Let's talk about Fascism.

         The left loves to attach the term "Fascist" to the people that don't agree with them. Especially the Trump supporters and even the Republican voter in general. So, I thought it might be worthwhile to just look at what a Fascist believes in and how they compare to ideas of the conservatives who make up most of the Republican Party. And, to make that same comparison to the left and the Democratic Party. 
     The platform for Fascism was laid down in 1919 by a manifesto.

The Fascist Manifesto of 1919 (From Wikipedia)

In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (the Fascist Manifesto)^] The Manifesto was presented on 6 June 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia. The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate. The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage, worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their profits. It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive.

     Let's see: Take the Fascist Platform one platform plank at a time and check it against the Democratic agenda (the left) and the Republican stance (the right) and see how it compares to both parties.

•  Universal Suffrage--

After a bitter fight the Republicans finally got an amendment to the Constitution allowing women the right to vote. Several states had already adopted that stance but, it wasn't a federal law.
The Democrats fought against it and Wilson didn't want it.
 

         However, everybody signs up to it now. So we can't hold the Dems accountable for their sins in the past. 
 So, which of two parties agree with the Fascists?
         Left--Yes
         Right--Yes
Both parties agree with the Fascists.

• All opposition parties disbanded (or made irrelevant). 

    I'm not sure the left wants to completely disband the Republican Party and kill all the conservatives who don't agree with their point of view, but if you look at the college campuses and the violence heaped on any conservative speaker that dares to enter their domain, you might get the idea that is their goal.  And, this isn't some small radical fringe group that is disowned by the Democrats. 
    The right has it's radical fringe groups also, but they are not as numerous as the left and are generally disowned by the vast majority of the conservatives and certainly by the Party. And, they have not been violently disruptive and against any meeting or rally of the left wing. Look at the violent protests outside the Trump rallies during the elections. There were NO such protests outside the Bernie Sanders or Clinton rallies in the same time frame. The conservative treasures the first amendment to the constitution. So how do you score this?
  Which of the two parties agree with the Fascists?
      Left--Modified yes -say a half yes.
      Right --No

•       Proportional representation on a regional basis.

     Both parties pretty much embrace the idea of proportional representation. That's pretty much what our Constitution specifies. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left--Yes
      Right--Yes
Both parties agree with the Fascists.

• Government representation through a National Council of experts.--- 

     Over and over again the left has shown that they believe in a socialist and controlled economy. That a bunch of experts will be better for the market than having the unwashed masses deciding what they want to buy. That is called a free market and the left doesn't really think that it works. Just listen to a socialist like Sanders for once.
  Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left--Yes
     Right--NO

•  Holding power over Labor industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.-

     Again the socialist dream. They believe that a totally regulated economy is the right way to go -On the other hand conservatives believe strongly in the free market. The less government control the better. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
       Left--Yes
       Right----NO

• Abolition of the Congress. 

    I don't think anyone in either party is advocating the abolition of the Congress. At least anyone but the extremes of left and right.
 Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left---No
      Right--No 

• Eight Hour Work week---

     An interesting history.  Both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to the eight hour work week that is standard today. 
          On 25 June 1868, a Republican Congress passed an eight-hour law for federal employees^] which was of limited effectiveness. It established an eight-hour workday for laborers and mechanics employed by the Federal Government. President Andrew Johnson had vetoed the act but it was passed over his veto. Johnson told a Workingman's party delegation that he couldn't directly commit himself to an eight-hour day, he nevertheless told the same delegation that he greatly favored the "shortest number of hours consistent with the interests of all." According to Richard F. Selcer, however, the intentions behind the law were "immediately frustrated" as wages were cut by 20%.
     On 19 May 1869, President Ulysses Grant (a Republican) issued a National Eight Hour Law Proclamation.       In the 1912 Presidential Election Teddy Roosevelts Progressive Party (Republican by another name) campaign platform included the eight-hour work day.  The United States Adamson Act in 1916  established an eight-hour day, with additional pay for overtime, for railroad workers. This was the first federal law that regulated the hours of workers in private companies. The United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act in Wilson v. New, 243 U.S. 332 (1917).
The eight-hour day might have been realized for many working people in the US in 1937, when what became the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S. Code Chapter 8) was first proposed under the New Deal (Dems). As enacted, the act applied to industries whose combined employment represented about twenty percent of the US labour force. In those industries, it set the maximum workweek at 40 hours, but provided that employees working beyond 40 hours a week would receive additional overtime bonus salaries.
     So both parties have contributed to this stance on labor. 
 Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left--Check
     Right---Check

