... if you just accept the First Law ("survival of the fittest" !! )

> But what about this, let's say that there is no
> more welfare and the families have to take care
> of Cousin Scum Bag....what would happen if
> Cousin Scum Bag's only living relative was also
> a scum bag and refused to work?

H'm, well, I guess that the supermarkets would refuse to sell the two CSB's any food and they would starve, thereby cleaning up the gene pool a little.

> Another situation: suppose you have several
> members of one family that refuse to work and
> only one family member working.....how can one
> good relative support, let's say, 4 others?

I did that for years (actually, FIVE others -- my wife and four children! ).

> He/she would be working full time to support
> the Scum bags.

Assuming we are talking SB's here and not children , I'd say ... yeah, so?

But, don't misunderstand something here. I'm NOT saying that I support the idea of REQUIRING relatives to support their familial SB's. I'm just saying that I oppose the idea of REQUIRING the rest of us to do it.

If the family worker bee doesn't want to support his lazy relatives, he shouldn't have to. But, the rest of us shouldn't either.

Then what, you ask? Well, back to that First Law and the gene pool.

And don't forget that all of this has nothing to do with those who are truly physically or mentally disabled or so elderly as to be incapable of caring for themselves, financially or otherwise (in which case I would support a familial support responsibility and a societal support responsibility if there is NO family to do so).

----- jim o\-S