Loughlin Michael
Health Care Anal. 1993 Jun;1(1):39-42. doi: 10.1007/BF02196968.
Professor Spicker's two-pronged attack on welfare seems to presuppose the Kantian distinction between morality and prudence. His prudential critique rests on a massively oversimplified and somewhat offensive view of the causes of poverty. His moral premise is unsupported, and inconsistent with his demand for a state-funded investment in education. His article provides an excellent illustration of the anti-realist and Utopian nature of the ideology of the new right.
斯皮克教授对福利制度的双管齐下式抨击似乎预先假定了康德关于道德与审慎的区分。他基于审慎的批判建立在对贫困成因极度简化且有些冒犯性的观点之上。他的道德前提缺乏支撑，且与他对国家资助教育投资的要求相矛盾。他的文章极好地例证了新右派意识形态的反现实主义和乌托邦本质。