• Minimum wage----

      A long history proceeds the enactment of the current minimum wage law in the United States.
      In 1933, the Roosevelt administration during the New Deal made the first attempt at establishing a national minimum wage regiment with the National Industrial Recovery Act, which set minimum wage and maximum hours on an industry and regional basis. The Supreme Court, however, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935) ruled the act unconstitutional, and the minimum wage regulations were abolished.Two years later after President Roosevelt's overwhelming reelection in 1936 and discussion of judicial reform, the Supreme Court took up the issue of labor legislation again in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) and upheld the constitutionality of minimum wage legislation enacted by Washington state and overturned the Adkins decision which marked the end of the Lochner era. In 1938, the minimum wage was re-established pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, this time at a uniform rate of $0.25 per hour ($4.78 in 2017 dollars. The Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act in United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), holding that Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions.
      The 1938 minimum wage law only applied to "employees engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce," but in amendments in 1961 and 1966, the federal minimum wage was extended (with slightly different rates) to employees in large retail and service enterprises, local transportation and construction, state and local government employees, as well as other smaller expansions; a grandfather clause in 1990 drew most employees into the purview of federal minimum wage policy, which now set the wage at $3.80.
    In general the Republicans were not in favor of establishing a minimum wage. They believed that the market should determine the proper wages for work done. 
Agreement with the Fascists?
      Left--Yes
      Right--No

• Worker representation in industrial management--- 

      The Liberals have championed this idea for years. The problem is, they want to force it on companies by law. Today there are many companies the have worker (Union) representation of some kind in management decisions. These are almost all brought on by settlements during negotiations of the Union during contract talks.  
     The GOP does not believe it is the role of government to dictate such a mandate to business. Again, conservatives are committed to the concept of a free market and capitalism. 
Agreement?
     Left-Yes
     Right--No

• Revision of draft law on invalidity insurance

     I'm not sure which invalidity insurance the authors were referring to (to lazy to find out) but the only non voluntary or draft on invalidity insurance, that I can think of, that applies today, is Social Security and Medicare. Although it might have meant agriculture. I also am not sure just what revision the drafters of the manifesto were thinking about, but there has been a lot of discussion about the need to revise Social Security before it goes bankrupt. Some revisions have been made but it still doesn't fix the long term problem. Both parties have kicked this can to a future generation of politicians to solve. It's, without a doubt, the third rail of American politics. The Democrats have generally fought against any revision to these two entitlements while the Republicans have not fought hard to make significant changes. If is about agriculture, the Conservatives would not be in favor of drafting farmers into mandatory insurance.
    So how to score?  Not exactly sure.
Agreement with the Fascists?
     Left-  A qualified no, Say half a no
     Right---A qualified yes, Say half a yes

 Reduction of the retirement age--- I don't think any one except the Bernie Sanders left is possibly thinking about this kind of move. With Social Security in the mess it's in there is no chance that either party, conservative or main stream liberal, would consider this move. 
Agreement with Fascists? 

