Third Party & Independents: Archives

I agree with your assessment. But unfortunately I am not the one you have to convince.
Wellllllll maybe!

The problem lies with the fact that when a responsible person makes a decision to do drugs or to not save for retirement then it becomes a classic case of poor planning on their part becomes an emergency for the rest of society. Both end up on the street homeless and penniless and predisposed to criminal behavior. The assumption you make is that most people can control themselves. I would argue that they can’t. You need to live with someone who has an addiction to really understand how little separates us from the animals. If you want an even better education get a job that exposes you to people with low IQ’s. Then try to explain to them that drugs are bad and investing is good.

The era of the temperance movement is an interesting place to contrast our current state. When nothing was illegal and everything was available. The temperance movement started because of what alcohol was doing to the society. And what It was doing was pretty ugly.

I think that a better solution to both SS and drugs would be to take half a step back rather than to completely do away with them. Don’t legalize drugs, just decriminalize them (an addict must be certified as an addict to get a prescription for his fix.) Let people opt out of SS if they put the money in a safe IRA.

PS: I don’t think any of this will ever happen.

excelent article Misha, I would just like to add that SS is also spent on thing totally unrelated to retirees, and has become another piggie bank for bother the left and the right to raid.

ouchmyhead, why decriminalize not regulate? do we want people to be growing and buying this stuff outside safty controls. It is one thing to let them do it, but another to take every step to at least let them get what they intend to get.

I think we are arguing over shades of gray. Decriminalize verses legalize with regulation. The point is you don’t want the under 18 crowd to have easy access while you remove the financial bonanza from the drug pushers. Total legalization would mean corporate America would be doing a Joe Camel crack pipe advertising campaign. Then deny that they are targeting children.

Misha, the underlying premise of Libertarians is that people should be held responsible for their own fate. But one of the failings I find in debating with Libertarians is their incorrect assumption that the vast majority of people are responsible for their lot in life.

Are folks born if Zimbabwe responsible for their fate, or should they all steal away on cargo ships to the U.S. to change their fate? Are millions of children in the U.S. born into poverty, responsible for their fate? Are the more than 40 million persons in this country without health insurance responsible for their fate? Are the 3 million persons displaced from their jobs in the last 3 years responsible for their fate? Are the homeless mentally ill on our streets throughout America responsible for their fate?

My uncle, a Libertarian, argues, that the real world is full of tragedies, natural disasters, for example, and to be born is to be at risk of forces beyond one’s own control. Why he asks, should those fortunate enough, for whatever reason, to have avoided unfortunate cirumstances, have their good fortune taxed, reduced, or compromised, because the world is an inherently unsafe place to be born, to live in, and to die in?

Thus the less than noble, self-centered, greedy, and uncaring underbelly of the Libertarian philosophy is exposed. Why indeed should any foruntate person be obligated to assist those less fortunate? This is the philosophy of the Aristocracy pure and simple, and this philosophy is making inroads into the Republican Party.

David- do you support social security? If so, why? You bring up examples of people being born in unfavorable circumstances ect, but that does not really have anything to do with social security, since social security hurts the responsible working poor person (see the numbers I quoted in my article, which are not seriously disputed in their overall gist). if its not paternalism, what it is? Its interesting how you try to not address the issue by bringing up all kinds of issues that are NOT social security, instead of directly hitting head on the biggest entitlement program in the country and the one I spent half my article on.

I will answer your questions directly, anyway:

1. Are folks born if Zimbabwe responsible for their fate, or should they all steal away on cargo ships to the U.S. to change their fate?

I do not know the economic and political situation in Zimbabwe, but if it is dire as i suspect, they are not fully responsible for their own fate, no. Nor were the Iraqis under Saddam, which is why I supported the war. Ideally every person could come to America, sadly we have only limited space. That is why I believe it is just for us to take out thugs and allow people in countries like Iraq to experience some of the same freedoms we do.

2. Are millions of children in the U.S. born into poverty, responsible for their fate?

No, they are not. I support fiscally responsible programs to assist children born in poverty- provided that the services do directly to the children and not through the intermediary of their parents. Note how in my article I especially single out children as a group NOT responsible for their actions.

3. Are the more than 40 million persons in this country without health insurance responsible for their fate?

Most are, some are not. Children obviously are not, and I support programs that help children get medical care they need if their parents fail to provide it. As for adults, the oppertunities in america are plentiful- we came here with 3 suitcases, many people rise up from povery to make a lot out of themselves. Thankfully we live in a country that allows that sort of oppertunity.

