Re: Re: money and health

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 9:39:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> LOL..too! NY Times recently gave one of it's most brutal, complete thumbs

> down to Noam Chomsky's latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest

> for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)

Wanita, even The Nation doesn't like Chomksy much. Does that make them

" establishment " ?

(Not to disagree that NYT is establishment press)

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 11:26:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Have glanced at The Nation once, no opinion. What is pretty much a waste of

> time with media is sorting through the nations, countries, governments,

> corporations, agencies, acronyms, individual people of representation and

> authority to find people buried maybe somewhere. Example to the separation

> that exists in the world.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you objecting to the proliferation of

media, and suggesting something more centralized? Or are you objecting to the

fact that Noam Chomsky doesn't get enough coverage and too many people with

more " authority " outshadow him?

If it's the former, which I dont' think it is, I suppose we wouldn't have

much common basis for discussion, except to point out the obvious that different

viewpoints flourish more with competing sources of ideas.

If it's the latter, I'd say that Noam Chomsky is world famous, and it isn't

very hard to find his writings. One could, say, go to the book store, or heck,

even some video rental places carry " Manufacturing Consent " around here. As

you pointed out, he gets exposure in NYT.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 23:22:17 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Re: money and health

>

> There is a plethora of outlets for antiestablishment views. And what the

> " establishment view " is depends on what rag you're reading. The anti-war view

> is

> certainly anti-establishment, but one need only look to the New York Times to

> find it. Laissez-faire capitalism is an anti-establishment view, but one

> need only look to the Wall Street Journal to find it.

LOL! I love it. The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal are

anti-establishment magazines!

[Guest guest]

> > From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> > There is a plethora of outlets for antiestablishment views. And what

the

> > " establishment view " is depends on what rag you're reading. The

anti-war view

> > is

> > certainly anti-establishment, but one need only look to the New York

Times to

> > find it. Laissez-faire capitalism is an anti-establishment view, but

one

> > need only look to the Wall Street Journal to find it.

>

From: " Gene Schwartz " <implode7@...>

> LOL! I love it. The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal are

> anti-establishment magazines!

LOL..too! NY Times recently gave one of it's most brutal, complete thumbs

down to Noam Chomsky's latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest

for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 12:58:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Am objecting to the proliferation in the media of structure and

> representatives of structure. The people that the structure exists for are

> almost impossible to find in it.

What do you mean by " structure " ? I don't see how media can exist without

some sort of structure.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 2:08:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> So what if the overall historical trend of the stock market has been, in

> toto, upwards? There've been times when it's plunged, and there are always

> plenty of stocks going bust even in the best of times.

If it plunges, without a subsequent regain, then social security money will

be entirely useless.

The point of Social

> Security is not now and never has been to speculate with an eye to possibly

>

> earning a high return, it's been to guarantee a safety net for the elderly.

> Guarantee.

Only it won't. By one estimate, and Ted DeHaven, CATO Policy

Analysis no 488, by 2040 with no reform in the current system SS, Medicaid and

Medicare combined will consume 78% of American's income.

It's also flat-out immoral. What if I don't want that " guarantee " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 1/12/04 9:39:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > LOL..too! NY Times recently gave one of it's most brutal, complete

thumbs

> > down to Noam Chomsky's latest book, Hegemony or Survival: America's

Quest

> > for Global Dominance (The American Empire Project)

>

> Wanita, even The Nation doesn't like Chomksy much. Does that make them

> " establishment " ?

>

> (Not to disagree that NYT is establishment press)

>

> Chris

Have glanced at The Nation once, no opinion. What is pretty much a waste of

time with media is sorting through the nations, countries, governments,

corporations, agencies, acronyms, individual people of representation and

authority to find people buried maybe somewhere. Example to the separation

that exists in the world.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>And yes, I do realize that this isn't necessarily representative of

>government employees in general, because the rank-and-file union members

>don't really have much say in where their money goes, and because, where

>joining is voluntary, conservatives are less likely to join.

Well, if I was in a union I'd for SURE be a democrat, because

so many of the republicans don't support unions! The country

is pretty much 50/50 at this point, I'd guess it is about

the same in gov't, though it may depend on the job level and

geographic area.

>You're going to bring out the " power vacuum " argument, right? Again, I'm

>arguing libertarianism, not anarchism. Although I'm sure that Mr. Miles

>has some absolutely brilliant arguments for why this wouldn't be a

>problem in a stateless society, I'm not familiar with them myself. In

>libertarian thought, the state exists solely for the purpose of filling

>the power vacuum and preventing anyone with nefarious (or worse, noble)

>intentions from stepping in.

What I'm basically saying is: give me an example of a successful

state that has both weak government and a strong society.

I can't think of one. The best societies I've seen have strong

social programs AND are sometimes coercive to their members.

Can you give me an example?

All the ones I can think of had

lots of very, very poor people and violence and rampant

disease. Since our rise in technology, the rise of social programs,

and our rise in wealth all happened together, it's not

real provable which was the cause and which the effect. But

countries that are trying to rise out of poverty are doing so

by spending money on social programs to help their poor,

or giving loans to the middle class, etc.

The city-state is likely one of the best places to live, if it

is small and run according to good rules, or has your

average " benign dictator " running it.

>If you still don't understand what's wrong with this, read the paragraph

>above on the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy again.

I'm sure you aren't advocating anarchy. But I can't think how it is avoidable.

>In the twentieth century, at least (and not necessarily at most),

>governments have introduced far more chaos than order. Case in point:

>South-Central LA. Inflation. The rise in out-of-wedlock births. The

>Great Depression. The IRS--Americans spend over $200 billion per year

>dealing with tax law. And that's just in the US. Elsewhere they've

>killed many tens of millions of people and laid waste to entire

>civilizations.

