John Chase wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote in message
news
[ snip ]

The hard-core poor are mostly stupid. Stupid people used to die before
they were old enough to reproduce. We've changed all that. We keep them
alive, we keep their children alive and we keep their grandchildren alive.
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? Your turn.


USConst. Amdt. XIII.

Which has what, exactly, to do with people being able to freely choose
whether or not to move to a special area where their needs are met?
In the scenario outlined above, they'd be able to leave at any time.

I don't think that constitutes slavery. It does mean the government
would be giving people limited choices, but everybody already has
limited choices (regardless of what the government does).

- Logan