            Left--No 
           Right--No

• Strong progressive tax on capital----

This is an easy one. It is part of the left's basic platform that the rich corporations should be taxed heavily so that they are "paying their fair share". Conservatives on the other hand believe that taxing capital is taking money out of the hands of investors and slows down the economy. It discourages investors and drives that money over seas. There is an old saying; Money travels well. 
Agreement with Fascists?
      Dems --Yes
      GOP--No 

• Confiscation of the Property of religious institutions-- 

I don't think either the conservatives or the liberals are advocating the confiscation of property from the religious institutions. Some however, are saying that if a religious institution gets involved with politics they should forfeit their tax exempt status. 
Agreement with Fascists?
      Dems-No
      GOP--No,sort of

• Abolishment of bishoprics---

     I'm not exactly sure what the framers of the manifesto had in mind, but I think it referred to the abolishment of organized religion.  The word has to do with the bishops, or in a broader sense any position of power. 
  Agree with the Fascists?
      Left--No
      Right--No

• Revise military contracts to seize 85% of all profits from such contracts.----

     This is an easy one.  There is no way that a conservative would consider confiscating the profits of a specific group, like military contractors. Liberals on the other hand would be glad to do that very thing through increased taxes. Especially if it could get more money for social programs from such a tax.
Agreement with the Fascists?
       Left--Yes
       Right--No   

• Short service national militia for defense---

    Not exactly sure how the authors of the manifesto meant. I think the Fascists meant that every one of military age should serve a short time in the military. Israel does that now. I can't see the liberals getting behind this kind of move, but I could see conservatives adopting something like this if conditions warranted it. Looking at what Mussolini did in Italy, it also might indicate the raising of a large standing army. 
Agree with Fascists?
     Left--No
     Right--Maybe Yes

• Nationalization of the armaments industry---

    This is a move that is right down the socialists alley, so it is very much in line with the lefts thinking. On the other hand, conservatives would fight the nationalization of any industry. They are champions of free enterprise.  
Agreement with Fascists?
     Left--Yes
     Right--No

• A foreign policy designed to be peaceful---

     This is a rather hazy goal. Do they mean that all foreign policy should be carried out without any threat of force? That is what I think it means, but as the champion of Fascism, Mussolini, showed, not all Fascists are true to the manifesto.  Trump is up front with the threat of force against the North Koreans. It seems that this tactic has brought Kim to the negotiating table. This drives the liberals wild. They are used to negotiations without such threats, which has produced no results.  
Agreement with Fascists?
     Left -Yes
     Right--No

     So what is the score?  Who lines up with the Fascist agenda better; the liberal or the conservative? It seems that liberals and the Democrats agree with the Fascists on 10 points while conservatives and the Republicans only appear to agree on 4. It follows that if anyone should be called a Fascist is should be a liberal. 
     Being clear, that doesn't mean that the agreement is right or wrong. It just shows that calling the right "Fascists" isn't consistent with what a Fascist is and what they believe. Actually when you look at it, Fascism sounds a lot like Socialism.  
    One additional observation.  If you add extreme antisemitism and the myth of Aryan superiority to the mix, you have Nazism. And, we all know where that led the world. 