I can't see how " government " caused the chaos in LA. The airport did, probably

....

the " good " people moved out because of all the noisy jets and we were left

with the uneducated, unmotivated, etc. folk. Lately a different set of folk

have moved in ... same gov't ... and the situation has improved a lot. I'd guess

a lot of the folk that moved in are still on social programs.

The gov't might cause inflation ... they also can control it. Ditto with tax

law.

Out-of-wedlock births can be cut drastically with the right programs (they

did in Thailand). If you are arguing against BAD gov't I'm sure with you there!

If you are arguing for protection of civil liberties I'm with you there too. Or

for avoiding unnecessary wars. Or for the wrong kind of handouts.

But if you want to argue " harm to society, " large corporations have

done as much or more. How about the influence of fast food

chains on eating habits? Probably more influential than welfare checks

are to immorality (in both cases, individuals have a choice, of course).

ALL entities cause harm and good. But I can't see us getting rid

of corporations either -- making laws to prevent them from causing

damage, preventing monopolies, is as far as we'll go (if that).

>

>So why, despite federal spending approaching $10,000 per person and

>state and local spending at a few thousand more, much (probably most if

>you count Social Security--and why wouldn't you?) of it on social safety

>nets of one sort or another, do we still have beggars on the streets?

>Anyway, as I, and a few others have pointed out repeatedly, it's

>just not true that only the state can provide a social safety net.

You won't get RID of beggars in the street (unless you solve the problems of

mental illness and addiction). Poverty went down from 20% to 11% after 's

" war on poverty " , so it had influence. I do know a number of older folks on

Social Security, and I can't imagine what they'd do without it. The " beggers "

I've

seen on the street currently are more opportunists, not starving folk, so there

is definite improvement. However, since cutting gov't funding there are more

homeless famillies than before, and I'm sure that is going to rise.

>A tangential observation: Nets are impassible in both directions.

Nice image, but not really true. I know some folks who " bootstrapped " themselves

into respectability via gov't programs.

>Another tangential observation: I've never seen a beggar on a private

>street.

'Course not -- we call the cops! They are swept up regularly and

shipped " somewhere else " . Actually most homeless folk in this

country don't beg, at this point in time.

I don't really know enough about India's situation to comment on the

>specifics, but I think you'll understand my reluctance to take your word

>for it where economic analysis is concerned. In general, though, an

>investment either does produce an acceptable return, or it does not. A

>bad investment does not become good just because it is made by the

>government--it just seems good to those who do not bear the cost.

I can understand your reluctance not to pay money to

help other people you don't know. Lack of control.

Again, do you have an example of a weak government and

a strong economy, or a nice place to live? Or an impoverished

country turning around without strong social programs (run

by the gov't?).

My example of India was on 60 minutes last night ... they were

talking about the HUGE number of college graduates they

cranked out, who are now being outsourced to. Ireland did

a similar thing ... got a lot of kids into college and then had

this super-educated workforce that could do work from

other countries. I heard about them because they were

at Boeing for training (Boeing was outsourcing to them).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 4:22:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> Not media structure. Structure as this began is nations, countries,

> governments,

> corporations, agencies, acronyms, individual people of representation

> and authority

I'm sort of lost. Are you saying that people of authority and organizations

have an unfair access to media, over private citizens who have no affiliation

to organizations of authority?

> Neither structure or media would exist without the people it exists " for "

> not " because of. "

I assume that by those the media exists " for " you mean its readership? And

by " because of " you mean... the owners of the media?

So what exactly are you saying, that readers should have more access to

publication of their own writings in the media?

Chris

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 1/12/04 11:26:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > Have glanced at The Nation once, no opinion. What is pretty much a waste

of

> > time with media is sorting through the nations, countries, governments,

> > corporations, agencies, acronyms, individual people of representation

and

> > authority to find people buried maybe somewhere. Example to the

separation

> > that exists in the world.

>

> I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you objecting to the proliferation

of

> media, and suggesting something more centralized? Or are you objecting to

the

> fact that Noam Chomsky doesn't get enough coverage and too many people

with

> more " authority " outshadow him?

> Chris

Am objecting to the proliferation in the media of structure and

representatives of structure. The people that the structure exists for are

almost impossible to find in it.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Chris-

So what if the overall historical trend of the stock market has been, in

toto, upwards? There've been times when it's plunged, and there are always

plenty of stocks going bust even in the best of times. The point of Social

Security is not now and never has been to speculate with an eye to possibly

earning a high return, it's been to guarantee a safety net for the elderly.

Guarantee.

>I saw a Tom Tomorrow cartoon where he compared investing a

>portion of SS in the stock market to buying lottery tickets (I swear the

>man was

>born without a brain)-- but while the stock market can go down and up and

>down,

>the long-term trend is inevitably up.

-

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 1/12/04 12:58:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

> > Am objecting to the proliferation in the media of structure and

> > representatives of structure. The people that the structure exists for

are

> > almost impossible to find in it.

>

> What do you mean by " structure " ? I don't see how media can exist without

> some sort of structure.

>

> Chris

Not media structure. Structure as this began is nations, countries,

governments,

corporations, agencies, acronyms, individual people of representation

and authority

Neither structure or media would exist without the people it exists " for "

not " because of. "

Wanita

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 6:58:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If you don't want that guarantee don't sign up for it. I never knew there

> was a law saying that everyone had to receive SS whether they wanted to or

> not.

Um, Judith, I assume you either don't live in the US or don't work in the US?

Even if you claim " exempt " on your tax form, you have no choice but to pay

Social Security tax.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 7:04:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> You complain about a country that lets its people starve and then say

> Social

> Security should be done away with.

>

> Hmmmmm.

Actually, Judith, Heidi was the one complaining about a country that lets its

people starve, and I was the one advocating the abolition of Social Security,

so you appear to be talking to an amalgamation of the two of us.

