I think I know where you're coming from: the ultra-sensible-seeming notion that you can spend your money more usefully than can the government. I have no doubt that is true of thee and me, but it most definitely does not apply to everyone, especially when dealing with (literally) marginal $. Most folks need things like retirement security and available health care, to say nothing of "national defense" and [ugh!] domestic peace enforcement. Many just need to eat and have access to dope. More and more will join the legions of the inept -- and thus be unable to provide even minimum subsistence for themselves -- as time goes on.

Contrary to popular opinion, the fault is not "the welfare state"; that's merely a treatment of the symptom. The fault lies with medicine. Until the 20th Century, it's pretty much been a given that the weak and the stupid would weed themselves out and die early and childless. Now we keep them going, to the detriment of survival of the social system.

Homo quality is way down. Not only that, but a collateral effect is that quantity is way up; there's too damn many of us! Ma Nature used to thin us out thoroughly once or twice a millennium, with lesser trimming every century or so. We'd take care of any unsightly bulges by going to war. No more; the last worthwhile epidemic was the Spanish Flu of 1918-1920, and despite some impressive death rates, it was considerably blunted by the meddling assholes in the white coats. M*A*S*H has pretty much blown the war thing and AIDS shows signs of being a bust. There is some small hope in ethnic cleansing -- if it could be spread wider than the Balkans -- but I wouldn't count on it.

What to do, what to do? Pragmatically, I only see two broad options:

[a] cast loose the lame and the stupid to "helpless" themselves to an early death (hoping all the while they don't organize before getting too weak to take your stuff, too) OR
[b] support them minimally and try to make them both better and not a danger.

If the latter, try to do it more efficiently.

No good choice there, "lesser of ..." and all that.

There is no force other than a continental-scope government that can do this kind of survival-support. Local option will almost inevitably lead to social and political fragmentation, as for example when Dayton lets 'em die and Cincinnati supports 'em. If we deprive them too much, they (the 'us' in 'us & them') will highly likely get us (the 'them') real good.

I don't know about you, but I'm not adequately prepared to defend what I am and have in the event of fragmentation and anarchy. Far better prepared than you, of course :-), but still not prepared -- nor, of course, anxious to try. I choose the buy'em off approach.

But, anyway, I don't see a very high probability of major success in establishing and maintaining social stability worldwide.

More bread! More circuses! A chicken in every garage!

wgc
June 2001