|
I completely disagree with the idea and think its a ridiculous attempt at social control.
And it's not about the slippery slope, its about the dehumanization of the poor.
Sure, they are using "public" money. But the same thing isn't about to happen to other recipients of public money (which is why this is not about a slippery slope argument).
That is, the problem isn't with "what's next." It's with this sort of control itself. Why is it ok to enforce this sort of social control over the poor, but not over, say, medicare recipients? People who go to public schools and universities? People who use publicly subsidized hospitals? People who drive on roads?
Why aren't people clamoring for laws requiring medicare recipients to stop drinking, smoking, etc lest they lose their benefits? Why aren't people clamoring for expelling and banning for life all students who don't maximize their learning potential? Should anyone driving on a public road be required to carpool, only drive cars with maximum safety records, and so on?
Again, the problem isn't that this requirement will lead to the ones above. Because it won't. The problem is that this clearly dehumanizes the poor: "everyone else who gets other forms of public assistance may do as they please, but you, the poor, clearly isn't as bright as everyone else so we will make your decisions for you?"
|