1997-08-23 - Re: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to “court (fwd)

Header Data

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Message Hash: a9131de9207f052910e722217a59b66b911967e670b1e2c546d604233b2cce54
Message ID: <3.0.2.32.19970823090344.00768d3c@netcom10.netcom.com>
Reply To: <199708231333.IAA24258@einstein.ssz.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-08-23 16:10:08 UTC
Raw Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:10:08 +0800

Raw message

From: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 1997 00:10:08 +0800
To: Jim Choate <cypherpunks@ssz.com (Cypherpunks Distributed Remailer)
Subject: Re: lack of evolutionary pressures (was Re: An end to "court (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <199708231333.IAA24258@einstein.ssz.com>
Message-ID: <3.0.2.32.19970823090344.00768d3c@netcom10.netcom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 08:33 AM 8/23/97 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>> One thing that has been tried here, but was quickly shot down by the
>> welfare lobby was making Norplant (a two ? year hormonal birth control
>> device that gets implanted subcutaneously) implants a requirement for
>> receiving welfare checks.
>
>You need to read the Constitution again, you missed something critical in
>there.

Nope, I didn't. Nowhere is the Constitution does it say that citizens have
a right to welfare money. The State is free to make virtually anything not
expressly prohibited by the Constitution a condition for providing welfare.
Including that the recipient takes positive steps to forestall the breeding
of further welfare recipients. Even making castration a precondition for
receiving welfare would be constitiutional. [I do not advocate such a step].


--Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
  PGP encrypted mail preferred.
  DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56.
  http://rc5.distributed.net/






Thread