In any case, I'm sure you're perfectly capable of making a rational argument,

but apparently it is more convenient to use a one-liner appealing to an

unjustified association between Social Security and the prevention of

starvation.

If you want to attempt to use logic or evidence to back up that association,

by all means go ahead, and I will respond accordingly.

Otherwise, why bother making a post at all?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 8:46:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> >Out of curiosity, Heidi, who were they robbing?

>

> I think they got that reputation because they

> overcharged farmers by running a monopoly ...

> they could also do things like decide not to

> stop at a certain place til the land was worthless,

> then buy it up. Your basic monopoly.

And by what standard can the farmers be said to have had a " right " to use of

the railroad; moreover, by what objective standard can " overcharging " and

" undercharging " be determined?

You seem to believe that material objects have value apart from the human

agency that gives them value. What use is the existence of natural resources,

if

there is no human ingenuity to make them into something of value? How can,

if one human engages in productive effort, any human other than that human set

the price and value of her effort? The farmer didn't make a railroad, and had

no one made the railroad, the farmer would not have a railroad at all. Maybe

the railroad monopolists should have gone on strike that other folks might

have appreciated their value.

> A government that actively destroys the means of survival of other people

> for

> >the sake of the " public good " is considerably more immoral than a

> government

> >that leaves charity to its citizens.

>

> So you are opposing:

>

> 1. The pessimistic idea that government is bad with

> 2. The optimistic idea that humans are charitable

I'm expressing a rather pessimistic view of government, so I'm not sure from

what basis you say I oppose the idea that government is bad. That said, I

don't think that government is inherently bad or good, but that a government

that

obeys its own laws is good and a government that does otherwise is bad.

> I totally agree that gov't can be bad ... and for the same

> reasons that humans are not generally all that charitable.

When did I say government can't be bad? The idea that humans are not

charitable simply defies observation.

> Again, I'd love an example of a society where the

> poor are actually decently taken care of by charity.

>

> If you read the older writings, there WAS a lot of

> starvation, illness, plagues. Fires that burned down

> entire cities (like San Francisco). Building codes

> have made earthquakes pretty survivable (when

> was the last time 100 people died in a US earthquake?

> I think the toll was only 50 on the big San Fran. one).

> Fires don't spread much, thanks to codes and

> fire departments. Plagues tend to be stopped in

> their tracks thanks to the CDC and quick

> intervention.

Are you seriously suggesting that the development of antibiotics had nothing

to do with stopping plagues or that economic development had nothing to do

with better building practices?

I've already given an example of a society where poor were taken care of by

charity numerous times: 19th century New England. First, there were no able

workers who were in danger of starvation because there was no incentive to avoid

work. Second, nearly all unable poor were taken care of by family or Church.

The small portion of unable poor who were not taken care of were auctioned

off by the municipality to the lowest bidder, who would be payed for by town

tax money to take care of the person for one year, giving them room and board,

and essentially making them part of their family. 90% of taxes at this time

were paid to the municipalities, and the other 10% were divided between state

and Federal government.

By contrast, in today's society we largely sweep poverty under the rug and

lock people into unproductive slavery and pay them off so we don't have to look

at the mess in our own back yard.

>

> Probably people weren't " starving in the streets "

> in the 1800's -- they mostly kept to the privacy

> of their rooms -- but lack of food is still an issue

> for a big chunk of Americans. Food stamps helped

> a lot, so there is a basic kind of safety net. I did hear

> one of the surviving Roosevelts talk about how his

> Mom would make him take baskets of food to " the

> poor " and how it moved him. I doubt that there was

> enough food taken to the poor to keep them fed

> as well as food stamps can, plus it wasn't very

> efficient.

I'm sure charity extended a bit farther than random people taking baskets to

them. I can't believe you can know so much about history and not realize that

churches and poor houses formed actual institutional frameworks that provided

relief to the poor.

Did they allow the poor to be " independent " like food stamps do? No. But

there's no reason for someone who isn't working to be justified in the

expectation to receive help without the indignity of recognizing that its

charity they

are receiving. Moreover, it creates an impersonal and detached society where

people do not even notice that the poor exist.

I'm not nearly as knowledgeable with statistics as some of the other more

articulate libertarians here, but I know that , if he finds the time to

jump in, has previous and can now provide you with concrete examples of

government intervention of the type you speak of creating poverty out of

previously

thriving areas.

>

> Most of what you are saying is purely speculative.

> Like when they speculated that folks would do

> better under Communism (because all those

> workers would work joyfully together) or when

> they speculated that Afghanistan and Iraq would

> just kind of happily organize themselves when

> freed of oppressive regimes.

Hmm, I don't recall anyone speculating that. All the speculation I heard was

that they would be overun with warlords, from tv news and the NYT.

Speculate all you

> want, but history just doesn't bear it out!

Yes, it does.

>

> As for social security etc: Suppose you get

> in your car and a drunk driver hits you. Uninsured.

Well, there's the first problem. Insurance can be beneficial.

>

> If this happened to someone else in your family, are

> you willing to take them in? What if you don't LIKE them?

So what if I don't like them? Do you not see that taking other people's

money to help me without their willingness does not give me the right to make

*demands* out of this forced exchange? And that just the same, if someone

willingly gives me charity, I do not have the right to *demand* the terms?

> How much extra room do you have in your house? Do

> you have a wheelchair ramp?

I have enough for a hurt loved one, and I could certainly make accomodations.

This is an argument for SSDI and represents an extreme example that could

most certainly be met by means other than force. But it does not even closely,

remotely, come to making an argument for SSI.

> How many charities really have an extra million or

> so to pay for your rehab?

That's a good point-- modern care offers benefits but is more expensive.

There's a good reason that people, in a society that dealt with terms other than

violence, as you advocate, could and should take out catastrophe insurance

policies.