4. Are the 3 million persons displaced from their jobs in the last 3 years responsible for their fate?

There are plenty of jobs out there- in fact, the justification for Bush’s new elligal immigration plan is exactly that there are plenty of jobs that americans are not willing to take. No one has a “right” to a just at the rate they want- there are plenty of jobs in America. trust me, I have held some of the least desirable ones: from bag boys to waiter to call taker at a cab company. I know it is hard to lose your job, but there are plenty of oppertunities out there.

5. Are the homeless mentally ill on our streets throughout America responsible for their fate?

Besides singling out children, I almost mentioned the mentally ill as a group that is not fully capable of taking care of themselves and thus I support government help for them to the exent private charity does not do the job.

Nice comeback Misha.

However I doubt it will have any impact on the intended audience.

The post you were replying to was an emotional and ideological appeal. Not a logical argument. Lets face it, most people would prefer to have a “parent” figure available to “save” them from the nastiness of the world. Hey, it’s scary out there. The real question is do you want the government to be that parent? Once you answer that question then you can argue the other points. But your answer is going to be based on emotion not logic, as will the answer from the other side.

Misha, NOT discussing Soc. Sec. was intentional. The subject of your article is the Libertarian Prinicple. That was what I addressed. People can argue all day long from here to eternity about what should be done in the richest nation on earth to insure that folks who work have an old age with some dignity and happiness.

The principle’s that guide those discussions are extremely important in shaping such policies. Thus, I addressed the principle, you brought up in the title of your article.

David- the principle the article articulated wasnt the broad principle that we should not make a person support those who are poor (which I could argue, but I was not arguing here). The principle I was putting foward, which was intentionally more narrow for such a short article, is that the state has no right to act as a paternalistic figure when someone is taking an action that is not hurting anyone else- that is, the state has no right to tell someone they cant do drugs and that they have to buy into a particular form of government insurance if they do not want to (or sell sex as a prostitute, or gamble if you want to add a couple more). anyway…

Misha, thank you for the reply to my specific questions. Now we get to the heart of the matter.

Let us take Jane and Joe. Jane is born with an IQ in the 120’s making her above average. Jane is born into a family making a $125,000.00 a year. Jane goes to preschool, Jane, at the age of 5 gets piano lessons, dance lessons, gymnastic classes. When Jane is 13 her hormones rage and her grades drop to C’s and B’s instead of A’s and B’s. Her parents contact a counselor and hire a tutor. Within a year, Jane is back to near all A’s again. The neighborhood is going downhill a bit as the city sprawls outward absorbing their suburban school, and Jane is subjected to rap and break dancing in the school yard. Jane’s parents have been wanting to move for awhile anyway, and they can afford the commute so they buy another fine home 25 miles further out in a new planned community with new schools and the best teachers who have been scrambling for suburban positions anyway. They move, Jane loves the new school, takes theater, band, art, along with advanced math and science courses. In her senior year she applies to Princeton and based on her achievements and grades and parents financial resources (they opened and educational IRA some 10 years earlier, Jane is accepted.

Now for Joe. Joe is born at the same time Jane is with an IQ of 96, just slightly below average. Joe’s father was arrested and sent to prison for having been in posession of pot for the 3rd time. He dealt a bit on the side to compensate for his night janitorial job’s income so his wife wouldn’t have to work two jobs and so she could be home for Joe. Joe’s father leaves for prison a year after Joe is born on a 15 year mandatory sentencing stretch. Joe’s mom works as a hostess for a local restaurant. There are no benefits, but her hours are flexible so she can spend daytime and late afternoon’s with baby Joe. With tips, she can make $27,850 a year. And her sister can watch Joe in the evenings.

The taxes for her inner city home are about to go up, and she has lost her husband’s income. She has no choice now but to sell the home for whatever she can get in order to get out from under the property taxes, the insurance, and the mortgage payments. Her sister will take her and little Joe in for half of her rent on her apartment.

Little Joe’s mom can’t afford day care, nor even a baby sitter, so Joe spends his years before kindergarten in the apartment. Joe and his Mom get along pretty good during these years. Now it is time for Joe to go to Kindergarten. The school he goes to is OK, but the tax base has been shrinking due to diminishing property values and urban flight by folks like Jane’s parents. So, the teachers in Joe’s school aren’t the best, since the best have left for newer school systems with better neighborhoods and salaries.

