From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Tue Apr 18 2000 - 12:24:30 MDT
From: "Emlyn (pentacle)" <pentacle@enternet.com.au>
>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?)
Your premises are not acceptable.
Premise 1) Individuals must support themselves and their progeny by
legal means or find someone willing to support them.
>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.
Individuals or groups of such do not have the right to engage in
illegal activities to support themselves. (premise 1)
>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).
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.
>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.
This is consistant with your premise, but your premise is
unacceptable (at least to me) and therefore your conclusion is
invalid. I've always thought that along with the Bill Of Rights
there should have been a Bill Of Duties. One of those would be that
you have a duty to be self supporting, and not an unfair burden on
your society.
>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
I'm not saying they can't have them, I'm saying they shouldn't have
them. If they do have children, they are responsible for the
welfare of these children.
>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.
The people who feel they are necessary and actually have children
are the ones who should pay the costs involved.
>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.
I don't have any problems with legal immigrants.
>Maybe instead of getting cranky with those poor people who breed
>all over the place, we could educate their kids. For purely
>selfish reasons.
Children are perhaps the single most precious resource of all. But
I still think their parents are primarily responsible and should
pay the considerable costs involved, and I do not think those who
cannot afford them should have them.
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 - 15:28:05 MST