The Role of Government

        What is the role of government? That is a question that should be asked and answered for every citizen of the country. Just what do we want and expect our government to do? 
    Do you want government to be essentially your "Daddy" and you an everlasting dependent? Do you want "Daddy" to take care of you, tell you what is politically correct, what you should eat, who you should associate with, what you should think, what you should wear.? Don't laugh. In return you will be clothed and fed and given medical attention and try to keep you from being exposed to ideas that they consider harmful. We have many people in this country that have that basic belief, even though most don't recognize it. A quick look at the events occurring on our college campuses, especially the big Ivy League and California Universities should give you a clue.The most socialist of all the schools seems to be the Berkeley campus of the University of California where political dissent from socialist orthodoxy is put down, usually violently.
      Before you answer that just consider a few things. The more you ask of your government, the more control that government will have over your lives and the greater the tax burden will be to pay for the things you want. There really is not such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays. In spite of the ignorance of  so many liberals that the money they want the government to spend on their free stuff is not money that just appears out of nowhere.  It is taken, for force of law, from somebody who is working and producing something. Today the top 5% of the wage earners pay some 70% of the total tax burden. Some would increase the taxes on the rich so that the top 1% pay 90% of the nations income.
     Do you want security? How much? Then, depending how much security you want, you must give up some, or a lot, of your freedom to achieve it.  Police forces will have to be increased and given more power. Security check points will have to be expanded. Cameras positioned to monitor more areas will have to be installed. That's not the end. Laws will need to be passed giving more power to the government.  The desire for absolute security will result in a police state.
    Do you want the government to provide health care to the ones that can't, or don't want to, pay for private insurance? That issue is front and center today in the Congress as the debate over the repeal and replace of Obama Care is fought. Or should the government institute a one payer system where everybody is provided medical care at the taxpayers expense?  There is certainly a push on, led by Bernie Sanders, to do that very thing. The cost is unknown and hasn't been evaluated by the GBO as far as I know. But, it will be expensive. I honestly believe that we are going to end up with that kind of program. Maybe not this go around, but not too far in the future. It will increase the proportion of the federal budget for entitlements to far greater percentage than it is now. You say Europe already has that kind of program, but they don't have the huge defense expenditures the United States has to act as an umbrella over the western world. And,  if you don't think that is necessary, you haven't been paying attention to history lately. 
      Do you want to spend vast sums of the taxpayers money to "help" the poor as defined by some yardstick? What happens to "help" when it turns into entitlements that far to many people become dependent upon. Ignoring for the moment the effect on the nation as a whole, but on the individuals that are living on the dole. It has proved to be an anchor that keeps one generation after another chained to the welfare dole handed out by government bureaucrats. The government has literally created a permanent underclass with only a few able to break the chains of welfare and rise up in society. It's just too easy to take the "free" money that Uncle is handing out.  As an example, single women are actually rewarded by having children by increasing the amount of their allotment for each child. That increases the number of young fatherless kids that are growing up and, far to often, getting into trouble.
     A good yardstick to gauge how you feel is the catastrophe in south Texas and now Florida. The taxpayers are supplying a great deal of help in the immediate problems of rescuing people, trying to control the water levels and providing temporary relief to the victims in terms of shelter, food and other necessities. But, at what level should the taxpayers stop aid? Should they be responsible to rebuild the homes for the people that lost them in the hurricane and flood and not had the foresight to buy insurance to cover this eventuality, even though they clearly live in in a hurricane zone? Should the taxpayers poor huge sums of  money into rebuilding the infra-structure of south Texas and Florida, including that infra-structure that is owned by private utility companies? What responsibility do the taxpayers of the nation assume for the individual states? 