> Lest you say this is non-realistic, I've had about 5 people

> in my life in similar situations. Perhaps, instead of rehab,

> we should let severely injured people die. I do know the

> costs are not in line with what charities can do, even if

> people were willing to part with that much money for

> charity (which, given that folks don't like paying taxes or

> insurance it is highly doubtful they will fork over for

> unknown accident victims). But the folks that are currently

> in that state get at least a stipend (social security) plus

> they get insurance of one sort or another, plus gov't money

> to pay for some of these sorts of things that kicks in.

Well, lest you think I am insensitive out of ignorance, I've spent years with

SSDI as our only source of income. I've also seen what kind of rehab is

needed in catastrophes. I've had a step-father beaten over the head thirty

times

with a 4x4 because muggers didn't believe the limits of his wallet's supply of

cash. I've seen what it takes to care for such a person, what it turns the

caregiver into, and have watched what it's like to go from a six-figure income

and a nice house to a confiscated house and an apartment full of burn marks in

the linoleum floor and thin, hard carpets that smell like cat piss.

But you have a major leap of logic in arguing that because one system is in

place to deal with these sorts of things, that no alternative system can exist.

As if an insurance policy that is taken by force can not exist as a voluntary

insurance policy.

Moreover, none of this is even targeted at the point *I* made that you were

responding to, which was about SSI, not SSDI. I personally want to use my

money to form a retirement plan of my own making, I do not want it stolen by a

government who wants to throw it in the toilet in interest of " guaranteeing " me

a

povertous wage when I'm elderly.

>

> So you are going to say, well, if people just didn't have to

> pay taxes they would all become suddenly charitable and

> pay for accident victims.

No, I would say that people could take out catastrophe insurance, and leave

all the unnecessary insurance behind that drives costs through the roof, and

that my retirement plan should be in my own hands.

I'd further entirely object to the notion that people would become " suddenly

charitable, " and I'd point out that the charity work that is currently done is

absolutely enormous, and as has pointed out to no avail, repeatedly,

again and again, which you have failed to answer, recent history has shown

empirically that when taxes go down, charity goes up.

> I'd love to see this in real life.

Maybe you should go visit a church, or a charitable organization, or visit

and third world country, and see the enormous amount of charity work that goes

on every single day, despite taxes and limited resources to do so.

My > guess is, you lower taxes and people will buy bigger TV's.

Good. Maybe that can afford some more work to the unemployed and put less

stress on both government programs and private charities to help those who

otherwise remain in a state of need.

> " Government " is picking up the tab for a lot of things

> no one wants to deal with .. my guess is that if they landed

> in your personal lap you might change your mind!

Funny how it's you who again and again points out the kind of collectivity

and mutual support that occurs in stateless societies, and then then next minute

claims that if government weren't doing the shabby job its doing displacing

this mutual support, no one would do it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 8:50:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >If it plunges, without a subsequent regain, then social security money

> will

> >be entirely useless.

>

> You're ignoring the way Social Security actually works. Though from an

> end-user perspective it functions as an investment-style retirement program

> in the sense that you get out somewhat more than you put in, the actual

> mechanism is that current working people help out current older people, and

> then later on future working people support

> currently-working-but-older-then people. The market is not directly

> involved at all, unless those who want to kill the program with the trojan

> horse of privatization get their way.

You misunderstood my point. Since our economy is mostly market based, the

market *must* continue to grow (a credit system requires growth to prevent

collapse) over the long haul. Unless the economy collapses entirely, then that

will be the case. If the economy does collapse entirely, the SS money will be

useless. What could you buy in a collapsed economy with the money?

I hope the program dies, since privatization just means not theiving the

other peoples money. It doesn't even have a redistributive effect, since the

money goes in your own account. So if someone were to invest their money

broadly,

or, for extra insurance, were to buy a retirement plan for their own safety,

they would receive perhaps 3 times the return on the investment. Moreover,

all that money that is currently tied up would be invested in the economy,

producing more wealth to be shared in the meantime, and in the future.

And, it would achieve the ultimate goal of leftists-- a " fairer " or, more

equal, distribution of ownership, only it would do so by voluntary, non-violent

exchange, rather than violent force.

> >It's also flat-out immoral. What if I don't want that " guarantee " ?

>

> On what grounds is it immoral? If you're simply arguing against taxation

> and advocating a state based on volunteerism and charity, I'm simply not

> going to bother continuing the discussion because there's just no point.

As long as you admit I have a rational basis, that's fine. You can't claim

it's faith, as I laid out my rational basis for property rights already. (If

you've responded, I haven't gotten to it yet). I'm not arguing against

taxation per se, I'm arguing that the burden of proof is on the advocate of

taxation,

since the violent expropriation of another human's effort is theft, and you

have yet, that I've read, to make a rational, moral distinction between a

private individual committing theft and a government committing the exact same

act.

Furthermore, it's only sensible that if an act is committed under the cloak

of *my* interest that *I* should have some say in it, if that act is committed

with *my* property. You can replace the personal pronouns with second or

third person if you wish; all the same, you would think someone would have a

reasonable degree of control over their own things, barring some very, very

tough

burden of proof to be met.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 9:17:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> Yes, you have to pay the tax but you don't have to reap the benefits.

So what, Judith, do you not understand about my objection?

And, to boot, it is not a " tax " per se, because it goes into a sort of

semi-individualized account, not a general pool, in the sense that your benefits

are

proportional to your contributions. It's nothing but a forced retirement

account. Only the big catch is that a special retirement account is created

that

has no productive value and produces the lowest returns of any possible

retirement account, and the men with the guns choose *that* retirement account

of

all of them, to put my money in. Now if that doesn't expose the malice of the

act, what does?!

