especially retired people, the system of social security has existed for so long that none of the old people at present have any savings of their own and many lack close relatives to finance them. what that means that the amount of money needed to support them at a decent standard of living would have to be similar to the amount paid on social security taxes. i find it dubious that people would pay that much in charity, and thus the inevitable decrease in the standard of living of old and disabled people seems like a strong counterargument to a free society.
nandnor:the system of social security has existed for so long that none of the old people at present have any savings of their own and many lack close relatives to finance them.
When the US dollar collapses, they won't have social security either.
nandnor:what that means that the amount of money needed to support them at a decent standard of living would have to be similar to the amount paid on social security taxes.
It is impossible to support people who live longer, lobby and vote for more benefits (medicaid). They will have never paid enough in. SS is a ponzi scheme. At the end of the scheme there is rationing. Then there is nothing.
nandnor:i find it dubious that people would pay that much in charity
No one should pay charity. Old people should be put to work. 65 was set as a retirement age when men did not live until 63. Old people can teach, or babysit, or edit novels, or become historians, or some other such thing.
I think it is pointless to give in charity. That is to give someone something for nothing. If you give someone some money, ask them to do something for you. That's fair. Paying old people to ride the bus and go to church and to watch TV or play bridge is absolutely ridiculous. Let's use the division of labour and find something for them to do, even if it is only 4 hours a day. It doesn't have to be hard or boring. But it should be productive.
nandnor:like a strong counterargument to a free society.
Right, so everyone not retired should be enslaved to care for the tired.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
nandnor:the inevitable decrease in the standard of living of old and disabled people seems like a strong counterargument to a free society.
there are millions in Africa in much worse shape. Theres an endless supply of counter-arguments to a free society. There are endless ways I could employ you for the betterment of your fellow man.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
Social Security is just another unemployment subsidy which automatically creates a state-dependant class of people over a certain (arbitrary) age. As others have commented, it isn't right that individuals should be robbed to pay for such a state of affairs.In a free society you are responsible for your own life. If you wish to retire at a certain age, then plan ahead and save for it when you are young: sacrificing current consumption for future gain - otherwise known as having a 'low time preference'.
Base model cars of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but quarter-mile races.
nandnor: especially retired people, the system of social security has existed for so long that none of the old people at present have any savings of their own and many lack close relatives to finance them. what that means that the amount of money needed to support them at a decent standard of living would have to be similar to the amount paid on social security taxes. i find it dubious that people would pay that much in charity, and thus the inevitable decrease in the standard of living of old and disabled people seems like a strong counterargument to a free society.
No it's not. Cause in a free market the dollar or whatever medium of exchange would be stronger. Taxes are gone so people can help their older and sick ones with this kept money. Also with the dollar being stronger inflation, the hidden tax, isn't cutting into people's budgets either. Wages meet market demands. Products on the shelves fall in price as they are not propped up either by government intervention. You're not seeing how prices would drop, standard of living (material products) would stay the same or get better, but the cost of living itself would drop. You're not pulling in the big picture into your view.
There's so much junk laying around and so much being wasted in this culture every single day for a huge reason: People have so much they just throw it away and yet they cry cause they want more. Yet there's so much that goes to Goodwill and other charities even though people still throw a lot away. People don't care to help their sick and elderly now cause they know the government will help them, which is really sad if you think about it.
Your argument is about abandoning the elderly and sick.
The free market allows care to return once again.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
nandnor:especially retired people, the system of social security has existed for so long that none of the old people at present have any savings of their own and many lack close relatives to finance them. what that means that the amount of money needed to support them at a decent standard of living would have to be similar to the amount paid on social security taxes. i find it dubious that people would pay that much in charity, and thus the inevitable decrease in the standard of living of old and disabled people seems like a strong counterargument to a free society.
These elders made their bed. Each generation that would be harmed by the loss of SS had a chance to do away with the system with minimal pain to themselves. Each had their time of dominance. Each could have tried to build a society with stronger family ties so that their relatives would be there to support them when they were truly unable to work. Each has refused, saying instead "I paid in so now I need ot get it". Spoiled, selfish, with the indignation of a 4-year-old. Particularly the Baby Boomers have put their childish whims, their mindless, thoughtless "attitude is altitude" mottos ahead of any foresight or reason. Let them eat cat food, I say. That an unjust system has long persisted is a greater argument for its immediate end, not its perpetuation.
nandnor:especially retired people, the system of social security has existed for so long that none of the old people at present have any savings of their own and many lack close relatives to finance them.
And this is the average citizen's responsibility how? These old people in majority voted to put people in power to rob the taxpayers for their ultimate benefit, we must remember that 1935 was when the SSA was passed, but it was amended throughout the 50's onward.
