Welfare (re: Libertarians)

[Guest guest]

Greetings from Romania !

" Clay " opined:

> There's always a string attached with most of these religious charities.

I think it's with *all* sorts of charity - donors have their own

moral, political power etc. objectives.

One of the harshest (but closest to truth in my opinion)

points on " Welfare " that it's a _bribe_ to those who won't

or can't contribute to the market system 'as is' and its implicit

thresholds of efficiency, to keep them content enough

so they don't disrupt the System for those who can.

Interesting pages of a disgruntled guy - may well be AS...

http://www.ebtx.com/

and partly opposed views from the Right:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/index.htm

Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed/described a combined

technique of " tittytainment " : free support (a public 'tit') and

mass entertainment like TV, sports etc. Of course, nothing

new under the sun - this was the old Roman 'panem et circenses'

with which ambitious senators vied for the votes of the plebs...

H.L. Mencken: " Election = advance auction of stolen goods " ;-)

Trained as an economist myself in Romania after 1989,

I was exposed to (and I avidly read for myself much more than

requested) most conflicting theories in the West.

I had read and liked Milton Friedman, Hayek, pieces of

Nozick, Rawls - and also Galbraith. Recently the most

persuasive anti-globalization writer seems Korten.

I did like very much Friedman's proposal of a

" Negative Income Tax " as a system of combining (support

for the poor, some relief for the rich) both more dignified

for all, and much less wasteful.

It would appeal especially for us AS people.

Reducing the bureaucracy and 'specialists' (in our case,

doctors) and their discretionary political power - that

need to ascertain whether each person is eligible or not

for the variously Byzantine current types of State payments.

Also it would eliminate the 'welfare trap' in which

moderate effort is _almost entirely_ " taxed away "

by the stopping of those payments for some incomes.

(the kind of effort we CAN do but below the standard

set by the market = others' capabilities and greed...)

I wonder why N.I.T. was NOT implemented.

It seems the current system works only because there's

a very strong moral sentiment of the majority in favor of

" Work at all costs " . Else it would be obvious NIT is better,

if everyone IS assured of a livelihood BUT can add to the

economic functioning as he/she can and desires.

Or maybe it is already implemented and I don't know ?

What about the Kuwaiti system ? (They still have a good

amount of *really voluntary* employment) - BUT they

work hard to stop everyone becoming a Kuwaiti citizen ;-)

It seems the Right appeals more to Aspies because they

_can_ inherently be truthful, as a morality of the strong:

" wolves in wolves' skins " , while the Left (even with the best

intentions) have to hide as " wolves in sheep's skins " ...

What I don't like of some Left or quasi-Left opinions

is that, after correctly describing some problems in the

existing system ('Managed System', or symbiosis between

Big Business and Government) they propose... more of

the same. A sort of paternalistic bureaucracy not even

Napoleon (father of modern bureaucracy) didn't dream of.

The same with the sharply accurate observations of

Friedrich Engels on capitalism maturing in 19th century...

that gave justification to Real Socialism - something between

horrific and, in the best case, just 'moderately bad' .

Thank you for thinking on this,

Mircea Pauca, Bucuresti, Romania

[Guest guest]

" Mircea Pauca " wrote:

> I did like very much Friedman's proposal of a " Negative

> Income Tax " as a system of combining (support for the poor,

> some relief for the rich) both more dignified for all, and

> much less wasteful.

Could you explain a bit about how the Negative Income Tax

would work? I know, I could look it up myself, but I'm afraid

it would be written in " boiler-plate " language, incomprehensible

to me. Just a thumb-nail sketch would do.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Here's a link written in pretty easy language.

http://fto.int8.com/researchpapers/negativeincometax/

Re: Welfare (re: Libertarians)

" Mircea Pauca " wrote:

> I did like very much Friedman's proposal of a " Negative

> Income Tax " as a system of combining (support for the poor,

> some relief for the rich) both more dignified for all, and

> much less wasteful.

Could you explain a bit about how the Negative Income Tax

would work? I know, I could look it up myself, but I'm afraid

it would be written in " boiler-plate " language, incomprehensible

to me. Just a thumb-nail sketch would do.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Holthaus wrote:

> Here's a link written in pretty easy language.

> http://fto.int8.com/researchpapers/negativeincometax/

Thanks for sending that. I read and understood it, and

I'm all for it! Most of what we spend now is wasted on

maintaining the bureaucratic machine. It sucks in

technicolor.

Clay

[Guest guest]

Mircea Pauca wrote:

> Greetings from Romania !

>

>

Hello from the USA. Please pardon our outbreak of Mad Cowboy disease.

We hope

the epidemic will be over in about 34 days.

> " Clay " opined:

>

>

>> There's always a string attached with most of these religious charities.

>>

>>

>

> I think it's with *all* sorts of charity - donors have their own

>moral, political power etc. objectives.