Joe does OK in elementary school, getting B’s and C’s. He likes school because there are lots of other kids to play with. That is until he is in the 3rd grade. Joe is 9 years old now, and the other kids are starting to make fun of his clothes and shoes, which rarely appear new or of the latest fashion. A particular humiliation is the fact that despite his crying to mom, and the torments of the other kids, Joe, can’t acquire the gym shoes that have the flashing lights built into the heels. Almost all the other kids have them, but, Joe has had a number of ear infections, the measles, and flu, and Mom has had to use this sememster’s money for clothes and shoes on the medical bills.

The following year, Joe’s mom takes a second job to try to compensate for Joe’s being unhappy about not looking like the other kids. In addition to her hostess job, she takes a motel cleaning job during the days. She has to do this, because the time she took off work at the restaurant to attend Joe’s ear infections, flu, and measles have caused her boss to warn her if it happens again she will be fired.

Now in the 4th Grade, Joe’s grades drop to B’s, C’s and D’s and he is struggling with the math. Mom asks her sister to help him with the math. But her sister never got math that well when she was in school so after a few attempts to help, she quietly quits helping since, she does not understand the instructions in the math book, let alone the math itself.

In the fifth grade, Joe is now flunking math, science, and writing. Joe’s mom takes a day off to talk to the school counselor, who advises her to get the assignments from the teacher and work with her son on these. She says she will. And she does, but the only time she has to work with Joe is on the Sunday and Monday, her days off. So she gets the homework assignments for Joe on Monday evening when Joe brings them home. Joe’s test is on Friday, and mom can’t work the homework with Joe until Sunday. Joe continues to flunk.

Joe is set back a semester, but his grades improve little, Joe is now 11 and he is making friends in the neighborhood who dis other kids who get good grades as being snotty little rich kids. Instead, they influence Joe to be all he can be in bravado. Joe is dared to do this and that after school in the hood, amongst his neighborhood friends. He does very well at the dares, and gets respected for doing things few if any of the other guys would do themselves. Joe, is beginning to like himself again.

By the time Joe is 13 he has flunked two sememsters, and he is skipping school. The older guys in the hood here about Joe’s bravado, and ask him if he wants to make some money running some errands for them. Joe says yeah - that would be great. They give him packages to deliver around the hood with instructions to not open them ever or he will be punished.

Joe is good at running errands and is busted at age 15 for running numbers cash and drugs. He spends 4 months in juvenile hall and is released back to his mom. Joe got into a few fights in Juvy, and got his nose broke. They splinted it, but when it healed, it was crooked and uneven.

When he goes back to school, other kids shun him for his appearance and rumors about why he has been away so long. Joe assures himself everything will be cool because in just a month, his Dad will be coming home. He does his best in school and ignores the taunts. The big day arrives, and Dad comes home. His Dad has heard about Joe’s being busted for drugs, and Dad lays into Joe threatening to beat the crap out of Joe if he does not get his act together and do well in school. His father asks Joe if he wants to end up like his Dad did. Joe does not know how to answer. He is torn. Of course he wants to be like his Dad, but, he also does not want to disappoint his Dad.

The following year, Joe’s grades are barely passing, he is 16, and tired of the taunts and never being as good as the other students, Joe quits school. His father beats the crap out of him for that decision. Joe runs away from home, and hangs out with the guys in the hood, who give him a job making easy money, a place to crash, and a lot of backslapping for being cool.

OK, now in terms of futures, Jane and Joe’s, who is responsible for Jane’s likely success? And who is responsible for Joe’s likely reincarceration? If your answer is they are each responsible for their own futures, you are should vote Republican or Libertarian. If your answer is that society as a whole is responsible at least as much as Joe and Jane’s personal decisions, you should vote Green Party or Democrat.

This is what philosophy is about, and why it is not a science. This long winded way of making the point, is also why almost no one grows up wanting to be a philosopher. Philosopher’s job is to start at square one and question each and every step leading to a preconceived idea or notion. It is tedious, difficult, and often boring. But, there is tremendous value to be gained by such exercises for those willing to take the time.

David, I would be more than glad to answer your hypo, but I would like to ask you to first address the issue of whether the government should force people into paternalistic programs (since no one on this thread seems willing to respond to that). For example, if there was no social security, Joe’s mom would have had 12.5% more money and maybe she wouldnt have had to take that extra job. Should it be her choice of 1/8 of his salary would go better to helping her son, or toward some inefficient retirement scheme. or perhaps she could put some into a safe mutual (say 6%) and the rest to joe (6.5%). If you answer this, then I promise I will address your hypo in full :)

Misha, if she kept that 12.5% to increase the quality of her son’s youth, she would be sacrificing her own dignity and modicum of freedom from strife when she retires.

