Results 21 to 30 of 35
-
10-23-2008 #21
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
If the nation goes bankrupt, nobody but the wealthiest among us are going to have any savings to speak of. If the nation goes bankrupt, you go bankrupt too, whether you've been putting 7% aside or not. If the nation doesn't go defunct, then my arguments above hold, Social Security is the far less risky option for your future.
Remember, Social Security originated in worse times (1935) than these and thrived.
In 2004 Social Security paid out $500 billion in benefits. If we can come up with $700 billion to nationalize the mortgage banks and we can spend more than a billion a day in Iraq, we can continue Social Security. Five hundred days after we're out of Iraq we will have saved enough to cover one year’s worth of benefits. Our real problem concern is the billions that private banks have cost us.
There is no indication that private corporations and banks will ever seek stable economic equilibrium on their own. You're asking us to give up faith in ourselves and trust that the lumbering wild dinosaurs of private enterprise (who are only ever looking out for their own self-interest) will somehow strike a balance that is more advantageous for us working mammals than the balance we can construct for ourselves using intellect and reason. Social programs and regulated economies are uniquely human. They insure our survival on this planet. Economic systems in the wild (i.e. those which are not governed and well-regulated) are rarely expected to serve the needs of those who actually labor to design and produce goods. Wild systems minimize costs by exploiting workers as well as consumers. Moreover, they only serve their own short term needs. While huge unregulated and poorly regulated dinosaurs have been filling their coffers, they have also been draining our planet of vital resources, spewing toxins into the atmosphere and wreaking havoc with our climate. Now more than ever we need to domesticate internationals and more closely govern their interactions. Now, as in FDR’s day, we need public works programs to fix our failing infrastructure (roads, bridges, locks and damns, commercial airliners etc. etc.) As in FDR’s day, this is the kind of action that will create jobs and get the economy moving again. Enough trickle down. It doesn’t work, it never has.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-23-2008 #22
I'm not asking you to give up faith in anything, I'm asking that I not be mandated by law to go down with the ship. There are proposals that would allow people to still participate in social security, but also allow others to invest privately. While still forcing one to do something with their own property, which I oppose, it nevertheless is better than the current system.
Further, the logic that the US going broke means I go broke is faulty. There are plenty of people that invest their money in diverse areas throughout the world. It's entirely possible to make money in other markets even if this one goes to shit. Perhaps not short term but long term yes.
-
10-23-2008 #23
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
I'm asking that I not be mandated…
Okay we’ll devise a plan that make’s you the sole exception. You, NYBURBS, won't have to pay Social Security, but everyone else will. Even though the relation of one thing being the property of an agent is a completely social construction determined not by the agent, but by the society in which the agent lives, we'll let you and only you have complete and utter autonomy over "your" property. If you want to build a nuclear weapon out the stuff that you bought and carted to your own home, well, hey, it’s your property. We’ll let you do it. But it applies only to you. Others will not be allowed willy-nilly to divert waterways, built nuclear weapons or produce anthrax on their property. How's that? It’s a system specifically designed to serve what you perceive to be your specific self-interests. As a libertarian you cannot be opposed to it. The self-interests of others are of no interest to you, unless of course you don’t really subscribe to the tenants of objectivism.
Let me anticipate your objection. You won’t be able to make as much money on the market if everyone else’s freedoms are too tightly constrained. If their companies are subject to regulation they won’t produce on your investment. Their self-interests ARE of interest to you.
Your objection is my point: Self-interest is not a sufficient basis for an ethical philosophy and it is not a basis for a realistic, let alone a fair economy. Everyone’s interests complexly knot and intertwine, melt and merge. How do you tell where your interests end and others begin? If we are all intricately connected, do your interests have an end? Should the boat go down, we’ll all get wet, mandated or not.
It's entirely possible to make money in other markets even if this one goes to shit.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-23-2008 #24
That is such faulty logic. Building a nuclear bomb in your yard, or anything else outwardly harmful, trespasses upon the rights of a party other than yourself and is therefore wrong (not too mention irrational). Not being forced to give the government money so it can "invest" it for you is a completely legitimate request and is not trespassing upon others. You'll notice the difference. Yes you will come back with, well you use roads, and school, and hospitals. Yea I do and I help pay for them, but that doesn't mean I should have to invest in social programs such as SS. Two different ball games and as much as you want to tie them into being one and the same you know they're not
PS- It's called rational self-interest. I see nothing rational in a large central government draining the majority of your earnings so it can spend it as IT sees fit. That my friend is tyranny, no different than the mob coming along and threatening to break your legs if you don't pay protection money. I think you'd find a philosophy of self interest does not preclude helping others, it just has a problem with being mandated to do it under the force of law.
-
10-24-2008 #25
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
That is such faulty logic. Building a nuclear bomb in your yard, or anything else outwardly harmful, trespasses upon the rights of a party other than yourself and is therefore wrong (not too mention irrational).
Well actually, building one is not so harmful, detonating one is a different story…it’s more a matter of risk than logic isn’t it? That’s also the case with fire departments. Imagine that instead of being paid for with public money, your fire department was entirely financed by its subscribers. Suppose everyone on your block subscribes except your neighbor. By not subscribing to any fire department your neighbor has become a hazard. If his house catches fire, no one is going to put it out. A fire at his house is now a threat to your house. So it is, as I explained before, with all those elderly homeless on the street. They become a hazard.
