> If you are going to treat kids as property, as you seem to be doing,
> then it's an inherent component of property ownership to be
> responsible for the upkeep of your property.
I agree, those government lands and parks needs some serious landscaping,
their nothing but overgrown weed farms, most are even preserved in that
manor!!! Sell em off to someone that can take care of them. Talk about
Still though, who defines the "proper" state of a peice of land. Maybe I
just dont like cutting my grass.
> If you don't pay property taxes or use
> taxes, your property can be taken away, for example.
Id hardly call taxes "upkeep", more like "tribute".
>If you do not
> maintain your property such that it becomes a nuisance to
> other property
> owners, it can be confiscated from you. If you insist on treating kids
> as property, then there is an indeniable responsibility component to
> ownership of children. If you produce kids (but cannot pay for their
> upkeep to keep them fed, clothed, housed, educated, and
> socialized such
> that they do not become nuisances to other individuals in the
> community), such that other people (the taxpayers of a welfare system)
> are paying for that upkeep, then they are no longer YOUR
> kids, they are
> the taxpayer's kids, and you are merely their custodian, a
> position that
> can be revoked at the whim of the proper owners of the kids
> in question.
Totally agree here! I never said they had a right to KEEP them. I just said
you cant go around sterilizing people. Damn right they have a legal
responsibility to maintain their kids.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT