DIYbanter - View Single Post - OT

Janie wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news

Rod Speed wrote:

The Real Bev wrote
Janie wrote

...It certainly does seem that way. Think about it: The poorest
people end up paying the highest rates for credit because they
are most likely to end up missing a credit account payment
because the money had to be used for some emergency.
And poorer people have many more financial emergencies than the
wealthy! . Today it isn't just one account that increases the
interest but perhaps all of them. And who gets the interest, the
banks of course! And who owns the banks--the wealthy...
remainder snipped

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die
before they were old enough to reproduce.

Nope, they got used for manual labor. There is a real
sense in which you need the stupid for that sort of work.

I'm thinking caveman times, not a century ago. Remember, we haven't
evolved all that much in the last couple of thousand years.

We've changed all that.

We have indeed, basically by the mechanisation of agriculture.

You dont need anything like as many stupids as were once needed.

We keep them alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their
grandchildren alive.

And we do that with those so stupid that they cant see that
their pathetic excuse for a country is never going to be able
to sustain the huge numbers of kids they keep pumping out.

We actually pay them to have more children.

Perhaps the humane thing is to allow them to move to special
"cities" with all the usual city things -- grocery stores, shops,
movies, apartments, TV, doctors, etc. -- with no requirement that
the inhabitants be useful at all. All will be provided. Classes
for those who wish to improve will be offered, along with
scholarships to real schools to those who can qualify. No
poverty, no crime, no disease, no drugs and you can leave if you
want to but you may not return for 30 days.

Such a system has got to be better for them than what they have,
and it has to be cheaper than what we're doing now since we won't
have to gear everything to the lowest common denominator.

Can somebody tell me what's wrong with this scenario?

Its basically what is there now, just with ghettos instead of
separate citys.

Not really. We have to pretend that the skid-row derelicts, crack
whores and the generally destitute are valued members of society
rather than hopeless and useless dependents. We allow (require?)
them to live in surroundings which nearly guarantee that they will
never be able to break out simply because they have no value at all
to the system -- we just don't NEED them.

Why not move them all to a decent place where they can either try to
better themselves or stagnate without causing trouble to the people
who are paying the bills?

It doesnt work.

It's never been tried. For one thing, it's not democratic.

Its never going to be possible to eliminate crime with the dregs of
any society.

Drugs in spades.

We could probably eliminate the drug problem by handing out whatever
people want at no cost to them. The easy availability of free drugs
wipes out a lot of crime as well as a lot of people who will
overdose within the next couple of months.

Are we willing to do this? Is it proper? It's certainly cheaper
than what we're doing now...

Free drugs! Heavens, the cops aren't going to allow
that to happen. Half of them would become unemployed. .

The cops get no say on stuff like that.