From: The Low Golden Willow (phoenix@ugcs.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed May 21 1997 - 13:00:27 MDT
On May 21, 10:35am, "Rick Knight" wrote:
} As I become more aware of the tenets of libertarianism, I'm still not
} sure at how compassion for the disenfranchised sector fits into the
} schema. From what I can perceive, impassive and continuous giving is
However the individual wants. If you're compassionate, you help other
people. If you're not, you don't. Same is true of democracy, and
whether or not you vote for welfare.
} going toward a feeble welfare system, one so over-burdened with
} bureaucracy that people blatantly take full advantage of it and suck
} it dry. But how can I stand in judgment of that type of person when
The more significant welfare parasite may be the employees, not the
recipients.
Personally I'm less than over-excited about welfare; the numbers don't
seem very large. AFDC isn't breaking the budget; Social Security and
Medicare are. But single mothers don't vote as well as senior
citizens. (And most people anticipate retiring.)
Merry part,
-xx- Damien R. Sullivan X-) <*> http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~phoenix
Although its rudimentary ego could neither receive nor transmit thought,
it knew that it was a fontema, that it must roll and roll and roll,
endlessly, that by virtue of determined rolling its species would
continue and would increase. -- one of those Lensmen books.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:26 MST