of fields (commerce, government, arts, etc.) and put them in a room to fulfill one single task. That task is to assign a point value, 0-10, for every crime, transgression, rule violation, etc.

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

From one murder, or a decade of jaywalking, or more than a couple burglaries committed in their misspent youth, once a person has reached 10 points, they have proven themselves to be an unredeemable burden to society in general and the population as a whole.

Could work, maybe?

Hmmm, this strategy will require a lot of thought, but immediately I'm thinking I like it,..., a lot!

[Windguy]

I read a short story many decades ago about the idea of executing people who commit a certain number of crimes. A guy hit the limit when he committed a relatively minor crime and then when on a wild and dangerous chase to get away. Trying to catch him seriously endangered the populace. Is that what you want?

[airstreamingypsy]

Gallagher, the comedian, used to have a bit where drivers carry toy guns with suction cup arrows. When drivers commit traffic offenses, their car gets shot with a suction arrow. When they get five arrows they get ticketed.

[Villages Kahuna]

Then you could de-fund the police.

[DeirdreFoster]

So, the point of this would be that you would not break ANY laws because the consequences is death. Plain and simple. 10 points are very minimal giving you thee urgency to make good choices

[ElDiabloJoe]

So, the point of this would be that you would not break ANY laws because the consequences is death. Plain and simple. 10 points are very minimal giving you thee urgency to make good choices

That is exactly the concept. It would be a very different but a clean, safe, productive society for everyone because the non-conformist element and those who have little misgiving about harming others or stealing from them are systematically removed from the environment - on a permanent basis.

[Rainger99]

Two questions

Who would select the panel to choose the country's absolute brightest minds?

While the offender is awaiting trial for the crime or violation that that put them over 10 points, would you give them cashless bail?

[fcgiii]

So, the point of this would be that you would not break ANY laws because the consequences is death. Plain and simple. 10 points are very minimal giving you thee urgency to make good choices

sure gives a lot of power to those who make the laws, eh?

[fcgiii]

Perhaps a society where everyone knows from a very young age that their actions have eventual consequences might produce a better society for the law abiding and self-accountable folks while protecting them from those who are neither.

Approximately 1 percent of the population are psychopaths. Why not just bump them off? Then another 1% are sociopaths. They gotta go. Then add in the politicians.

Or, just move to Singapore.

[midiwiz]

After a thorough following of the latest thread (13 pages at last check) on Homelessness in The Village, I was reminded of my friend's theory. Tell me what you think.

I mention his name for four reasons: 1, AFAIK, he is the creator of this theory; 2, He lives thousands of miles from here so the chances anyone knows him are slim; 3, His name is part of the theory; and 4. I want to give credit for creation where credit is due.

My friend, his surname is Stroup, told me his theory about Utopia, or "Stroup-topia" if you will. It is very simple. Is it ideal? I wonder.

His theory was this: Get the country's absolute brightest minds from a wide variety of fields (commerce, government, arts, etc.) and put them in a room to fulfill one single task. That task is to assign a point value, 0-10, for every crime, transgression, rule violation, etc.

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

From one murder, or a decade of jaywalking, or more than a couple burglaries committed in their misspent youth, once a person has reached 10 points, they have proven themselves to be an unredeemable burden to society in general and the population as a whole.

Could work, maybe?



I think you've been watching Idiocracy a bit too much.....

[obgator]

It's funny but I thought we fought a revolution which was then followed by the coming together of probably the most brilliant minds in our history that sought to form a perfect government framework. I think that they succeeded. Now the question is can we hold on to it?

[tvbound]

sure gives a lot of power to those who make the laws, eh?


"sure gives a lot of power to those who make the laws, eh?"


Which would make the illegal activity and lawbreaking already occurring for some to maintain power - look like kids play. This suggestion isn't "Utopia," it is a pure nightmare for democracies (since it is already occurring in dictatorships/autocracies/Etc.)...and overripe for massive abuse. Which to me, it should be obvious that's the real reason for the proposal in the first place.

[kendi]

Not me. I would not be terminating a lot of people. I’m not advocating mass termination at all. It’s a theory, not a proposal. I’m putting forth a theory I heard of a society with consequences, not of imposing that immediately upon our society. It’s an illustration, an idea, a discussion point, not an actual proposition.

Perhaps a society where everyone knows from a very young age that their actions have eventual consequences might produce a better society for the law abiding and self-accountable folks while protecting them from those who are neither.

Might be best if there were a grace-period, like the points do not start to accumulate until the age of 12 or something. Except for the highest point items of course, you don’t get off scot-free of murder just because you did it five days before you turned 12 or whatever age the appointed geniuses chose.

Better to have a society that is motivated by respect and love of others rather than fear of consequences. This lays on the shoulders of parents and role models (that’s all of us)

[jancarrier00@gmail.com]

I would hope that all of those people that are incredibly smart are familiar with Piaget‘s order of moral development. Children would be wiped out early on without giving age weight to the utopian categories for youth and development into adulthood. As it turns out, many adults never fully reach the highest levels of moral development. I guess they would be eliminated. But folks at the highest levels of moral development wouldn’t be able to carry out the “final consequences.” Catch 22?

Anyway, by definition, utopia is an imaginary construct.

[Deden]

After a thorough following of the latest thread (13 pages at last check) on Homelessness in The Village, I was reminded of my friend's theory. Tell me what you think.