    How about the environment? The government has stepped in big time to regulate businesses with the goal of keeping the environment clean. But, these regulations have been increasingly strict and have impacted the of creation of jobs. We have created an insatiable bureaucracy that sucks up huge sums of money while they search for the next regulation. To put the frosting on the cake they do not have to consider the fall out of their demands. There is no cost-benefit study done before new regulations are handed down. How big a role should the government have in setting environmental standards? Should they mandate the fuel consumption of cars and trucks? Why? Should the price you pay for natural gas and electricity be heavily influenced by the desire for you to lower your consumption of these items by adjusting rates so that larger users pay more per unit? Why? After all there is no economic reason to raise rates as the consumer uses more electricity or natural gas. Just the opposite. As more electricity or natural gas is produced, the lower the cost per unit. Large users should actually get lower rates as they increase their usage. Electricity is not a resource that is limited in quantity and is not threatened in the long term and there is so much natural gas that we are exporting it in vast quantities.
    How about endangered species? Should the government prevent the expansion of homes and businesses because a rat is threatened, raising the cost of housing by limiting supply and jobs that would be created? Another bureau the the government has created that will never stop finding species to protect with no mandate to consider the costs of their regulation. 
    So what is the role of government? 
    It is clear that the founding fathers were very wary of  large government. In fact they firmly believed that large government was the greatest  threat to the freedom of the individual. Any reading of the Constitution would clearly show that. The Constitution and it's amendments clearly define the role of the federal government and the protections that every citizen has from intrusion by that government. The tenth amendment clearly restricts the federal government from any activity  not specifically granted by the constitution. Stating clearly that all other things are reserved to the States and to the people. 
     The founding fathers clearly thought that the role of government was to provide for national defense, regulate interstate commerce, provide a postal service, and to assure the individual rights and liberties of all it's citizens. The government was empowered to make treaties and regulate foreign trade. Not much else. Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take money from one person and give it to somebody else. Taxes are authorized by the Constitution to pay for such things as national defense, interstate commerce and Postal service (roads and infrastructure) and operation of the government itself. And, remember, the power to tax is the power to control.
     We have two opposing views of what is allowed by the Constitution. The more conservative side believes that unless the Constitution allows it, the federal government shouldn't do it. On the other side you have the liberals who believe that unless the Constitution specifically forbids it, they should do it if they feel like it. Even if the Constitution specifically gives the power for some action to the people by the constitution, the liberals still feel that they know better and move to impose their will. Gun laws are a good example. The Constitution specifically states that the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.And yet there is a ongoing battle to infringe on the right of the people to bare arms. If the people as a whole would like to restrict the sale and possession of firearms they should modify the constitution.
    As the government moves into the lives of more and more citizens we become closer and closer to becoming a socialist state. And, one should remember that there has never been a socialist country that has not degenerated into a authoritarian state. 
    So think carefully about what powers you wish to cede to the government about your lives, your freedom to say what you want, to go where you please, to open a business if you desire, to retain a significant percentage of the money you earn, assemble in peaceful protests against government policies, to work where you wish and other personal liberties that we enjoy-----but for how long?  
    It has been said that in any form of government is the seeds of it's own destruction. The chink in the armor of a democratic government is when the people realize they can vote themselves the treasure of the empire.  We have already reached the first stage of the condition. Where do we go from here?
   