Chris

[Guest guest]

You complain about a country that lets its people starve and then say Social

Security should be done away with.

Hmmmmm.

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

If you don't want that guarantee don't sign up for it. I never knew there

was a law saying that everyone had to receive SS whether they wanted to or

not.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

> So what if the overall historical trend of the stock market has been, in

> toto, upwards? There've been times when it's plunged, and there are

always

> plenty of stocks going bust even in the best of times.

If it plunges, without a subsequent regain, then social security money will

be entirely useless.

The point of Social

> Security is not now and never has been to speculate with an eye to

possibly

>

> earning a high return, it's been to guarantee a safety net for the

elderly.

> Guarantee.

Only it won't. By one estimate, and Ted DeHaven, CATO Policy

Analysis no 488, by 2040 with no reform in the current system SS, Medicaid

and

Medicare combined will consume 78% of American's income.

It's also flat-out immoral. What if I don't want that " guarantee " ?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi wrote:

>> >Go back to the good ol' days when the robber

>> >barons owned the railways...

>

>Out of curiosity, Heidi, who were they robbing?

I think they got that reputation because they

overcharged farmers by running a monopoly ...

they could also do things like decide not to

stop at a certain place til the land was worthless,

then buy it up. Your basic monopoly.

http://www.myfreeessays.com/history/052.shtml

During all the money making, farmers were feeling the rear end of it all. Hit

hard by the depression of the 1870s, they protested against " railroad

bankruptcy " . The government then stepped in and tried to control the railroad

monopolies. By winning the Wabash case, it proclaimed that individual states had

no power to regulate interstate commerce. Congress took it further by

establishing the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887. It prohibited rebates and

pools and required the railroads to publish their rates openly. It also forbade

unfair discrimination against shippers and outlawed charging more for a short

haul then a long one over the same line.

A government that actively destroys the means of survival of other people for

>the sake of the " public good " is considerably more immoral than a government

>that leaves charity to its citizens.

So you are opposing:

1. The pessimistic idea that government is bad with

2. The optimistic idea that humans are charitable

I totally agree that gov't can be bad ... and for the same

reasons that humans are not generally all that charitable.

Again, I'd love an example of a society where the

poor are actually decently taken care of by charity.

If you read the older writings, there WAS a lot of

starvation, illness, plagues. Fires that burned down

entire cities (like San Francisco). Building codes

have made earthquakes pretty survivable (when

was the last time 100 people died in a US earthquake?

I think the toll was only 50 on the big San Fran. one).

Fires don't spread much, thanks to codes and

fire departments. Plagues tend to be stopped in

their tracks thanks to the CDC and quick

intervention.

Probably people weren't " starving in the streets "

in the 1800's -- they mostly kept to the privacy

of their rooms -- but lack of food is still an issue

for a big chunk of Americans. Food stamps helped

a lot, so there is a basic kind of safety net. I did hear

one of the surviving Roosevelts talk about how his

Mom would make him take baskets of food to " the

poor " and how it moved him. I doubt that there was

enough food taken to the poor to keep them fed

as well as food stamps can, plus it wasn't very

efficient.

Most of what you are saying is purely speculative.

Like when they speculated that folks would do

better under Communism (because all those

workers would work joyfully together) or when

they speculated that Afghanistan and Iraq would

just kind of happily organize themselves when

freed of oppressive regimes. Speculate all you

want, but history just doesn't bear it out!

As for social security etc: Suppose you get

in your car and a drunk driver hits you. Uninsured.

Now you have a spinal injury and a minor head injury

that, together, mean you can't work, or walk for that

matter. You will be in the hospital and in rehab for the

better part of a year, then you will need a nurse.

So, you go live with your mother? What if she is sick

too? Your aunt? Who pays for the hospital? Should

they just dump you out because you can't pay? Who

buys the wheelchair? How much do you have saved up?

If this happened to someone else in your family, are

you willing to take them in? What if you don't LIKE them?

How much extra room do you have in your house? Do

you have a wheelchair ramp?

How many charities really have an extra million or

so to pay for your rehab?

Lest you say this is non-realistic, I've had about 5 people

in my life in similar situations. Perhaps, instead of rehab,

we should let severely injured people die. I do know the

costs are not in line with what charities can do, even if

people were willing to part with that much money for

charity (which, given that folks don't like paying taxes or

insurance it is highly doubtful they will fork over for

unknown accident victims). But the folks that are currently

in that state get at least a stipend (social security) plus

they get insurance of one sort or another, plus gov't money

to pay for some of these sorts of things that kicks in.

So you are going to say, well, if people just didn't have to

pay taxes they would all become suddenly charitable and

pay for accident victims. I'd love to see this in real life. My

guess is, you lower taxes and people will buy bigger TV's.

" Government " is picking up the tab for a lot of things

no one wants to deal with .. my guess is that if they landed

in your personal lap you might change your mind!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>If it plunges, without a subsequent regain, then social security money will

>be entirely useless.

You're ignoring the way Social Security actually works. Though from an

end-user perspective it functions as an investment-style retirement program

in the sense that you get out somewhat more than you put in, the actual

mechanism is that current working people help out current older people, and

then later on future working people support

currently-working-but-older-then people. The market is not directly

involved at all, unless those who want to kill the program with the trojan

horse of privatization get their way.

>Only it won't. By one estimate, and Ted DeHaven, CATO Policy

>Analysis no 488, by 2040 with no reform in the current system SS, Medicaid

>and

>Medicare combined will consume 78% of American's income.

First, that's partly a game of statistical distortion, just like the games

played by big pharma and big agro in the studies which purportedly support

the lipid hypothesis, statins, and whatnot. Second, no program (whether

governmental or not) can ever be put in place and then succeed unchanged

indefinitely. Things need to change with the times or they'll break. This

is news?

