From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 08:26:19 MDT
From: "Emlyn (pentacle)" <pentacle@enternet.com.au>
>Yet individuals will do this. This is the difference between the
>formal social rules and the real social rules.
>For many people in circumstances of very low social buy in, the
>local optimum action will be criminal behaviour.
>The only reason that they should not pursue such action is an
>externally imposed set of rules/moral values, by the powerful upon
>the powerless. Big nasty govt?
Those who opt for crime, will be incarcerated.
>They may not have the formal right, but they have the power. See
>above.
You may see above.
>> You can start by asking them, or you can insist upon an answer
>>if they are caught in an illegal activity. You may help them
>>yourself or refer them to social services.
>I would content that the same answers would come from people in
>either camp, if in fact the division between "dole bludger" and
>"down on luck" types actually represents reality, which I suspect
>it does not.
Either way it doesn't matter. Help them if YOU chose, refer them to
social service if you don't.
>I agree that rights and duties must coexist. Power &
>responsibility must travel in pairs. The problem is, being self
>supporting means being self supporting all the time. If all of us
>were to be left to starve the first time we became non-self
>supporting, not too many of us would be reaching old age!
Smart people will invest to cover these possibilities. Paying your
dues by being an active part in a family group is also a good idea.
Creating a Govt sinkhole that actually promotes irresponsibility is
a bad idea.
Note from my previous post, handouts are a bad idea, they corrupt
the well off as easily as the poor.
>.... and in time, these children are responsible for the welfare
>of the society at large as potential workers, and so the welfare
>of the aged (at least those unable/unwilling to work). Eventually,
>these people benefit those who have not participating in paying
>their "cost of development".
I will be paying my own way, not relying on the goodwill of future
generations.
>This is like saying that those who think roads are necessary
>should build them, or those who think education is necessary
>should build the institutions. Maybe this is libertarian thinking
>after all? The market will provide, and all that stuff. Is this
>truly what libertarians are peddling?
Those who think roads, schools, and whatever else are necessary
should build them, or at least pay to have them built. I am not
claiming my position as Libertarian.
>> I don't have any problems with legal immigrants.
>Mostly people don't. Are we going to be able to cope with
>seriously increasing the number of legal immigrants?
If we cannot, then the answer is clearly we should not.
>If all births were planned, we'd be extinct (that's not mine,
>obviously). What would western population demographics look like
>if only those who could "afford" kids had them? Disastrous! And,
>our countries would be sad places containing only the aging, the
>kind of mockery of human existence that seems to stem again and
>again from economic rationalist dogma.
I never said all births should be planned (although its not a bad
idea). Just that those who have children should pay the costs
involved.
>Umm, too emotive and unsupportable. Sorry about that. Let me try
>again.
Go right ahead.
>If children are the single most precious resource of all, why are
>they primarily the responsibility of parents, when the benefit
>seems to flow to everyone; that it flows more to the parents than
>to other members of society would be a hard premise to support.
That it flows to anyone besides the parents is a premise you have
yet to successfully support.
>How about this: Many people with the bucks wont have kids because
>they are too busy doing whatever it is that earns the bucks.
>Others have kids without the bucks because, well, what else are
>they doing? So really, these second group are not a burden, they
>are actually providing social benefit, which the first group are
>free riding on.
You have yet to prove these children are of benefit to me in any
way. I have already pointed out I do not require any of their
future earnings to support myself.
If I have need of their services in the future, I will pay them at
the time of service.
Having said this I should point out that I have a number of
nieces,nephews and sons and daughters of friends who get support
from me in a number of ways and will continue to do so.
There is nothing inconsistant about this, I am free to "invest" in
whomever I chose. Actually invest is a poor word since I don't
expect any returns..... ;)
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
Adler Planetarium www.adlerplanetarium.org
Life Extension Foundation, www.lef.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society, www.marssociety.org
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:28:06 MST