joe the plummers keating 5 ties and mccain ties plus......

[trish]

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.

[NYBURBS]

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.

[trish]

I'm asking that I not be mandated…

That is the problem with libertarians in a nutshell.

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.

Beautiful sentiment. I hope you invest well. Remember our deal, you’re not covered.

[NYBURBS]

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.

[trish]

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.

That is a complete misrepresentation of Social Security. The investment is for everyone who ever worked for their living, not just you. That distinction goes to the whole point of Social Security. Neither is it tyranny. It is not tyranny to contribute taxes to a public program that the public supports and voted for over and over again (anytime a politician threatens Social Security he’s voted out). I understand the proclivity of libertarians to characterize all taxation as “being forced to give,” but it is not tyranny when a republic undertakes to enforce its laws. To call Social Security tyranny shows just how ridiculous the libertarian grasp of political reality is.

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.

[NYBURBS]

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.

[trish]

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.

Thrice again you mischaracterize Social Security. I understand that’s the straw man against whom you wish to argue. However, Social Security isn’t an investment portfolio. It is more akin to the fire department. It is there not for you in particular but for everybody. Like the fire department it will aid you directly when you need it (on the other hand you may never retire and never draw from it), but it also prevents hundreds of thousands of tragedies that would burden and certainly diminish us all were they allowed to occur.

Yes it is tyranny, we pay easily over 50% of our incomes in various forms of taxes…

I didn’t know tyranny was a matter of percentages (not that I’m accepting the 50% figure). I’d be curious to know the minimum tax rate at which a republic ceases to be a republic and tyranny kicks in. If it’s just a matter of percentage, then why is the Social Security budget tyrannical and not the military budget, or the payroll of the judiciary? Humans are social animals. They live together in communities. There aren’t many willing anchorites out there. In the wild state individuals gave much, much more than 50% of their energy and effort to the daily survival of their tribe and often willingly. I understand tribes aren’t always democratic; but democratic or not, that high level of community dedication was necessary for the tribe’s survival and the individual’s survival. Modern societies (for good or ill) have reduced and eased our social obligations. These days the only thing that is expected of us is that we mind the law and pay some taxes, and yet these days it seems we have more whiners.

[NYBURBS]

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?

[trish]

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.

[NYBURBS]

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.

To answer your question, it is tyrannical when it unduly burdens a persons ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. Is that a set percentage? No probably not, yet nevertheless we are there. Further, the ruling elite (which most liberals profess to hate but really embrace) have been entrenched on both ends by endless streams of money, making representative democracy really a thing of the past. Yet that is our fault as a general populace, because so many people live consumed with bullshit like did Spears show her cooch or not, rather then concerning themselves with how they are governed. This of course is another reason not to centralize so much power, because it is easier to get people to wake up and make changes on a local level.

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.