Soc.Sec. and Medicare through this point in time have guaranteed workers a retirement with some dignity. Soc.Sec. gurantees savings. Voluntary plans, privates sector plans, pose a grave risk for future retirees. Say one saves in a private plan, double the amount they now contribute out of their earnings (which is what they would need to do to keep even with savings currently based on Employer and Employee contributions). Let us say one accumulates $300,000.00 by the age of 66 in preparation for retiring at 67. Then, foreign investors call in their loans to the Treasury because our national debt is no longer perceived as sustainable, and this occurs on the brink of a world wide recession such as that we just exited. Now, with the Stock Market drop, all of the frauds taking place in mutual funds and IRA investments, and rising interest rates, that $300,000 drops by 1/3 to $200,000. This person has lost 1/3 of lifetime’s savings just before retirement. What do they do? Work another 20 years to make up the difference? Not realistic if one hopes for dignity and reward for a lifetime of work and sacrifice.

As to the paternalistic argument, one could make the same argument for the military. Why have a military? Let each of us defend our own turf, or support our own local militia’s. Why send endless dollars to a federal force that uses it in pursuits other than defense right here in the hood? The paternalistic argument is an argument against social order and superordinate goals that can only be accomplished by a society’s common effort by all. The public school system is as paternalistic as one can get, since it shapes not only thinking in math and science, but social values and behavior as well. I have a problem with such a broad argument that by definition, would, if followed to its logical conclusion, would end society altogether save for each homestead setting its own rules and resources for survival and interaction with the rest of society.

David- on your responses to me:

1. She could BOTH provide for her retirment AND give her son more today if she just invested in a low risk investment. How can you be against that and for forcing her into a system where she wont be better off and retirement and has less money to use now?

2. I think the answer to #1 is implicit in your very first sentense though. You are so worried about her exersizing her freedom with the money she earned that you are willing to force her into a system that you do not (and in fact, cannot) contend is not inefficient compared. What does that say about your belief in freedom or your belief in this hard working mother?

3. Even under your example, which involves a nightmare senario (by the way, the person would probably transfer their money into safer government bonds if it was so close to their retirement), the person in the private plan would STILL be better off. As the numbers indicate (See my link), the investor would have been THREE times better off investing privately (on average) than being in social security. So even if he lost 1/3 of his life savings, he is STILL in better shape than under social security.

4. as for your last paragraph- you are missing my point. There is a better alternative out there to social security- the private market. The only people you are “benefiting” by forcing them into social security are those for whome you think you can make the decision in their lives better than they can decide. That is what is paternalistic. It is not that you are forcing them into a system- it is that you are forcing them into it with the only real justification being that you know how they can order their lives better than they can. When a government has a military it is because military protection cannot be efficiently provided in the way you propose. In that world, the person with the biggest guns would be able to deprive everyone else of their rights- which is the exact opposite of freedom. There is no such threat in social security- the only threat is that people will get to live their lives they way they choose.

Now I promised you I would respond to your hypo, and so I will:

First, your argument is not really “philosophical” - it is more emotive, by creating a situation where the deck is particularly stacked for one person and against the other. Without denying that this sometimes happens, your hypo plays upon the (false) presumption that almost everyone who does well in the end started off well, and vice versa. If you really want to base a system upon the philosophical premise that would be established if I were to grant what you are trying to get at, you would have to design a system that would only give Joe a hand up, should he fail, and not Jane, should she fail. For example, say Jane goes to princeton but takes a class with a post-modernist, decides life is meaningless, drops out of school, and then ends up homeless. While Joe, after a couple of years, gets back to school, works hard, and eventually works his way up to upper-middle class. What political affiliation would you have to be in order to believe that Joe should now have to support Jane (I want you to answer this directly)?

On your note that Joe’s dad is in prison because of mandatory minimums. That system is in place based upon the same philosophical justification that force his mom to pay 12.5% of her income into social security. You believe you know how to spend that 12.5% “for her” better than she does, so you take it from her. The social conservative believes that he can live the life of Joe’s dad and those he deals to better than they can, so they throw him in jail to get him to comply. The difference between you guys are is only your policy preference, not your philosophy.