I mention his name for four reasons: 1, AFAIK, he is the creator of this theory; 2, He lives thousands of miles from here so the chances anyone knows him are slim; 3, His name is part of the theory; and 4. I want to give credit for creation where credit is due.

My friend, his surname is Stroup, told me his theory about Utopia, or "Stroup-topia" if you will. It is very simple. Is it ideal? I wonder.

His theory was this: Get the country's absolute brightest minds from a wide variety of fields (commerce, government, arts, etc.) and put them in a room to fulfill one single task. That task is to assign a point value, 0-10, for every crime, transgression, rule violation, etc.

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

From one murder, or a decade of jaywalking, or more than a couple burglaries committed in their misspent youth, once a person has reached 10 points, they have proven themselves to be an unredeemable burden to society in general and the population as a whole.

Could work, maybe?
AUFN How many points do u get for this post. 11??

[Stu from NYC]

Reminds me of the movie Hang them High

[ML Smith]

Another vote for

WOW, just WOW

[tvbound]

AUFN How many points do u get for this post. 11??

"AUFN How many points do u get for this post. 11??"

That made me literally laugh out loud - so thanks. LOL

[Cmacnair@hotmail.com]

I like the idea because I am a law abiding Citizen, however it would never work. Society does not enforce the laws we have on the books now what makes you think they would then. People let emotions rule themselves instead of common sense.

[Geodyssey]

Jaywalking is .25 so after jaywalking 40 times, you are going to execute someone? I would think that everyone on this board has jaywalked 40 times before high school.

But they wouldn't have if the penalty was death.

Today there is approx. zero penalty for many crimes. So those crimes proliferate.

That's the point of the post.

[jimjamuser]

After a thorough following of the latest thread (13 pages at last check) on Homelessness in The Village, I was reminded of my friend's theory. Tell me what you think.

I mention his name for four reasons: 1, AFAIK, he is the creator of this theory; 2, He lives thousands of miles from here so the chances anyone knows him are slim; 3, His name is part of the theory; and 4. I want to give credit for creation where credit is due.

My friend, his surname is Stroup, told me his theory about Utopia, or "Stroup-topia" if you will. It is very simple. Is it ideal? I wonder.

His theory was this: Get the country's absolute brightest minds from a wide variety of fields (commerce, government, arts, etc.) and put them in a room to fulfill one single task. That task is to assign a point value, 0-10, for every crime, transgression, rule violation, etc.

Something like a murder would be a 10, a rape maybe a 9. A burglary might be worth 4 points. Jaywalking might be 1/4 point.

The theory is this: Once a person has reached 10 points in their lifetime, they are taken out and immediately, unceremoniously, yet humanely, terminated.

From one murder, or a decade of jaywalking, or more than a couple burglaries committed in their misspent youth, once a person has reached 10 points, they have proven themselves to be an unredeemable burden to society in general and the population as a whole.

Could work, maybe?
It sounds simplistic to me and is no improvement over our current system. The Japanese system should be studied. It is harsh, but has less recidivism.

[rpalumberi]

Not me. I would not be terminating a lot of people. I’m not advocating mass termination at all. It’s a theory, not a proposal. I’m putting forth a theory I heard of a society with consequences, not of imposing that immediately upon our society. It’s an illustration, an idea, a discussion point, not an actual proposition.

Perhaps a society where everyone knows from a very young age that their actions have eventual consequences might produce a better society for the law abiding and self-accountable folks while protecting them from those who are neither.

Might be best if there were a grace-period, like the points do not start to accumulate until the age of 12 or something. Except for the highest point items of course, you don’t get off scot-free of murder just because you did it five days before you turned 12 or whatever age the appointed geniuses chose.
------------------------

I think this is crazy. I've got a simple solution - elect representatives at all levels who follow the law, once they violate that principle, immediately terminate them (not kill), removed them from their workplaces and cancel any benefits they would otherwise receive. Same applies if they say that don't agree with any law that is in place - simple.

If they want to change the law, there is a process but they must follow existing law until it is changed. Also, they must be held responsible for the consequences of not following the law, whether they do so knowingly or not. They must find out first before they act - that is their responsibility or don't take the job.

[Nucky]

I like the idea because I am a law abiding Citizen, however it would never work. Society does not enforce the laws we have on the books now what makes you think they would then. People let emotions rule themselves instead of common sense.

Check out the movie, Law Abiding Citizens just as a point of interest and let me know what you think!

[WingedFoot78]

There might not be any politicians left.

[Worldseries27]

it sounds simplistic to me and is no improvement over our current system. The japanese system should be studied. It is harsh, but has less recidivism.
easier to achieve goals in a nation with basically one culture and norms.
I'm for stripping of usa citizenship, declaration of persona non grata, deportation to a country willing to accept them, and mandatory life sentence if they return.

[rockyhyder]

Most of us grew up in a society with consequences for bad behavior. My Mom and Dad made it very clear what was expected and provided the deterrent when necessary although removal was never on the table. I believe society functions much better when there are consequences for detrimental behavior. The problem is today the line between right and wrong is so blurred it’s almost indistinguishable. So how would one reverse the current course toward a more Stroup-topian approach?

[Worldseries27]

most of us grew up in a society with consequences for bad behavior. My mom and dad made it very clear what was expected and provided the deterrent when necessary although removal was never on the table. I believe society functions much better when there are consequences for detrimental behavior. The problem is today the line between right and wrong is so blurred it’s almost indistinguishable. So how would one reverse the current course toward a more stroup-topian approach?
in a democracy the only viable, legal option is, " elections have consequences"