Re: Didn't need no welfare state

From: Brian D Williams (
Date: Wed Apr 19 2000 - 08:26:19 MDT

From: "Emlyn (pentacle)" <>

>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

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

>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

>Umm, too emotive and unsupportable. Sorry about that. Let me try

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..... ;)


Extropy Institute,
Adler Planetarium
Life Extension Foundation,
National Rifle Association,, 1.800.672.3888
Mars Society,
Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:35 MDT