From: Emlyn (pentacle) (pentacle@enternet.com.au)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 00:06:59 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: Billy Brown <bbrown@transcient.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:14 AM
Subject: RE: Didn't need no welfare state (Was: Re: news...)
> Emlyn (pentacle) wrote:
> > 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!
>
> True, but with two very important caveats:
>
> (paraphrased; 1: there is enough work, 2: welfare begets welfare
recipients)
I should have said
- There is always going to be a segment of the population which is "dead
weight", ie not able OR NOT WILLING to support itself.
I don't condone this on the part of the unwilling (I am often surrounded by
the
unwilling, and they annoy the hell out of me), but I do see it as a
necessary evil.
I don't think the caveats above in any way undermine my original argument
(entirely unoriginal though it is).
Emlyn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:06 MST