I also love that you asked “And who is responsible for Joe’s likely reincarceration?” because it lets me round out my analysis of this hypo in a great way. Now lets shift the example a little more, and say Joe was actually 20 by now and instead of dealing drugs, he decided to rape Jane. Would you say that he deserves less punishment than a rich kid who had all the breaks that raped Jane? This is another point that I want you to address directly (and if the rape example is different for you, say Joe was desperate for money and while holding up Jane, he shot her). If you truely believe that people who are brought up in the kind of situation Joe has been are not “at fault” for their actions, how can you possibly justify punishing them as if they were? My hunch is you are still willing to throw Joe in jail for a long time for rape or murder, regardless of whether he was beaten as a kid or was sent to a bad school. You realize that, in the end, people are responsible for their decision making, no matter if they grew up rich or poor.

And that brings me to my final point, which is one I want you to consider for a little bit, because it has more to it than it may seem like on its face (because I am not soo articulate sometimes). You said, “OK, now in terms of futures, Jane and Joe’s, who is responsible for Jane’s likely success”. What do you mean by “success”? It is that they end up with a particular ammount of money? is it that they are happy? Or if they will be a good person? I think this is a rather important point, because people’s success is not really dependent upon how much money they will make. Most likely in your situation Jane would, on average, end up more financially well of than Joe, I will grant that. And this means we should work on making schools better (i think the voucher system would solve a lot of the problems for Joe, but lets not get too far off track), teaching parents to take care of their kids better, cutting their taxes (especially social security), ect. But in the end, their success as a human being will be determined by the choices they make. If we live in a country that teaches Joe that because his dad was a jerk, he is not responsible for his own actions, he is less likely to be a successful human being- he might rape Jane and then blame this abstract you dub “society”- he wont be as likely to take control of his own moral character. we live in a country where there are many successful Joes, many failed Jane’s and vice versa. The ratio is not as important as the principle we instill in our citizens that, in the end, they are the masters of their own lives. And if they succeed, way beyond their beginings, they should be proud. And if they fail, they are responsible. That is the first lesson I will teach my children, whether I choose to become a rich lawyer who can give them all the best things, or I choose to be a poor pro bono lawyer working to defend people who are going to be thrown into jail for doing a little pot.

Misha, the entire premise of your response is that I would dictate that others pay in so only some would benefit. That is precisely the foundation of private insurance. All policy holders pay in so that those with losses can recover.

Now, Social Security at its inception was discussed in the following manner. Everyone pays in, and those who for reasons beyond their control, inflation, recessions, disabilities, low lifetime wages, etc, would draw social security upon retirement in order to raise their living standard to one of dignity instead if indigence. This proposal also stated that the wealthy would not draw from the Social Security fund upon retirement since they are retiring wealthy.

Now that was a great insurance program idea. However, many of more than modest means demanded that if they were going to have to pay in, they by GOD were going to get something back out, or they would scuttle the program. Hence, we got a Social Security (a retirement insurance program) that defeated the very definition of insurance from its inception.

The system is going to be broke, only because those who can afford to retire comfortably without social security benefits even after contributing to the program all their lives, are to this day demanding either, the program be dumped so they don’t have to contribute the welfare of others, or 2) they get their fair share out of the program. If an insurance company tried that they would be out of business in less than a few years.

People who have worked their lives for whatever reasons with low lifetime income, should, in the wealthiest nation on earth, be saved from indigence upon retirement. Social Security should be there. There are a host of reasons why good intentions and hard work will not provide for millions of folks retirement when that day, and the days that follow come.

One Libertarian argument I have read stated that the elderly should live only as long as their savings will permit. It is natural selection, afterall.

Sorry, natural selection is based on reproduction. I don’t see too many retirees reproducing a poor class of newborns during their retirement. The only results of abandoning the Social Security program are that millions of our elderly will suffer abominable post retirement years, as many who now receive SS already do, and 2) insurance companies and investment brokers will profit immensely. 2) is not inherently bad, provided 1) does not occur. However, insurance companies and investment brokers are hardly going to line up to assist those misfortunates who can no longer pay the premiums or investment fees.

Back to the Elymosenary system which is well documented to have failed millions of people in the early part of the last century despite the best efforts and good will of philanthropists and do-good organizations. Charles Dicken’s became famous for his chronicling of the Elymosenary system of that day.

Misha,

Your own words prove the reason why Social Security is necessary.

There are two kinds of people in a state- those capable of taking care of themselves and being held responsible for their own actions (self-responsible adults), and those incapable of self-maintenance and true culpability (children and the insane).