No, what that means is that people need to be responsible for themselves or be dependent on others...
nandnor:i find it dubious that people would pay that much in charity, and thus the inevitable decrease in the standard of living of old and disabled people seems like a strong counterargument to a free society.
I find it amazing that you have not bothered to do your homework first, the private charities in this country pay out as much as the government does now (in regard to total welfare) with only receiving 1.3% (estimated) of the income. You assume that every penny the government receives in the name of welfare goes to welfare and do not consider that all the welfare money save 1% is not used this way. Judging from the way government dealt with the SS fund and the income tax in general, I am saying it is a very strong argument for a free society and you need to check facts before making accusations....
Your narrow view that people are scum and government is virtuous tells the tale of what you are, why don't you say it?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
You don't have that much faith in people. What I don't understand is how you can have such a lack of faith and yet trust bureaucrats to care for the disabled. They are people too.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
See Sheldon Richman's presentation on Mutual Aid Societies. The Free Market does a better job even at Social Security and medicaid than the government does.
Free Market pwns government. Everytime.
Social security hasn't been around too long and won't be around much longer. Many wll off older folks that have no dire need for it, demand it, after all they paid into it.
A decent standard of living is a relative matter, many elderly folks dogs live better than many happy older folks in other places.
Americans are very charitable, imagine how much more charitable they would be if allowed to keep the 15% of wages that are stolen from them.
The healthiest and happiest old folks that I know never retire, like my 81 year old landscaper friend, etc. etc.
In a free society, you reap what you sow. In a slave society, a few reap more than they sow and most reap less.
The first recipent of lifelong SS benefits contributed about $25 and recieved over $20,000. The last recipient will likely experence the opposite ratio.
You've had all night and day toConsider and prayYou've brought fire on my head andNow you must pay.
Babylon makes the rules where my people suffer
liberty student:I think it is pointless to give in charity. That is to give someone something for nothing. If you give someone some money, ask them to do something for you. That's fair. Paying old people to ride the bus and go to church and to watch TV or play bridge is absolutely ridiculous. Let's use the division of labour and find something for them to do, even if it is only 4 hours a day. It doesn't have to be hard or boring. But it should be productive.
I think you have a good point, but I still think charity is "good". Also, I think subjectivist economicsshows that charitable giving is perceived as a good by some actors (individuals as opposed to thespians). Charity can be very useful (IMO) to alleviate short term shocks (e.g. natural disasters, disease etc.), but is certainly not a long term solution.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Those are people the public school system, with teachers who never have to think about their finances and retirement and job security, and which teaches at best 10 weeks of economics/finance, failed. They shouldn't spend a penny until they have 6 months of living expenses saved up. A good life doesn't cost money... Parents failed when, when they decided government should provide for, educate, raise, feed their children - then after all that, they no longer have any authority to teach values and help their children resist marketing and peer pressure. Then again, a school system that taught savings would be counter to the keynesian ideal that government has baptized.
You're talking about the present as if it just happened - the situation you describe is one of a person doing *nothing* to provide with his own security and foisting it on his friends, relatives, community, and government. With government interference, those who would remain close to their families venture away from home, often following frivilous ideas; those who would save, spend on big screen TVs and collectable DVDs. Retirement itself is a dubious proposition. Every other culture would think it ridiculous that their elders reach 60 or 65 and stop contributing to their families and communities (read: economy). It is the elders' place to be teachers, child care, etc - AFTER they've lived in the real world and know that paychecks don't grow on trees. Teaching, if you think about it, is the perfect job for the disabled or the elderly.
Recap - you can't stay "in the box" and change one thing and expect it to make any sense. You have to think with all your pieces out of the box: A free society wouldn't have compulsory public schooling and soc sec, and retirement - the elders would naturally gravitate towards using their experience to teach and thus would have a job compensated by their community.
This "one item out of context" is often the type of argument used against Libertarians. "But, what about this?" that's based on something funded compulsorily. But what about that? that's governemnt agressing. What about speed limits? You and your neighbors could form a coop to manage your own roads, choose but CLOSE, PERSONAL "democracy" what materials and costs are justified, and hire a guard/doorman for your gated community.
Hope this helps
Harry Felker:Your narrow view that people are scum and government is virtuous tells the tale of what you are, why don't you say it?
Easy turbo...
I don't think that chairty is exactly bad, I think it depends on the situation. I was in New Orleans during Katrina, I believe that the problems people were facing in the wake of the Hurricane were cause by goverment, not a flood. However the immediate charity of people around the country played a very important part in saving lives and allowing any part of New Orleans to remain. Don't get me wrong here, by no means do I beleive to be a long term solution, but in a crisis why not? I am speaking of voluntary charity here too, not FEMA checks or trailers...
