From: Emlyn (pentacle) (pentacle@enternet.com.au)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 10:54:04 MDT
Maybe you can look at welfare this way:
Givens:
- There is always going to be a segment of the population which is "dead
weight", ie not able to support itself. This seems a fairly reasonable given
to me, but if you don't agree, speak up!
- Those unable to support themselves can either be supported by someone
else, or must turn to the black economy (and crime). (or die I guess, but
not too many are going for this one out of choice).
- Crime costs more than the welfare bill. (is this true?)
Now the libertarian objects to paying tax for welfare. But surely, the
agregate level of crime inflicted per person must be at least as invasive of
rights as welfare.
So the most violating of "good" citizens (hee hee) rights is crime, followed
by paying tax for welfare. Maybe the unsupported citizen should be
identified and "terminated" (ouch), but by whom? How do you seperate such a
person (known as "dole bludgers" in the local rags), from those who are
temporarily down on their luck, but truly trying to "do the right thing"
(ooh I'm feeling all protestant all of a sudden).
The point is, you can't make such a decision. Welfare is the least
detrimental of all available options to each individual's rights, and thus
should be decided upon from an individualist point of view.
---
There's been some comment about not letting those who can't afford to have
babies to do so. Maybe you guys in the US don't have the aging population
problem that we do in Australia. Over here, people say the same things...
- We don't want No Stinkin Welfare mums ("moms" in American),
- We don't want No Stinkin immigration,
- We don't got no Stinkin Workers to support the baby boomers in
retirement
It's a no brainer. Having kids is not a luxury in the west, it's a
necessity, from a social viewpoint. That, or increased immigration of
younguns (those third-world types still know how its done!). Australia
rewards the DINKS (double income no kids) for their hassle free lifestyle by
not requiring them to have any responsibility for raising the next
generation, apart from throwing the same few sheckles to the govt that the
parents have to throw. It's crazy really; we all need the coming
generations, but damned if anyone is willing to pay.
Oddly enough, many of the same people who don't want to foot this bill seem
to be those who aren't too interested in immigrants. White people are going
to turn up in history books (databases, yeah yeah) as curiosities; stomped
all over the globe, made everyone else's lives hell, then just when they
looked like a real problem, they just stopped procreating. Couldn't be
bothered.
Maybe instead of getting cranky with those poor people who breed all over
the place, we could educate their kids. For purely selfish reasons.
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:05 MST