Why shouldn’t the elderly, often of reduced physical and mental capabilities be included in such a group? They may have a strong work ethic and want to take personal responsibility for themselves yet are incapable. Maybe they did take responsibility for their retirement but high inflation, a stock market crash, costly illness of self or spouse, corporate bankruptcy wiping out pension or 401(k), unexpectedly long life, rapidly increasing property values increase property taxes, etc.

There are so many potential events which would be financially catastrophic to even the most financially responsible retiree, and what means to they have to remedy such a situation? Maybe family or charity could step in. But often, those are also hurting financially for the same reason as the senior in need.

The purpose of the government is to provide services for which individuals cannot provide efficiently themselves or for which specialized knowledge is required. Many people do not have the knowledge, intelligence or time to effectively plan for their retirement finances. Thus Social Security provides a baseline protection against homelessness and hunger. Is doing that really any different than paying the military, airport screeners, etc. to provide Homeland Security? or should we just simply expect each citizen to build bomb shelters, learn to decontaminate bioterror agents, fly fighter jets to take out terrorist training camps?

“The purpose of the government is to provide services for which individuals cannot provide efficiently themselves or for which specialized knowledge is required.”

If you really believe that the average person is unable to buy into a low-risk mutual fund or even government bonds, you have a pretty low opinion of average person. If someone cared even a little bit about their retirement they would take an weekend or two to figure out what are some low-risk mutual funds, or low risk long term investments. Or they could ask a friend. In fact, thats what most people do today anyway- they should just have much more money to put toward their retirement. I guess you guys care so much about people that you are willing to force them to pay nerely 1 out of every 8 hard earned dollars they make into a system that everyone admits is ineffecient (notice how no one has even attempted to refute my numbers on this thread), just because you think that they too stupid or lazy to figure out something that is not all that complicated for themselves.

As for this argument about bombers ect- are you kidding me? are you comparing the complications of investing your savings with flying planes to bomb terrorist camps? How difficult, excatly, do you think investing is? Just go to your local library and take out some books on low-risk investments. I know thats what my parents did, and what I will do once I get some money and they arent about to fly any airplanes into Iraq…

“The purpose of the government is to provide services for which individuals cannot provide efficiently themselves or for which specialized knowledge is required.”

Since when? Is that in the Constitution? That is an extremely broad goal statement for government. I have a feeling Karl Marx would be proud.

I don’t have the knowledge, intelligence, or time to build my own house… So the government should provide that for me? I should not have to go homeless. I’m extremely busy and I don’t know how to cook… So the goverment should feed me? No one wants me going hungry. Surely you are not saying building a house is simpler than investing? If you take that view of government, where does it end?

For those that seem to think the government is responsible for taking care or me if I have bad luck or aren’t smart enough…how do you feel about criminalizing tobacco, alcohol, and overeating? It seems that if you believe the government should take care of me if something bad happens to me, it only makes sense that goverment should also prevent me from doing bad things to myself (lung cancer from smoking, heart disease from being overweight, etc). After all, many people don’t have the knowledge or intelligence to realize how badly they are damaging their health.

and Misha, just to understand your point of view…are you completely against the guiding concept SS, or just its ineffeciencies in our current system?

Crew- I am against the concept of social security on principled grounds- that is, I think people should be free to decide to save for their retirement or not, or how much of their hard-earned money they want to put toward that.

Adding to this, however, I know some people dont argue based upon principles, the way I do, they argue based upon results (utilitarians, consequentialists ect- they only care what will make the most people happy or economically well-off). I think our current SS system fails on both the principled, freedom oriented grounds upon which I oppose it, but, as an addition, it is a failure on consequentialist grounds, because makes the average person worse off.

Another note- I think that every governmental-mandated social security system would be ineffecient, at least compared to the free market.

And finally- I would like to bring up again the main point of my article which was linking the justification for the drug war with the justification for social security and how those who have attacked my social security view have not made any attempt to distinguish the two. I think Crew’s response to Blip’s comment is a perfect illustration of how the “we know what is better for you than you do” ideologies are linked.

Misha, your concept of “we know what is better for your than you do” is a fallacious argument. It purports that there is some dictator up there commanding that the majority of the people of this democracy have been forced into a safety net for retirement that they absolutely do not want. The S.S. administration is funded and enacted by the people’s representatives.