>

>

Perhaps so, but the religious charities are by far the most intrusive

about imposing

their agenda. Being forced to adopt someone else's religion to be

allowed something

to eat is pretty damn intrusive.

> One of the harshest (but closest to truth in my opinion)

>points on " Welfare " that it's a _bribe_ to those who won't

>or can't contribute to the market system 'as is' and its implicit

>thresholds of efficiency, to keep them content enough

>so they don't disrupt the System for those who can.

>

>

I think that is a pretty well-known principle by now, and it makes

perfect sense.

You really don't want to find out how far someone will go to try to feed

his/her

family when they're starving.

> Zbigniew Brzezinski proposed/described a combined

>technique of " tittytainment " : free support (a public 'tit') and

>mass entertainment like TV, sports etc.

>

Here the right wing controls the press the American way. They own it.

> Of course, nothing

>new under the sun - this was the old Roman 'panem et circenses'

>with which ambitious senators vied for the votes of the plebs...

>H.L. Mencken: " Election = advance auction of stolen goods " ;-)

>

>

Now they just steal the election itself -- it's cheaper.

> I did like very much Friedman's proposal of a

> " Negative Income Tax " as a system of combining (support

>for the poor, some relief for the rich) both more dignified

>for all, and much less wasteful.

>

>

A negative income tax could replace our current general assistance payments.

An advantage would be that it does reward work, even small amounts of

part-time

work, while the existing system effectively taxes such work at a 100%

rate -- actually

much higher than that if one loses eligibility for health care and other

programs.

In a large country like the USA, it would be necessary to make some

adjustments to

reflect the cost of living in different parts of the country.

Health care should be available to everyone. In the USA, we have a

public system

which provides for those on welfare. Those who have good jobs generally get

health insurance through an employer-subsidized plan. The rest get

caught in the

middle, and may get hit with ruinous medical bills if they get sick.

One of the

most formidable barriers that people face when trying to move from

public assistance

into the workforce is the loss of government-sponsored health coverage.

Private, individual heath insurance policies are very expensive --

completely

unaffordable to many low-wage workers -- and may be unavailable at any

price

to people with medical issues.

> It would appeal especially for us AS people.

>Reducing the bureaucracy and 'specialists' (in our case,

>doctors) and their discretionary political power - that

>need to ascertain whether each person is eligible or not

>for the variously Byzantine current types of State payments.

> Also it would eliminate the 'welfare trap' in which

>moderate effort is _almost entirely_ " taxed away "

>by the stopping of those payments for some incomes.

>(the kind of effort we CAN do but below the standard

>set by the market = others' capabilities and greed...)

> I wonder why N.I.T. was NOT implemented.

>It seems the current system works only because there's

>a very strong moral sentiment of the majority in favor of

> " Work at all costs " . Else it would be obvious NIT is better,

>

>

as I pointed out above, the existing system keeps a lot of people from

working

by cutting off their health care if they enter the workforce.

> It seems the Right appeals more to Aspies because they

>_can_ inherently be truthful,

>

The right over seems to have forgotten how.

I have never seen such a bunch of bald-faced liars as the Boosh regime.

> as a morality of the strong:

>

>

the morality of bullies, brigands, and thieves.

> " wolves in wolves' skins " , while the Left (even with the best

>intentions) have to hide as " wolves in sheep's skins " ...

>

>

It was Boosh who campaigned as a " compassionate conservative " !

Our Left are not wolves at all -- we are more like goats -- and all who

annoyed the wolves on the right have been eaten (the late Senator

Wellstone being the most recent).

> What I don't like of some Left or quasi-Left opinions

>is that, after correctly describing some problems in the

>existing system ('Managed System', or symbiosis between

>Big Business and Government) they propose... more of

>the same. A sort of paternalistic bureaucracy not even

>Napoleon (father of modern bureaucracy) didn't dream of.

>

>

Our right-wing government is only " libertarian " toward very large businesses

that make very large campaign donations to Boosh.

They have have built up a kleptocracy second to none.

For the rest of us, they have been setting up the biggest bureaucracy ever.

Of course, it isn't there to help us, it's there to spy on us.

What this regime has done to individual liberties should give

Libertarians nightmares.

They have been shredding the Bill of Rights, and destroying the

separation of

Church and State.

> The same with the sharply accurate observations of

>Friedrich Engels on capitalism maturing in 19th century...

>that gave justification to Real Socialism - something between

>horrific and, in the best case, just 'moderately bad' .

>

>

Our Right is functionally equivalent to the Left you remember from

Soviet times.

Boosh's people claim to be capitalists,

but it isn't capitalism

when a cartel buys the government.

We're already past 'moderately bad' and likely headed for horrific if Boosh

steals another election.

Ride the Music

AndyTiedye