>It's also flat-out immoral. What if I don't want that " guarantee " ?

On what grounds is it immoral? If you're simply arguing against taxation

and advocating a state based on volunteerism and charity, I'm simply not

going to bother continuing the discussion because there's just no point.

-

[Guest guest]

Yes, you have to pay the tax but you don't have to reap the benefits.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 1/12/04 6:58:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> If you don't want that guarantee don't sign up for it. I never knew there

> was a law saying that everyone had to receive SS whether they wanted to or

> not.

Um, Judith, I assume you either don't live in the US or don't work in the

US?

Even if you claim " exempt " on your tax form, you have no choice but to pay

Social Security tax.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Since our economy is mostly market based, the

>market *must* continue to grow

Ah, I see what you mean. But your point requires that our economy stick to

its current foundation of speculation instead of actual production, a model

that we only recently adopted and one which it seems pretty clear is a bad

idea.

>Unless the economy collapses entirely

A high likelihood. Even aside from peak oil and peak gas, which will

devastate the world, there's the problem of globalization -- companies are

moving the jobs overseas, which will eventually finish destroying the

income base that allows Americans to buy things. And that's not to mention

the rampant looting of the country that's going on with the explicit

approval and participation of our fearless leaders.

>What could you buy in a collapsed economy with the money?

We'll find out fairly soon, I'm afraid.

>As long as you admit I have a rational basis, that's fine.

Well, you can make an internally consistent argument against all taxation,

though I think the justification requires a number of incorrect assumptions

about how the world would look without taxation and government, but I don't

see how you can selectively argue against Social Security by arguing that

taxation for that program is inherently wrong because it violates property

rights while taxation for some other purposes is perfectly cool.

>you

>have yet, that I've read, to make a rational, moral distinction between a

>private individual committing theft and a government committing the exact

>same act.

IOW you're asking me to make a rational, moral justification for the

practice of taxation and government? I could, but it would be quite

extensive, it would take a lot of time, and it wouldn't accomplish

anything. The philosophical separation between the radical anti-government

contingent, which argues that taxation is theft, and the rest of us, who

believe that some measure of government is necessary and just, is probably

unbridgeable in most cases, so why bother?

>Furthermore, it's only sensible that if an act is committed under the cloak

>of *my* interest that *I* should have some say in it, if that act is

>committed

>with *my* property.

That's what voting and activism and involvement in government are all about.

-

[Guest guest]

>And by what standard can the farmers be said to have had a " right " to use of

>the railroad; moreover, by what objective standard can " overcharging " and

> " undercharging " be determined?

Well, suppose you are a farmer. You are in competition with other

farmers. Some of them are the ones destined to become Big Agro. They

want your land. So, they for alliances with the railroads to avoid your

town, and force you to deliver further.

Similar to what Microsoft did with PC's -- make alliances (which they could

do as a simi-monopoly) such that most markets carried ONLY Microsoft.

Do you have a RIGHT to choice of operating systems? Do the farmers

have a RIGHT to equal treatment? In both cases, the monopolies won out:

we are stuck with big agro and Windows. I personally believe more competition

is a good thing, monopolies kill free commerce ... and I though Libertarians

were all for free commerce. " Free commerce " isn't about individual rights,

it is about an even playing field. The more even the playing field, I believe,

the more the economy thrives.

>

> >

>> 1. The pessimistic idea that government is bad with

>> 2. The optimistic idea that humans are charitable

>

>I'm expressing a rather pessimistic view of government, so I'm not sure from

>what basis you say I oppose the idea that government is bad. That said, I

>don't think that government is inherently bad or good, but that a government

that

>obeys its own laws is good and a government that does otherwise is bad.

You seem to be saying that the gov't causes a lot

of problems, but that folks left to their own devices

will be better off.

When did I say government can't be bad? The idea that humans are not

>charitable simply defies observation.

Humans are certainly charitable sometimes.

Are they charitable ENOUGH to make a real

difference in society? Esp. when charitable operations

have very little oversight and often are just ripoff schemes?

I'd rather pay the gov't -- at least there I can inspect

the books.

>Are you seriously suggesting that the development of antibiotics had nothing

>to do with stopping plagues or that economic development had nothing to do

>with better building practices?

Absolutely. Sure, antibiotics helped, but in the 1920's a lot of " centralized "

health practices were already helping. Read Arrowsmith. As for building

practices ... I think

" building inspectors " are what really help. Most contractors around here

build absolutely as cheaply as they can get away with (and say so, too!).

I think the building codes are outdated and really in need of revamp ... BUT

I'm reasonable sure that any building in Seattle will withstand most earthquakes

and fires.

>I've already given an example of a society where poor were taken care of by

>charity numerous times: 19th century New England.

>First, there were no able

>workers who were in danger of starvation because there was no incentive to

avoid

>work. Second, nearly all unable poor were taken care of by family or Church.

>The small portion of unable poor who were not taken care of were auctioned

>off by the municipality to the lowest bidder, who would be payed for by town

>tax money to take care of the person for one year, giving them room and board,

" town tax money " ???? What you are describing is a very centralized, organized,

system, based on religion and town gov't. Probably coercive too ... I think if

you

did NOT take care of Aunt Martha you would be looked down on by your neighbors.

Plus it was more or less agrarian .. in a farm society, extra hands are much

more

useful (if only to watch the babies or make dinner).

While the organization makes sense, it is still organization, which implies

government.

And it is much more city-state oriented -- I love the concept of city states,

and think

they are doable, but in the " small town " mentality there is also less freedom

(isn't

New England where the Witch Trials took place?).

Would anyone truly take care of Aunt Martha if she were schizophrenic? And

how do you make sure she isn't abused? Now you have to have inspectors,

and standards, and all that. Unless you are a small town, then the mayor just

walks around talking to people.