I would like to see the poll that shows the majority of Americans believe Social Security is a flawed concept. I suspect it does not exist. That is not to say that a poll asking if the S.S. system needs to be modified or adjusted would fail to get a majority assent.

Even I believe it needs to restructured according to it original proposal as I outlined in my previous message. Americans believe in helping their fellow citizen, and if a senior citizen is faced with dying in the streets or some bargain basement hospice because they have no means to live elsewhere, I believe, and the majority of the American people have said at the polls, that they prefer to give some of their pay to insure that this loathsome scenario does not play out for our seniors or ourselves.

Social Security is a compassionate insurance program which helps others in legitimate need and insures ourselves in the event we find ourselves in similar need. As a concept, it reflects the values which have garnered great respect for America in the past not only by her own citizens but by those of other nations as well.

Its fundamental flaw is that it pays out to those who can easily and more than comfortably retire without its compensation. That is what is bankrupting the insurance plan.

Since when? Is that in the Constitution? That is an extremely broad goal statement for government.

Yeah, actually in both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

The preamble of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Misha, to me it’s pretty clear that the ideals of our nation’s founding include some base level of assistance to those in need, both out of campassion for human life and to insure that there are not the class wars that topple governments. Out of curiousity, what exactly is the purpose of the government, in your mind? Why don’t we just get rid of it completely?

While no, I don’t think the government should “build you a house” or “cook you food,” I do believe that there is some responsibility to provide shelter and food for those who cannot afford them.

If you really believe that the average person is unable to buy into a low-risk mutual fund or even government bonds, you have a pretty low opinion of average person. If someone cared even a little bit about their retirement they would take an weekend or two to figure out what are some low-risk mutual funds, or low risk long term investments. Or they could ask a friend.

By your words, “average person” that means that 1/2 of the population may not be able to handle this effectively. Sure, a doctor, teacher, or consultant may be able to find a friend to explain investing to them but there are many dishwashers, construction workers and soldiers who don’t necessarily have friends with any greater knowledge then they have.

And you still don’t address what happens to those who buy bonds that don’t keep up with inflation or whose mutual fund squanders their money or whose employer goes bankrupt ending their pension plan or are wiped out treating cancer. Are they simply expected to live out their days wandering the street eating from dumpsters? Social Security isn’t exactly allowing seniors to live like royalty or anything.

While I understand wanting to keep more of your income, are you really that utterly selfish that you’d like to see people die and suffer in order that you may upgrade from a Buick to a Cadillac? Would you prefer to live in gated communities with armed guard protecting you at night like in Brazil?

David- I would say that social security enjoys just as much popular support as the drug war (a lot! Wonder why no serious politicians ever talk about getting rid of either?). I never even came close to saying it was dictatorial, it is just another example of the majority taking away the rights of the minority to live their lives how they want. Our nation was not founded upon the principle that whatever the majority of the people think is right is perfectly ok. A country founded upon that principle would not be a dictatorship, but it would not be a good place to live if you were in the minority.

Again, you refuse to address the similarity in principle between the drug war (which I assume you oppose, at least for pot- am I correct?) and social security. the reason is that there is no principled distinction. those who support the drug war point to the exact same arguments you do- stopping the drug war allows more people to live in dignity, the majority of the people support the drug war, ect ect.

As for your use of buzz words like “compassionate insurance program”- thats just political grandstanding. There is nothing compasionate about forcing people into a system that, on average, makes them signifigantly worse off now and upon retirement, while severely limiting their freedom.

Blip:

1.
“me it’s pretty clear that the ideals of our nation’s founding include some base level of assistance to those in need”

Your arguments based upon our foundation are just ahistorical. I am an american history major, and as far as i know, there was not a single social insurance policy that insured a minimum level of substiance at our founding. I believe the first one was more than a century (!!!) away. It is rather uncontraverial that the phrase you quote from the decleration of indepedence refers to people natural rights, and the founders (rightly), believe that the right to “life” was the right not to be killed, not the right to a certain ammount of food, shelter or housing. Again, I think this is a rather uncontraversial historical point. As for the passage you quoted from the constitution, that was in response to situations like Shay’s Rebellion, and other debtor groups trying to screw over creditors. The framers were very concerned that debtors would use their voting power to take the property of those from whom they borrowed unjustly. Again, this is the exact opposite worry than one that animates programs like SS.

