Re: Min's Intro & Essay #1
From: a poor misguided soul (miscconcepts_at_netscape.net)
Date: 07/25/04
- Next message: Floyd L. Davidson: "Seppo the Word Weasel burrows into excrement"
- Previous message: JR-jred: "Re: Suitcase Nukes, Martial Law & Civil War"
- In reply to: Daniel Joseph Min: "Min's Intro & Essay #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 16:08:12 GMT
Daniel Joseph Min wrote:
>
>
> The following article is my first in a series of new essays on various
> social and political challenges facing the world today, in which I
> offer their most equitable and constructive solutions. Being a verbose
> and definitive author by nature—and very frank in my portrayals—I’m
> unable to present my theories on any such important matters merely in
> “a 1000 words or less” (as most publishers prefer essays which are by
> definition short, and speak only in generalities, and aren’t
> “offensive” to anyone, not even Atheists, E.L.F., the ACLU, Usama Bin
> Laden, or militant left-wing Democrat-Anarchists). So if you should
> find any of my essays “offensive”, then that means I’m doing my job
> right. Therefore, I’ve decided to write a whole new series of essays
> (formatted HTML) on definitive and important topics, beginning with
> the family and its survival, which is the foundation of civilization
> (my next essay will be on abortion)…
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> SURVIVAL OF THE FAMILY
>
> —by Daniel Joseph Min
>
> (word count 1275)
>
>
>
> WITHOUT adequate income to pay for the basic necessities of life,
> families suffer. People suffer. Poverty-driven crime-rates rise along
> with its ever-more impoverished class, and median-class tax-payers are
> left to foot the bill. Taxes rise, disposable incomes drop, and
> government programs to help the poor inevitably end up bankrupting the
> whole economy—and great depressions ensue, giving rise to civil
> unrest, even civil wars, world wars, and finally global thermonuclear
> holocaust if that’s what it takes—ironically followed by world peace.
> Think about it. Prevention has always been and shall always be the
> best medicine, the best remedy for all human ailments. “A stitch in
> time saves nine”. So here’s what we do…
>
>
>
> By federal law, all new-borns should be medically sterilized at
> birth by the attending physician, unless his or her parents have
> previously deposited requisite funds into a federally-insured,
> interest-bearing account reserved exclusively for that child. Account
> access will be electronic-only and highly-secure, and will be
> constantly monitored by the federal government. Significant or blatant
> misuse of these funds will be a serious felony, and, depending upon
> the infraction, the offending parent(s) would most likely serve time
> in a federal penitentiary, several years perhaps. Any monies earned
> while in prison would be reimbursed directly to the aforesaid account
> until restitution is paid in full, and with interest. Perhaps that
> would be the most equitable determination of time served: Let the
> punishment fit the crime. Don’t put such thieves in prison to rot.
> Rather, put them in there to work! But not for their own profit, mind
> you, but strictly to pay back all monies stolen from their victims.
> Let us law-abiding taxpayers pay for their imprisonment, that’s fine.
> But let the prisoners themselves make restitution for their own
> crimes, and pay all monies due to their victims—plus interest. Make
> their detention as profitable as possible for their victims, thereby
> helping the thieves get out of prison as early as possible, hence,
> giving them real incentive to work—reminding them every day as to
> exactly why they’re incarcerated, and exactly why they’re working to
> make restitution in full. That should teach them an unforgettable
> lesson not to do it again. If not, then any serious second offence
> would be tantamount to a life sentence without parole, and they would
> work six days a week until their dying day.
>
>
>
> That’s a far cry from “imputed income” against “dead-beat”
> parents who never had the money in the first place. We’re
> not torturing the poor merely for being poor in a world where
> thousands of over-qualified applicants per week are applying
> for part-time, minimum-wage, no benefits grunt-worker positions
> which offer absolutely no possibility for advancement, and require an
> I.Q. of maybe 70. Much rather, we’re punishing thieves who’ve
> stolen real money from the innocent, i.e. thieves who’ve actually had
> the stolen money in their hands. Do you see the profound difference
> here? Poor people simply don’t have money. Thieves do, and it’s stolen!