> By contrast, in today's society we largely sweep poverty under the rug and

>lock people into unproductive slavery and pay them off so we don't have to look

>at the mess in our own back yard.

I agree with that. However, there may not have been a lot of poverty in

New England, but there was in other parts of the US. The Frugal Housewife

certainly brings it up.

>I'm sure charity extended a bit farther than random people taking baskets to

>them. I can't believe you can know so much about history and not realize that

>churches and poor houses formed actual institutional frameworks that provided

>relief to the poor.

>

>Did they allow the poor to be " independent " like food stamps do? No. But

>there's no reason for someone who isn't working to be justified in the

>expectation to receive help without the indignity of recognizing that its

charity they

>are receiving. Moreover, it creates an impersonal and detached society where

>people do not even notice that the poor exist.

>

>I'm not nearly as knowledgeable with statistics as some of the other more

>articulate libertarians here, but I know that , if he finds the time to

>jump in, has previous and can now provide you with concrete examples of

>government intervention of the type you speak of creating poverty out of

previously

>thriving areas.

The thing you are describing is basically " local control " -- which is a concept

I think is good, usually. Smaller city units where people actually know everyone

and therefore relate to them. There is a whole science of " scale " -- what

happens

when things get too BIG. One very rich capitalist is reported as saying that he

would

not allow his buildings or factories to house more than 100 people. Why?

" Because then

things go to S***! " .

Now from a Computer Science viewpoint, the Internet is a combination of local

control

vs. Universal Standards that works really, really well. In theory it is probably

the ideal,

and it is much of what The Church is, I think trying for (except no one in that

arena

has been able to agree on Universal Standards). But in the Internet, there are a

few

" controllers " who set things like website names, how computers talk to each

other, etc. Each node is responsible to follow those standards, but otherwise

has

free reign. If a node " disobeys " it can be disconnected, but generally this

never

happens. Each node is a fiefdom. If half the nodes go down, the rest work fine.

I suspect his model is what the Libertarians are REALLY striving for. Few

universal

rules, lots of local control. Which really COULD work. But you still need the

universal rules. And unless one of those rules is " donate 10% of your income to

feed the needy " , I don't think it will help " the poor " .

> Most of what you are saying is purely speculative.

>> Like when they speculated that folks would do

>> better under Communism (because all those

>> workers would work joyfully together) or when

>> they speculated that Afghanistan and Iraq would

>> just kind of happily organize themselves when

>> freed of oppressive regimes.

>

>Hmm, I don't recall anyone speculating that. All the speculation I heard was

>that they would be overun with warlords, from tv news and the NYT.

Ineteresting. What I was hearing was " we don't need more

plans " which they didn't make.

>Speculate all you

>> want, but history just doesn't bear it out!

>

>Yes, it does.

Where? (besides small towns in New England, which I can't

really check out anyway).

> Well, there's the first problem. Insurance can be beneficial.

??? Maybe it was that was arguing that insurance

was driving up prices.

>> If this happened to someone else in your family, are

>> you willing to take them in? What if you don't LIKE them?

>

>So what if I don't like them? Do you not see that taking other people's

>money to help me without their willingness does not give me the right to make

>*demands* out of this forced exchange? And that just the same, if someone

>willingly gives me charity, I do not have the right to *demand* the terms?

You may not have the *right* but it was a social issue just the same.

The households that *must* take in Aunt Martha (I know a couple) do

suffer as a result. If Aunt Martha is a great babysitter, cool. If she is

an incontinant, smoking, demented, angry, bossy lady, then the whole

family suffers. What if she is bipolar? Pees on the couch? Does ritual

arm-cutting in front of the children? You are assuming a sane society

where everyone plays by the same rules ... certainly true in past

history, but not so today.

And what you are saying is ... if no one is *willing* to help you,

you will not be helped? Surely you do not have the *right* to

ask someone to help you, but when my baby needed care,

I did not have to wait for anyone to be *willing* to help him ...

the docs were all paid by the state and willing to help any

stranger.

This is an argument for SSDI and represents an extreme example that could

>most certainly be met by means other than force. But it does not even closely,

>remotely, come to making an argument for SSI.

But it DOES represent examples I know personally. Most families are stretched

very thin -- both parents working, the kids in daycare. They can't even

cook dinner, much less care for an elderly, senile relative. One month old

babies are going to daycare ... how can anyone care for a relative?

>> How many charities really have an extra million or

>> so to pay for your rehab?

>

>That's a good point-- modern care offers benefits but is more expensive.

>There's a good reason that people, in a society that dealt with terms other

than

>violence, as you advocate, could and should take out catastrophe insurance

>policies.

However ... care is CHEAPER in the " socialist " countries, and seemingly

more effective, than in our " free market " medical system. Makes you wonder.

>Well, lest you think I am insensitive out of ignorance, I've spent years with

>SSDI as our only source of income. I've also seen what kind of rehab is

>needed in catastrophes. I've had a step-father beaten over the head thirty

times

>with a 4x4 because muggers didn't believe the limits of his wallet's supply of

>cash. I've seen what it takes to care for such a person, what it turns the

>caregiver into, and have watched what it's like to go from a six-figure income

>and a nice house to a confiscated house and an apartment full of burn marks in

>the linoleum floor and thin, hard carpets that smell like cat piss.

I am sorry you had to go through that. Yes, I believe there are better

alternatives.

>As if an insurance policy that is taken by force can not exist as a voluntary

>insurance policy.

Maybe. Again, so far " voluntary insurance policies " have a really

poor track record, except among rich, educated people.

>Moreover, none of this is even targeted at the point *I* made that you were

>responding to, which was about SSI, not SSDI. I personally want to use my

>money to form a retirement plan of my own making, I do not want it stolen by a

>government who wants to throw it in the toilet in interest of " guaranteeing " me

a

>povertous wage when I'm elderly.