2. as for your paragraph on the impacts of not having social security. I will still contend, as the numbers back me up, that on average, poor people will be BETTER off without social security than before. Take a look, for example, at David’s example above, where a change in teh stock market causes someone’s life savings to go down 1/3 right before they retire. now lets do a little math. Say if i pay 12.5% of my income into social security i end up with X dollars for my retirement. If i had invested that money in an average mutual fund, I would have had 3X (three times as much) at retirement (see my original link). Now if I make some mistakes and say i lose 1/3 of that money (which is a lot), i would still end up with 2X. So i still have TWICE AS MUCH MONEY as i would have under social security. But in any case, our disagreement comes from the basic tention I talked about in my article- you think so little of the poor worker that you think you need to make his retirement decisions for him. You think by forcing him to put money into a system that everyone admits is inefficient and doesnt give him a fair yield for what he put in, you are doing in some “good” because otherwise he would be too stupid or too lazy to obtain sound financial advice. I think that not only should the working poor person have the right to do that, but that most will be better off for it.

3. as for “While I understand wanting to keep more of your income, are you really that utterly selfish that you’d like to see people die and suffer in order that you may upgrade from a Buick to a Cadillac?”

That might be an argument against wellfare (which I could argue about, but its a bit off topic), but it is not an argument against social security. if you read the article I linked to about social security in my original post, the main point of it is that it hurts poor people more than it hurts rich people, because poor people are the ones who cant afford to invest in the stock market after you take 1/8th of their money and shove it into social security.

A side note on your argument, Misha, that David and blip seem to be skirting around but not quite addressing:

Your major qualm with SS seems to be that it doesn’t make money in it’s current state. BUT- if you get rid of such a system entirely and make it optional, I think it will bad for society as a whole because so many of the lower class workers would opt out. The social and economic strains on the working class american have put them in a place where it is increasingly harder to plan their life toward long-term goals. With increasing levels of credit card debt, and lacking resources to weight the various options for coping and recovery, the #1 concern is day to day survival.

Sure an extra 10% of income will help them get out of debt faster, but the methods of economic planning would liekly remain the same due to the environmental, educational, and cultural surroundings. Economic planning is not an inherent ability, it usually takes a lot of teaching, and right now that teaching is not always easy to find, especially for the families too worried about day to day survival to even begin thinking about setting any of their precious income aside. It is possible to start investing with small amounts of money, but many people don’t know that and are too psychologically overwhelmed by economic hard-ships to even give the option much serious thought..

As such, we as a society would likely lose much the by way of the contributions and resources of these families as they have increasingly harder times coping with their retiring family members who rely on what little support their offspring can provide..

So the other option would be a program, still provided by the government at a small percentage of wages, but one that looked for better investment solutions than the current SS model. And I think even your counterparts in this discussion are recommending changes to the program, so the real debate is whether a completely voluntary program would be more beneficial than a wage-based program..

PS-
Before you condemn me for making decisions for the less fortunate in our society- a brief background on my perspective coming into this:

I am in my late twenties. I graduated from a fairly prestigious university in an arts program as an undergrad, thanks to scholarship programs that allowed me to attend. After a couple years out with a bachelors degree, I was working as a freelance designer making pretty good bucks, but not really investing, mostly paying off the computer equipment that I used for work and paying off the small bit of college loans I had (stuff not covered by scholarships).. After the economy went to crap, myself and many other freelancers I knew were out of work for the most part. I looked for work for close to a year and ended up getting into a few thousand dollars of credit card debt in the process.. About a year ago, I made it out of unemployment, and I am currently working with some level of job security in a unionized university position, but only making about 24,000 and slowly working my way out of debt (I also had to buy a used car on loans for transportation to this job), so I still have no $$ in any kind of savings or investments, and I’m nearly 30..

and yet I still prefer some reformed method of nationalized retirement funds than leaving it to my own shoddy record of economic enterprising..

And since people seemed to have already moved on from this, I’ll keep talking to myself, but feel free to respond:

Is it not the case that SS reform is entirely possible if there are adequate votes to ammend as such through citizens or elected officials. As of yet, we have had no such ammendments, and so to change the system as misha advocates would be to undermine the majority opinion, thus ironically doing the very thing that you propose to protect against - i.e. make decisions for your fellow citizens..

David:

You stated: “Social Security is a compassionate insurance program which helps others in legitimate need and insures ourselves in the event we find ourselves in similar need. As a concept, it reflects the values which have garnered great respect for America in the past not only by her own citizens but by those of other nations as well.”

The only problem is Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme and not insurance. If a private entity tried to make your argurment they would be put in jail.

http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm

A good, well meaning program that will one day collapse.