      
     

Are we alone?

     Are we alone in this Galaxy, or even the universe? A question that has no answer right now or in the foreseeable future. 
    When you take several factors into account it is hard to imagine that we are alone. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe and in our Milky Way Galaxy alone there are hundreds of billion of stars. Orbiting around those stars are millions of rocky planets in the Goldilocks zone. 
    Water, the most essential element of life as we know it, is abundant. It seems to exist everywhere. Just recently the scientists believe they have found the presence of amino acids on Mars that are the building blocks of life.  
    But, we have never found life itself outside of earth. And, scientists have never been able to produce life from the same compounds that are known to be essential. 
    However, the amount of sky we can explore is limited, so the jury is still out.
    Consider this.  We, that is humans, are an accident. A freakishly unlikely accident. A series of events, that would be highly unlikely to be reproduced on another world, resulted in us, by us I mean a sentient being able to produce high technology. 
    First of all, we find ourselves in the Goldilocks band in our orbit around the Sun.  Just the right distance for liquid water. Not that unusual.
     Another fortunate characteristic is, we have a molten core which produces a magnetic field that protects us from the deadly cosmic radiation.  That is common to all rocky planets, but we are just the right age to have a molten core with a solid crust. I.e not too old and not too young.  Radiation exists everywhere in the galaxy. Without that magnetic field, life on the surface of the earth would be impossible. Life on Mars is impossible now because the molten core that it once had has cooled and solidified. The magnetic field has long since collapsed and cosmic rays bombard the surface.
     Our Solar System is located at the edge of the galaxy at the outer edge of one of the spiral arms. Deeper into the galaxy, it is likely that cosmic radiation would be too intense for a higher form of life to flourish.
     Back when the earth was young, it seems that a collision by another large object was so violent that a huge chunk of the earth was ripped away and became, after a few million years, our large moon.  It is a large moon. It's relatively the largest in the solar system. Without that moon we wouldn't be here. It stabilized the earth's rotation around a stable axis. The earth once rotated at a rate of 4 hours per cycle. It's the reason we have had a constant near 24 hour rotation period for millions of years allowing the growth of higher level organisms. Of the millions of rocky planets in the Milky Way, how many of them are fortunate enough to have a large stabilizing moon? Unknown. 
     We live in one of the older and largest galaxies in the universe. As far as we can see we are not producing stars any more. But our time is only a split second in the total time line of the universe. Other planets in this galaxy and others may have already come and gone. After all, when our core cools off we are doomed.
    The earth has undergone multiple mass extensions during it's life. Mass extensions always eliminate the current dominate species allowing a new form of life to emerge. The second to last mass extinction resulted in the rise of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth for over a hundred million years. The last mass extinction was likely caused by a huge comet or asteroid impacting the earth near what is now the Yucatan peninsula. This doomed the dinosaur to history. Without that event the mammal would never have been allowed to grow from a small little rodent like creature. The big guys would have just ate him.And, there is no way I can see the dinosaur evolving into a sentient creature. No need too.
    We, that is Homo Sapiens, almost didn't make it according to people who study such things. We were close to extinction ourselves at one time in our birthplace, Africa. 
     When the first creature climbed out of the oceans onto land they had 4 appendages.  Somehow 4 appendages turned out to be the optimal number, at least in our environment, so every air breathing creature except the insects and spiders who subsequently evolved from those primordial days have exactly that number. The 4 appendages  turned out to be just the right amount for the development of upright posture that let our hands free for other things except moving and climbing trees. What if the first creature had 6 appendages, or only 2? Would that creature have evolved to an upright walking, big brained being that is us? Certainly not like us. The world would have been completely different. 
     The most fortunate evolution that produced Homo Sapiens is the development of the opposable thumb. Something that no other species on earth has.  Without that feature, we would be forever at the level of an ape. Pretty smart, but not able to produce any kind of complex tool. Another freakish accident?
    Of course the question arises; what made the first  creatures leave the seas and come onto land?  It was probably self preservation. The oceans were teeming with other creatures that love to eat. So, perhaps the first creatures to leave the oceans did so to escape the carnivores. But, what if in another world there were no such carnivorous creatures? Then there would be no reason for our distant ancestors to leave the comfort of the oceans.
   It is likely that life actually developed on other planets in our galaxy and in the universe. The numbers say that it did happen. Not necessarily at the same time as we developed. After all, we are only 4 billion years old. However, I think that any such life would look nothing like us, even though we would likely have much of the same characteristics. They would likely be O2 breathers, although maybe not with lungs as we know them. Oxygen is essential for the burning of carbon based fuel, and it is likely that any life in this universe would be carbon based. 
     My conclusion. The universe and this galaxy is probably teaming with life, but I think that a level of sentience able to produce higher technology is exceedingly, and I mean exceedingly, rare. We may very well be unique in this galaxy and even, perhaps, the whole universe. Wouldn't that be something? We will likely never know. 
     There are few ways we might find out. Perhaps we will get some kind of signal from outer space indicating that a high level of intelligence exists. Certainly we're constantly looking for such an indication.The only other way is--- to do to the impossible. Find a way to travel great distances much faster than light and go exploring. The UFO hunters will say it is possible because some other intelligent species has already done it and have visited earth many times in the past. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. However, I've been wrong before, so we'll see. 
    
     
    

Human Life; is it valuable?