I take it you like a lot of personal control. Well and good. Of course if

you invest the money yourself and the stock market goes south, we

are faced with the same problem: who takes care of Chris?

No, I would say that people could take out catastrophe insurance, and leave

>all the unnecessary insurance behind that drives costs through the roof, and

>that my retirement plan should be in my own hands.

>

>I'd further entirely object to the notion that people would become " suddenly

>charitable, " and I'd point out that the charity work that is currently done is

>absolutely enormous, and as has pointed out to no avail, repeatedly,

>again and again, which you have failed to answer, recent history has shown

>empirically that when taxes go down, charity goes up.

Empirically? When Reason closed the mental hospitals, we " suddenly "

got street people. Now they are reporting increasing numbers of

homeless since programs have been cut. I've been associated with

a couple of charities, and they help a LITTLE, but few really get

people back on their feet OR help care for the long-term problem

cases.

Also the charities deal with the poor they decide to help. For instance,

one org only helped mothers who chose not to abort their babies,

to find homes for the babies, or jobs. They did not help the mothers

find, say, birth control (which they didn't believe in), or get off drugs

or fight mental illness. The charities take the " easy " cases and leave

the hard ones ... kind of like private schools take the " best " kids and

leave the rest to the public system.

Maybe you should go visit a church, or a charitable organization, or visit

>and third world country, and see the enormous amount of charity work that goes

>on every single day, despite taxes and limited resources to do so.

I have worked with them a lot. They do good things, within the scope they

do them. I have also worked with the " public sector " . Both have limitations ...

I don't think it is an " either/or " .

>My > guess is, you lower taxes and people will buy bigger TV's.

>

>Good. Maybe that can afford some more work to the unemployed and put less

>stress on both government programs and private charities to help those who

>otherwise remain in a state of need.

Naw, the TV's will be made in China.

>> " Government " is picking up the tab for a lot of things

>> no one wants to deal with .. my guess is that if they landed

>> in your personal lap you might change your mind!

>

>Funny how it's you who again and again points out the kind of collectivity

>and mutual support that occurs in stateless societies, and then then next

minute

>claims that if government weren't doing the shabby job its doing displacing

>this mutual support, no one would do it.

I think both are required, it isn't an " either or " . In my ideal world

we would live in closer neighborhoods, not have cars, be less

dependant on " jobs " and a whole host of other things. But in the

system as it exists, the power tension is between the large

coorporations, the government, and the " public " , and we are not

living in city-states. Most of us don't even know our neighbors,

and a set of state and national laws IS holding us together. I could

see a better structure, in theory, but it is doable within the current

system. In the meantime the " small gov't " argument as it exists is

essentially handing the power over to the coorporations -- who you

rarely mention.

-- Heidi

>Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 11:59:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >Since our economy is mostly market based, the

> >market *must* continue to grow

>

> Ah, I see what you mean. But your point requires that our economy stick to

> its current foundation of speculation instead of actual production, a model

> that we only recently adopted and one which it seems pretty clear is a bad

> idea.

I don't recall the year the NYSE was founded, but it was a long, long time

ago. And as far as I can tell, that mode of investment seems to have produced a

considerable amount of wealth that has raised living standards significantly.

> >Unless the economy collapses entirely

>

> A high likelihood. Even aside from peak oil and peak gas, which will

> devastate the world,

This may or may not be true-- I have no idea. Same for CATO's estimate on

SS. But both of them are somewhat apocalyptic estimates, and it is easy for me

to conceive of either group " cooking the books. " Unless you've read the CATO

analysis I cited, I'm not sure how you can assume one is true, and dismiss the

other off-hand?

there's the problem of globalization -- companies are

> moving the jobs overseas, which will eventually finish destroying the

> income base that allows Americans to buy things.

By that logic, the economy of New England should have been entirely destroyed

when all the factories were moving down South for cheaper electricity and

labor. It didn't. The economy was temporarily hurt, but notice that we are all

better off now, have vastly higher standards of living, and have better jobs

than factory work.

And that's not to mention

> the rampant looting of the country that's going on with the explicit

> approval and participation of our fearless leaders.

Oh, I agree with that! ;-)

> Well, you can make an internally consistent argument against all taxation,

> though I think the justification requires a number of incorrect assumptions

> about how the world would look without taxation and government, but I don't

> see how you can selectively argue against Social Security by arguing that

> taxation for that program is inherently wrong because it violates property

> rights while taxation for some other purposes is perfectly cool.

I'm not arguing that selectively. I'm arguing that taxation should be

minimal, that the burden of proof for the *necessity* of the tax is on the

advocate

of taxation, and that the taxation should be enacted in a way that it is

easiest to escape (without receipt of the benefit) for the unwilling individual.

In the case of SS, that's actually really easy to do, because the benefits are

not distributed in a collective form, such as " the military " or " the police, "

but are distributed individually. So it would be very simple to make the

system optional.

> The philosophical separation between the radical anti-government

> contingent, which argues that taxation is theft, and the rest of us, who

> believe that some measure of government is necessary and just, is probably

> unbridgeable in most cases, so why bother?

That's fine... as long as you recognize each side has a rational basis. I'd

put myself in the latter camp actually. I do believe that some measure of

government is necessary. That said, taxation *is* theft, so government amounts

to a necessary evil.

>

> >Furthermore, it's only sensible that if an act is committed under the cloak

> >of *my* interest that *I* should have some say in it, if that act is

> >committed

> >with *my* property.

>

> That's what voting and activism and involvement in government are all about.

But that rests on the assumption that an individual's work is not a product

of the volition of the individual, and therefore his, but a product of his

environment, and therefore belongs to the environment. And thus, he should

participate in government, not as a human being, but as an element of the

" environment " of the people whose effort he wishes to control.

Chris