From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: A Modest Proposal to End Poverty
Originator: news@nimaster
Keywords: Poverty,Welfare,Abortion,Birth-Control A Modest Proposal
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:25:51 GMT

In article <C17tL5.54@world.std.com>, rjk@world.std.com (robert j
kolker) writes:

>There are two ways of eliminating poverty from our society. One way is
>to promote economic growth with a resultant expansion of the middle
>class with a general lifting of the standard of living. This will
>produce a reduction in both relative and absolute poverty. Clearly
>this is the best approach since it is win-win and avoids the zero sum
>scenario.
I'll leave it to someone familiar with economic theory to comment
on this one.

>Given the political, philosophical and economic ambiance we are not
>likely to acheive [sic] this laudible [sic] aim any time soon. What
>are the alternatives? One is to reduce the number of poor folks.
>To this end I propose that we eliminate or severely curtail the
>Welfare State.
I doubt it can be that easy.

>Currently our welfare policies are encouraging poor women to procreate
>by
>offering aid to them and their dependent children. There are no strings
>attached to this other than need. This is no good, since it provides an
>incentive to breed under those conditions which are not conducive to
>raising productive members of society.
Numbers please? We can't act just on your say-so. You have to _prove_
that welfare policies encourage poor women to procreate--and anecdotes
aren't good enough.

[stuff deleted]
>Now before the flames roar, I will tell you I am not anti-woman. But the
>basic biological truth is 1 womb + 1 year = 1.2 children.
Where did you get THIS from?? Let's rewrite that: (1 sperm + 1 egg +
9 months) * 3% chance of implantation * 2/3 chance of survival = 1
child.

>It is useless
>to attempt to sterilize the male population. Even if such a program were
>successful, the remaining 5 percent of the males could impregrenate
>every available woman.  This would cut the gene pool down but not reduce
>available woman.  This would cut the gene pool down but not reduce the
>birth rate among the poor.
Where do you get 5% from? In any case, I bet that when all the women
found out these men had been cheating on them, over time 5% of the males
will be found to have been castrated. :-) Women don't take no shit, Bob!

[deletia]

>We have simply got to cut down on the welfare and reduce poverty in this
>country. The surest way at this juncture is to allow poor folks to
>perish.
>You will know that such a program is effective by the body count.
If there ever comes a time where we *must* sacrifice some living human
beings so that others may survive, I _may_ agree with you. But
fortunately, the situation is not that dire yet.
For now, though, you're simply perpetuating the stereotype that
libertarians really don't care for anything but their pocketbooks.
While it would be great if there were no "welfare state", if it's
ever going to happen, it's going to happen gradually, over a period
of decades, while the economy recovers from the damage done to it
since--oh gee, Reagan? Carter? You can't just wish it away.

>Conan the Libertarian
Who, I may add, does _not_ speak for all libertarian-inclined people.

Dave Tepper
"Vote Demorepublicratarian--it's easier than thinking."
Just great--is there anyone left I _can_ vote for with a clear
conscience? Hmmmm... maybe if we can get Bill Weld to run...?

-- 
Mo-bio majors do it between the beta-sheets.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,talk.abortion