Certain_Palpitation

How do you feel about Roger Fisher's proposal to ensure the process is taken seriously?:

My suggestion was quite simple: Put that needed code number in a little capsule, and then implant that capsule right next to the heart of a volunteer. The volunteer would carry with him a big, heavy butcher knife as he accompanied the President. If ever the President wanted to fire nuclear weapons, the only way he could do so would be for him first, with his own hands, to kill one human being. The President says, "George, I'm sorry but tens of millions must die." He has to look at someone and realize what death is—what an innocent death is. Blood on the White House carpet. It's reality brought home.

When I suggested this to friends in the Pentagon they said, "My God, that's terrible. Having to kill someone would distort the President's judgment. He might never push the button."

[removed]

f I had to pick a face to define what I stand for, it would be the face of any voter in the country who is seeking health, freedom and financial security.

Everyone is in favour of those things, this tells me nothing. You've written like 400 words on what you're not, but what are you for?

[removed]

I don't think its reasonable to conflating agriculture (which revolutionized how humans are able to live) with ways that capital is able to extract more value from the workers it exploits without giving anything in return.

Who benefitted from the cotton gin? Not the workers, for sure. The Luddites were motivated by economic matters, not a knee-jerk response to innovation - in fact, they expicitley supported the use of machines provided they weren't being used to force them out of a job.

The fact of the matter is, an industry that lives by the exploitation of workers is an industry that must innovate, raise wages/prices, or die. You must pick one of those choices to be an ethical member of society.

Then I'd much prefer they raise wages and cut down the excessive pay of the owners.