Re: The Republican Agenda

mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu
Date: 11/16/04 

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 20:13:28 GMT

In article <iImdnWDaw8HhkAfcRVn-1A@rcn.net>, jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
>In article <EZgmd.6$25.3486@news.uchicago.edu>,
> mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <eca320d0.0411151957.4a803fe0@posting.google.com>,
>spamspamspam3@netzero.com (Edward Green) writes:
>>>mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message
>news:<CAVld.3$25.1161@news.uchicago.edu>...
>>>> In article <cn7mms$h81$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu>,
>glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes:
>>>
>>>> >Social Darwinists think the weak should be allowed to die off, the
>strong
>>>> >should be allowed to gather wealth and power without restriction.
>What
>>>> >they mean, although they don't quite say it, is "...the strong,
>meaning,
>>>> >of course, me..."
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's the normal way of thinking.
>>>
>>>Yes: I've encountered this mode of thinking. Some people who are
>>>doing well consider that this is the best of all possible worlds,
>>>since the most meritorious of all possible people -- them -- are doing
>>>well, which is no doubt justified by their superiority in every
>>>dimension, etc. So why should they share any of the gains the world
>>>is so justly directing towards them at the moment with the remainder
>>>of the lazy slugs reaping the full harvest of their profilgacy? Or
>>>something like that.
>>>
>>>My preferred social policies -- which I haven't bothered revising for
>>>10 or 20 years, since it doesn't matter a damn what I think, and at
>>>the same time I haven't had any strong reason to think differently --
>>>have always remained about balanced between bleeding heart liberalism
>>>and facism.
>>>
>>>Entitlement of all above ground to minimally decent life -- even if
>>>they want to drink on the dole -- but elimination of sharp threshold
>>>means tested benefits (no draconian effective marginal tax rates;
>>>negative income tax concept; ever present incentive to earn maginal
>>>dollar), guarantee of decent place to live, but elimination of any
>>>guarantee to live in a particular domicile (falling on minimum income
>>>may mean moving to outskirts, but with continued access to food,
>>>shelter and medical care) _and_ complete, facistic elimination of
>>>absolute right to produce offspring: because of course, this "right"
>>>is logically incompatible with the above entitlement goals.
>>>
>>>If you can't take care of yourself, for whatever reason, the state
>>>will maintain you decently: but absolutely prevent you from bringing
>>>more burdens to the state into existence, until such time as you
>>>yourself have escaped from your dependent status. Oh, what a facist I
>>>am.
>>
>>:-))) Yeah, I can already hear the howling of the bleeding hearts.
>>
>>I would add one more thing to the above. If you happen to be
>>dependent on public kindness beyond some reasonable period of time
>>(year, two years, something of the sort), you should lose your voting
>>rights. To be restored when you're no longer dependent.
>
>Now, you've doubled the bait for Ed's social darwinists.

Well, rather for the opposites of social darwinists. Mind you, both
extremes are not very realistic (as usual)

>But would your suggestion achieve the results you imply?
>
I didn't imply any results, yet:-) But, I know what you mean, you ask
whether people will get off the dole to regain their voting rights.
Frankly, I doubt it. But, if not, at least their input into the
process will be eliminated.

Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Republican Agenda
    ... >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes: ... To be restored when you're no longer dependent. ... rather for the opposites of social darwinists. ... whether people will get off the dole to regain their voting rights. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: The Republican Agenda
    ... >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes: ... To be restored when you're no longer dependent. ... rather for the opposites of social darwinists. ... whether people will get off the dole to regain their voting rights. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: The Republican Agenda
    ... >glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) writes: ... To be restored when you're no longer dependent. ... rather for the opposites of social darwinists. ... whether people will get off the dole to regain their voting rights. ...
    (sci.archaeology)