But I see you are okay with regulation aimed at preventing corporations from trespassing on the rights of other parties? I’m sorry but I thought libertarians were against such regulation on the basis that government had no business telling them what to do with their money and their property. But I see you agree that sometimes the government CAN tell you what to do with a portion of your money and it CAN limit the use of your property.
Not being forced to give the government money so it can "invest" it for you…I see nothing rational in a large central government draining the majority of your earnings so it can spend it as IT sees fit.
It is nice, however, to meet a libertarian who willingly pays for public schools, roads, bridges and even hospitals. Many do not distinguish between those social programs and others.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-24-2008 #26
Yes it is tyranny, we pay easily over 50% of our incomes in various forms of taxes (probably higher) and that is repressive. There is something wrong with the logic that you MUST give your money over for a program such as that. Want to set it up as a voluntary program, then hey w/e have fun.
As for the nuclear bomb scenario, just admit you picked a bad example Trish. You're a bright gal and you know you're not going to be able to argue that point through. For example I'm going to come back and say that they are radioactive and therefore do present a danger to others even prior to use.
The fire department and social security comparison is also just not going to cut it. If the block catches fire then we're all fucked. I need a fire put out just as much as the next guy, but it is unlikely and less than rational to think we're each going to have a fire truck(s) of our own. That is different than thinking you can invest or save your own money rather than asking the government to do it for you.
Once again I will point out that I am not opposed to all forms of regulation, nor am I an anarchist. Nor do I like big giant corporations, but we both know corporatism is not free market economics. My biggest issue is with the federal government imposing these programs. 1) It goes beyond the scope of what was granted to them. 2) It is least responsive, least efficient, and hardest to alter at the central government level. Plenty of towns/cities/counties/states that are capable of deciding what if any programs might work for them.
-
10-24-2008 #27
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
You could say the shielded warhead in your basement exposes your neighbor to radiation, but you would be wrong. A properly shielded weapon harms your neighbor no more than the shotgun resting in your gun cabinet. But that’s beside the point I was making. If you don’t like the nuclear warhead example, replace it by two truck loads of nitroglycerin. I think you and I do agree that even if a nuclear weapon or a truckload of nitro does your neighbor absolutely no physical harm, it still presents an unwarrantable risk. The point is that it is a trespass on your neighbor’s rights to expose him to unwarrantable risk. This is like the risk presented by the neighbor who doesn’t buy the protection of fire department. In both cases the government mandates against such risk taking: in first case by making it against the law for private citizens to keep nuclear warheads or tons of explosives in residential areas and in the second case by “forcing” citizens to give protection money to their local fire department (I’m just trying to use the language of the objectivist here).
That is different than thinking you can invest or save your own money rather than asking the government to do it for you.
Yes it is tyranny, we pay easily over 50% of our incomes in various forms of taxes…
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-24-2008 #28
Pay some taxes? Do you really say that with a straight face? lol. You pay more to taxes than to any other single expense if you're the typical working class person. Social security is not the same as the fire department, and even if it was it should not be run by the federal government without an amendment granting it authority. Otherwise we end up back in this situation with tons of people (like myself) wanting to dismantle it in one fashion or another.
I don't want the nanny state, apparently you do. I know what is good for me, somehow I have the feeling you know what is good for Trish. Mr. Bureaucrat in Washington is a lot less likely to know what you need. Besides, if it is backed by the government and is more akin to an individual security guarantee, then you should have no problem with making it voluntary. Just don't allow anyone that didn't pay in to collect. Obviously it is so overwhelming popular that most will still contribute, and of course I'm sure you won't mind stepping just the handful of us that apparently would be so mistaken.
Somehow we survived for quite the long time without this program. Somehow we were quite the prosperous nation. Somehow scores of immigrants still wanted to come to this nation even before we had all these social programs and ungodly high tax rates. I wonder why?
-
10-24-2008 #29
- Join Date
- Mar 2006
- Location
- The United Fuckin' States of America
- Posts
- 13,898
Way to not answer any questions, what I say with a straight face is Social Security is not tyranny. But you keep on saying that it is, be my guest. But if you do, don't expect ever to see a libertarian in the White House.
"...I no longer believe that people's secrets are defined and communicable, or their feelings full-blown and easy to recognize."_Alice Munro, Chaddeleys and Flemings.
"...the order in creation which you see is that which you have put there, like a string in a maze, so that you shall not lose your way". _Judge Holden, Cormac McCarthy's, BLOOD MERIDIAN.
-
10-24-2008 #30Originally Posted by trish
Is it whining to not want to have your property taken in the name of whatever ill conceived social program someone in Washington comes up with? You know liberals "whine" constantly about expanded police powers and government oppression of certain groups. Yet conservatives "defend" it as simply keeping the good social order. Yet liberals will contend that people that complain of excessive government interference in their lives and burdensome taxation in the name of the "social good" are nothing more than whiners. I'd say both are ample reasons to complain and perhaps both sides should pause and think about their fundamental ideology.
Btw- Average person pays say 20% federal income tax. Then we have say 7% on every sale, FICA, property tax, school tax, state income tax, excise taxes, luxury tax, DMV/car tax?, Usage fees on utilities, phones, etc. This is right of the top of my head and of course even if you don't pay it directly one way or the other you end up with the bill. I'll research it but I'm willing to bet my 50% figure is about right.