         Is Human life intrinsically valuable?  I mean valuable in a sacred sense? The idea that taking of a human life is never justified. Such a position is held by some religious groups that would say that taking of life, on the battle field, in an execution for crimes, in an abortion procedure, or any other way, even in self defense, is wrong and immoral. However most people and religions don't share such a strict adherence to those kind of principles in  practice. They allow the taking of life in some circumstances.
     It is generally accepted that the value society places on human life is selective. Different societies,including religions, place value on some forms of human life and not on others. Different societies have different codes that decide the value of human life to them.  Those codes don't necessarily translate across the boundaries into other societies. In fact seldom do. We don't say it that way, but that's what it reduces to.
     What is gets down to, is the value of human life is essentially what society, as reflected by it's elected officials, by the vote or by a ruling dictator, decides it is. 
      If some society decides that's Okay to leave the elder to die when they no longer can contribute to the tribe, then that is what will be done. A common practice among some of the primitive peoples and practiced to some extent today in our modern society. It was justified as necessary for the survival of the tribe. And, some cases and primitive societies it probably was.
     If society decides that some injuries sustained are too bad to fix, or some disability too severe to admit to the tribe because they can not contribute, it's Okay to just get rid of them. Nazi Germany took that stand. So did the ancient Spartans among others.
     If they are are members of what is  perceived to be an inferior race, then it's Okay to enslave them and kill them because their life has little intrinsic value. They may have value as property, but they have little intrinsic value as human beings. A civil war was fought over that issue. 
    The enemy on the battle field has little or no value, compared to mine, so it's Okay to kill them. More civilized societies have a code that says that once the enemy surrenders, then their value increases and it's no longer right or proper to kill. Although if was clear in WWII that the Japanese never shared that conviction. In fact, in their culture, surrendering just proves that the enemy was inferior and therefore deserves no compassion.
     The value of the individual soldier in the military has value, basically, according to their rank. A good example is what went on in the Great War (WWI).  Higher ranking officers, almost all from the British, French or German aristocracy sent thousands of men across no mans land in the face of withering machine gun and cannon fire, knowing that there was little chance of success. The common soldiers died by the thousands. But, they did it anyway time and time again.  The common soldier had little human value to the officers ordering the attack, while sitting in their comfortable villas far from the action. 
     If a person doesn't believe in the same religion as my society or religion, their life has little or no value so we can kill them. We now have a large segment of Islam that fervently believes in the idea that the followers of their religion are the only one who have the right to live. Everyone else have no value as human beings.
      The Man/Woman who commits murder or other heinous crimes have lost their value to society and that it's alright to execute them. Granted that some states have banned executions, but it wasn't because of the belief in the value of human life. 
     The fetus of unborn child has little value if it inconveniences the potential mother, and the mothers life is of greater value, so it's alright to terminate that fetus. We just recently witnessed an open election in Ireland, a very Catholic country, where a majority of the voters decided that the unborn child doesn't have an intrinsic value and can be terminated on request by the mother. The Irish came from all over the world in order to vote in that election. There was a huge support effort by the abortion forces in the United States to push for approval of this law. Although I'm not sure exactly what the abortion advocates of the United States have to do with the women of Ireland. The paradox is that most of these voters declare themselves as Christian.  I guess that doesn't mean what it used to.    
     Of course the abortion advocates shroud their movement in nice sounding names, the most used is "woman's right to choose".  That means the woman has the right to decide between the value of the fetus they are carrying and their own inconvenience. Sometimes it's "women's health", but the result is the same. In any event, it means that the unborn child, even up to moment of birth, has far less value than the potential mother.
     Society has produced some strange paradoxes in our definition of the value of human life. It seems that most people who don't value the human fetus as having significant value, place great value on a criminal's life and are against executions. Some people won't eat meat because of ethical principles because they value the animals life highly, but will condone abortions because they value the life of the human fetus less.
     The value of human life varies from society to society and over time. What is valued at one time is not in another, and vice versa. It is certain that this trend will continue. Something that is not acceptable today, might be okay tomorrow and our concept of the value of human life changes. Who knows, murder may become acceptable. Maybe it already has.