>
>
>
> Any new-born child’s exclusive account ought to cover an
> estimated half of that child’s basic expenses like food, clothing &
> shelter from their birth up until his or her 18th birthday, and should
> also provide for an estimated half of the tuition & expenses needed to
> get a 4-year college education at a reputable university (to get a
> bachelor’s degree with good grades). At today’s prices, that’s a total
> of about $300,000 in deposit to cover half of these projected
> expenses, more or less. If that child’s previously wealthy parents
> aren’t able to make enough income over the first 22 years of that
> child’s lifetime in order to cover the other half, then, at least,
> that child will not have been starving for 18 years, and will yet
> have some statistical shot at success—albeit he or she may never
> attend college, and is therefore likely to struggle from paycheck to
> paycheck for the rest of his or her adult life—i.e., if they can
> even find a job. The good news is, those poor struggling children
> will NEVER give birth to any children of their own, as they obviously
> cannot afford to take care of them. But the rich won’t like it,
> since the poor are their slave-class, just like the Hebrew slaves were
> to Pharaoh in Egypt, or like illegal immigrants are to the produce
> industry, and other corporations who similarly enslave their penniless
> employees—like a company store. And the rich won’t like the fact that
> any forfeiture of the child’s account will be transferred in full to a
> federally-mandated charity in order to help cover the other half of
> said deposits nationwide, which monies would be distributed equally
> among all legal citizens in the nation who’re under the age of 18,
> again, in federally-monitored, interest-bearing electronic accounts.
> That means no lawyers are involved—a thing which the rich will go
> absolutely ballistic over. But that’s their problem.
>
>
>
> Back to the children. Barring said deposit, sterilization at
> birth should be mandatory and wholly uncontestable under federal
> law. That way, any child left unsterilized is guaranteed
> sufficient monies to survive in modest comfort, and to get a college
> education when they reach adulthood. That’s what this deposit is for.
> It’s for the child. It’s his or her personal and inviolable guarantee
> that they, too, may grow into adulthood and get a college education,
> and have the financial opportunities to eventually support their own
> progeny—perhaps even to deposit such additional funds as would
> prevent their own grandchildren’s sterilization someday. I.e., from
> parent to child, to grandchild, ad infinitum. That way, everyone’s a
> winner—except for the lawyers.
>
>
>
> In cases where a sterilized child should eventually inherit or
> otherwise acquire the $300,000-plus fee (i.e., forever accounting for
> inflation), then that person may be unsterilized only if said fee has
> been deposited—i.e., in order to cover the non-sterilization fee for
> that’s person’s potential future son or daughter,
> which would then require an additional deposit in order to cover the
> cost of inflation between the time of initial deposit, up until the
> actual birth-date of that potential parent’s future
> child. Less-affluent, yet unsterilized citizens are still permitted
> under federal law to have up to three sterilized children, but then
> the parents must be sterilized upon their third child’s birth. But...
>
>
>
> DNA testing should in all cases determine who the father is.
> E.g., consider a mother of three children, each of whom have had a
> different father. Then each father has only fathered one child, not
> three, at least by that particular mother. If any father has fathered
> three children by any one or several women, then he gets sterilized.
> The whole idea is to be precisely fair and equitable to everyone
> concerned. As in this case, any poor mother who’s had three children
> gets sterilized. And any poor father who has fathered three children
> is likewise sterilized. That’s being perfectly fair, and prevents
> those poor mothers & fathers from bringing any more poor children into
> the world. We’ve already got more than enough poor and suffering
> children to go around as it is. The last thing we need is more poor
> and suffering children. Do you want children to suffer? I don’t. But
> neither can we prohibit humankind’s God-given commandment to be
> fruitful & multiply. We can however, and we should, limit just how
> “fruitful” poor parents can be. That’s being fair.
>
>
>
> Will those sterilized children born to poor parents suffer from
> poverty? Most probably they will. But the family lineage ends with
> them. Barring winning the lottery or something, they can bear no more
> children. Wealth tends to run in families. But even the poorest child
> can rise to power, be it financial, political, religious, or
> otherwise. It may be according to their natural-born talents and
> God-given purpose in life. In such cases, no man-made laws will stop
> the Earth from turning.
>
>
>
> –fin–
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
I've always agreed with the sterilization of stupid people, but
unfortunately I still need somebody to flip my burgers at McDonalds.
-- ---- That's not really Saddam, it's one of his surgically altered look a-likes. www.patism.co.nr
- Next message: Floyd L. Davidson: "Seppo the Word Weasel burrows into excrement"
- Previous message: JR-jred: "Re: Suitcase Nukes, Martial Law & Civil War"
- In reply to: Daniel Joseph Min: "Min's Intro & Essay #1"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