Solarist:I was in New Orleans during Katrina, I believe that the problems people were facing in the wake of the Hurricane were cause by goverment, not a flood.
Indeed, and why did they feel so safe living there despite mostly not having sufficient insurance?
Because they assumed the government would "bail them out" if they got in a stick. A classic case of distorted incentives.
Thedesolateone:I think you have a good point, but I still think charity is "good".
I would say less than 5% of scenarios that most people consider charity are good.
I believe we as libertarians really need to embrace "teach a man to fish" and move away from "give a man a fish" if we want to create a prosperous and viable market economy.
liberty student: Thedesolateone:I think you have a good point, but I still think charity is "good". I would say less than 5% of scenarios that most people consider charity are good. I believe we as libertarians really need to embrace "teach a man to fish" and move away from "give a man a fish" if we want to create a prosperous and viable market economy.
Well I think that ought to be step two for a charity: "teach a man to fish". Also an abusive charity will not get my money - one that only perpetuates the problem.
I foresee charity even being: Something terrible happens. People band together to help each other get back up on their own feet. So charity doesn't even need to be a permeant institution at all.
wilderness:I foresee charity even being: Something terrible happens. People band together to help each other get back up on their own feet. So charity doesn't even need to be a permeant institution at all.
But see, this is how loose (to our detriment) we are with the word charity. I look at that scenario and don't think charity. I think mutual aid. And mutual aid is closer to trades of self-interest than it is to subsidization or welfare.
I oppose that form of charity which is not mutual. And to me, mutual aid is really just an exchange with a longer time horizon to complete the transaction. But the expectation is that there will be a return from the other party, not just the temporary alleviation of our own sense of guilt.
Compassion is great. Let's find a way to profit from it.
I don't know where you are coming up with your information. The elderly have something like 4 times the wealth of the younger, on average. Maybe more. It was on 20/20.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
liberty student: wilderness:I foresee charity even being: Something terrible happens. People band together to help each other get back up on their own feet. So charity doesn't even need to be a permeant institution at all. But see, this is how loose (to our detriment) we are with the word charity. I look at that scenarion and don't think charity. I think mutual aid. And mutual aid is closer to trades of self-interest than it is to subsidization or welfare.
But see, this is how loose (to our detriment) we are with the word charity. I look at that scenarion and don't think charity. I think mutual aid. And mutual aid is closer to trades of self-interest than it is to subsidization or welfare.
I didn't know there was a difference between charity or mutual aid. I thought there were just different kinds of charities. Rothbard in "For a New Liberty:..." mentioned Brigham Young charities that "teach a man to fish" and get them into jobs before they are completely discharged from the "charity". And the people that go through their program end up not using charity ever again for the most part from what I gathered.
liberty student: I oppose that form of charity which is not mutual. And to me, mutual aid is really just an exchange with a longer time horizon to complete the transaction. But the expectation is that there will be a return from the other party, not just the temporary alleviation of our own sense of guilt.
Ah, I see. The Brigham Young "charity" started the people on a job right away within the "charity" itself. It was how the charity was able to operate so well. But the BY "charity" actively tried to place the people in outside jobs for the long term, unless, the workers skill/talent was really needed, then they stayed on to continue help as a long term employee.
liberty student: Compassion is great. Let's find a way to profit from it.
I think BY did, and that's what I had in mind when I wrote this. I also had in mind a disaster in the community occurs and the people help each other out by I guess using what you mentioned as "mutual aid" to get their community back up to livable conditions. I don't know if they profit though. They pitch in with their own two hands. Outside communities may profit though when they come in to help. That's what I meant.
wilderness: I also had in mind a disaster in the community occurs and the people help each other out by I guess using what you mentioned as "mutual aid" to get their community back up to livable conditions. I don't know if they profit though.
Nature happens.
Then the people reinvest in their community.
There is nothing wrong with cutting your trading partner a deal today, so you can continue to do business tomorrow.
What I am opposing is the altruism where we give with no economic incentive. That to me, is irrational, immoral and leads to negative consequences.
And I mean economic in the broadest sense. Helping out a family member in need, because they may be there for you in the future is an investment. Helping out someone half way around the world you will never see or talk to, and for whom your help translates into a subsidy to live one more unproductive day, well that sucks.
I firmly believe that the more people are producing (in the aggregate), the greater off we (in the aggregate) will be. So in that sense, I cannot abide by subsidizing people not to produce.
I hope that makes it clearer. I'm not as focused in my responses today as I strive to be. Other events occurring here.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap