Rich Man, Poor Man, Beggar Man, Thief: A Satirical Essay
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
Part 1: There Was a Crooked Man
Who Walked a Crooked Mile
There are two types of people on government supported welfare programs: those who need to be, and those who don't. Of the two types, only those who need the support are victims of poverty. Everyone else involved with a welfare program, in whatever capacity and however remotely, is benefitting from poverty. This, of course, includes those recipients of welfare payments who don't need them. Thus, the primary consequence of government supported welfare programs is to insure that the number of people benefitting from poverty is greater than the number of people suffering from it.
Parkinson's Law,1 as applied to government supported welfare programs, tells us that welfare recipients will increase in number such as to absorb all available welfare payments. As a corollary, this increase in numbers will shift the proportion of welfare types heavily toward those who don't need it. The only limit to the total number of recipients that may exist is the level of payment that can be tolerated by the rest of society. Students of social dynamics usually refer to this as Propulsive Poverty, and recommend against it. In fact, those students with a finely honed sense of cynicism claim that the only workable solution to the problem of providing welfare support is to stop doing so as quickly as possible.2 While a week's notice to all recipients might be considerate, these scholars point out that consideration isn't really necessary, and overnight termination would be best.
I have examined this recommendation at some length and found benefits of the most profound nature. However, before discussing these benefits, it's appropriate to dispense with needless concern for those individuals from whom welfare payments are to be withdrawn.
First, we need feel no remorse for the plight of those welfare recipients who don't need welfare. They're all, by definition, capable of supporting themselves by their own abilities, through honest labor. Those who are willing to do so will earn a living. Those who are unwilling will starve. Hopefully they'll do it quietly, somewhere far away.
Likewise, we need feel no remorse for those who really need welfare. Although they are unable to make an honest living, a promising future awaits them. Their problem is to survive, and having been abandoned by society, they need feel no reciprocal obligation. Amidst the wealth around them, to survive they need but steal. Although this suggestion may draw gasps of horror or dismay from the Bleeding Hearts, Do-Gooders and various other imbeciles, it is a sound concept. It stems directly from the removal of welfare payments and furthermore, provides the only valid test yet discovered for the real and honest need for welfare support. That is, those who are caught will be automatically placed in another, less appealing, welfare system: prison.
Commentary by Don Cormier
Anyone interested in urging the passage of the Liberty Amendment in letters to Congress should refer to H.J. Res 23. Anyone interested in getting more information can write to:
While the proposal as written is valuable, Sam and I feel that the language is imperfect. For your intellectual stimulation, Sam offers the modified version.
by Sam Aurelius Milam III
On July 16, 1979, a federal Department of Energy regulation, Emergency Building Temperature Restrictions, was implemented by President Carter. This regulation required that thermostats in buildings be set so that no room was heated above 65°F nor cooled below 78°F. The temperatures in all buildings were subject to audit by federal regulatory agencies. Substantial fines were established for noncompliance. The regulation also required that the temperature of hot water in restrooms be reduced to 105°F. Auxiliary heating devices, including portable heaters, were forbidden by law.
I perceived the regulation as legislation issued by the executive branch of government, in violation of Article I of the U.S. Constitution. On August 2, I objected by mail to President Carter and was informed that the President had acted under the authority of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, an act of Congress. That is, the Congress had authorized the violation. Thereafter, I began to promote a Constitutional amendment:
by Jim May
Therefore, no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
There is no mention of age in any legal definition I could find defining a person under the law. To me, this means that a human being is legally a person under the law from conception through old age and a natural death
This precedent admits that the unborn child is a person, and was based upon the theory that the unborn child has the right to protection from harm and to apply for redress of personal injuries.
The exception cited in Black's Law Dictionary specifically states that an abortion may be performed only if, in the physician's medical judgment, it is necessary.
Which speaks for itself.
I interpret this as meaning that an unborn person should have at least the same legal protection as any person accused of a capital crime, even though the unborn person's crime is the crime is being an unwanted child.
I say capital crime because the maximum penalty of a capital crime is to be deprived of life. Since the unborn person is being compelled to give up his/her life, the very least that society can do for the unwanted child is to make sure that the child is represented by a counsel for his/her defense, and receives the protections the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, this means that a jury must decide if the termination of a pregnancy is to be allowed, except in cases of medical emergency.
A mitigating argument is as follows:
In my opinion, this section of the thirteenth amendment can be invoked only if involuntary impregnation can be demonstrated. Otherwise, the woman must be considered a voluntary participant in her own impregnation and must be held responsible for all of the the consequences of her own actions.
As person is not defined as a citizen under any of these provisions, they apply equally to all persons regardless of citizenship as long as they are within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
In conclusion, unless the constitution is changed and equal protection under the law is repealed, every person's life, from conception through old age and a natural death, is protected under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Exceptions should include involuntary impregnation, medical emergency, and a verdict by a jury.
What do you think?
This newsletter isn't protected by a formal establishment copyright, so you may copy it if you wish. In fact, I invite you to do so. However, please give credit where credit is due.
I solicit letters, articles, and cartoons, but I don't pay for them. Short items are more likely to be printed. I suggest that letters and articles be shorter than 500 words, but that's flexible depending on space available and the content of the piece. I give credit for all items printed unless the author specifies otherwise. Lacking instructions to the contrary, I'll credit the author by name and town (or whatever) of residence. I try to print exactly what the writer gave me, without any changes.
This newsletter isn't for sale, but if you care to make a voluntary contribution, you may do so. The continued existence of the newsletter will depend, in part, on such contributions. I accept cash and stamps. I don't accept checks, money orders, anything that will smell bad by the time it arrives,or anything that requires me to provide a signature to receive it. In case anybody's curious, I accept gold, silver, platinum, etc. I'm sure you get the idea.