The Social Contract?

[Al B. Sure!]

I think David Floyd needs to get visited by the ghost of his old partner Best Buy crew chief this Christmas.

[David Floyd]

That's what their parents are there for.

And if their parents aren't there, that's the responsibility of their parents, not me. If I wanted to support kids, I'd damn well have kids.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What if we reach a point where we young folks need to pay 101% of our income in order to keep social security going?

What if Martians come and steal all our women? That's a ridiculous statement. The only wa something like that could happen is if the number of seniors vastly outweighs the number of working people, and if that happened, no retirement system would work.

Regardless of whether or not a system is based on goverment taxation of savings, it is still a system of entitlements (you are entitled to your own property afterall) and it still requires the work of someone else to make it worth anything. You could have all the money in the world, but if no one's there to work for it, it's meaningless.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No government in there, eh?

And people lived shorter, poorer, and more miserable lives. Oh, let's go back to the feudal system. Yay!

[David Floyd]

And further, AS, for the kids who can't support themselves, etc. - if YOU feel bad about it, if YOU feel obligated to help them, then DO SO. Don't waste your time trying to convince me, just do what you think is right - if that means giving them money to feed them, if that means giving your job up so someone else can have it, then do so.

My problem comes in when you try to force me to do the same, whether or not I want to.

[Al B. Sure!]

Berzerker:

i disagree... soon after the creation of the welfare state, we had a period of prosperity and moral strength (the 1950's)... our moral decay does not come from the gov't but from the late 1960's

[Ben Kenobi]

OK, then quit and free your job up for someone else.

That's what I just did. One of the fellows who will be working tomorrow is deaf, but very handy with tools, much more so than I.

I'm positive he will do better than I will at the job, and by quitting I got my boss out of a sticky situation.

How does this help those people? It doesn't.

Everyone I worked with if I meet up with them on the street will probably take me out for a beer, or something.

The fellow who got the job, well, if I do run across him again, he will feel the same way.

And then, when I do get a better job more suited to my talents, then everyone wins, including me.

[David Floyd]

Regardless of whether or not a system is based on goverment taxation of savings, it is still a system of entitlements (you are entitled to your own property afterall) and it still requires the work of someone else to make it worth anything. You could have all the money in the world, but if no one's there to work for it, it's meaningless.

Except that money isn't meaningless - money is a concept that's represented, in the US, by currency. But the concept of money could just as well be represented by something else with enough perceived value to take the place of dollars or yen or deutschmarks.

[Al B. Sure!]

What if we reach a point where we young folks need to pay 101% of our income in order to keep social security going?

shooting off of Malthus, this couldn't possibly happen... so many non-productive elderly consumers and so few producers would lead to economic ruin.

[Ben Kenobi]

only wa something like that could happen is if the number of seniors vastly outweighs the number of working people, and if that happened, no retirement system would work.

And that's what I'm saying is the situation we are in today. There will be way more people retiring than there will be workers to support them.

[Berzerker]

Dave's fantasy world would be so horrible... streets filled with begging homeless 7 year olds... then the truck will come by to pick up some of the girls and boys to be legally fondled and sexually abused by perverts who pay premium dollars for the service but the children get pennies...

And yet civilisation has proceeded for eons without welfare states. I wonder why US politicians (including the Framers) didn't see this impending destruction for ~150 years.

[David Floyd]

AS,

i disagree... soon after the creation of the welfare state, we had a period of prosperity and moral strength (the 1950's)...

Actually, the post-war prosperity was created by the fact that World War 2 resulted, in part, in the US acquiring over 50% of the world's gold reserves, well over 50% of the world's manufacturing and industry, and around 50% of the world's combined GNP.

The WELFARE STATE was responsible for the prosperity of the 1950s? Give me a break

BK,

Then if you feel like you received value for your decision, then you made the right one, and that's my point. Do what you feel is right - if quitting your job so someone else can have it makes you feel good, or makes you feel like you did the right thing, then fine. If giving to the poor makes you feel like you did the right thing, fine. Great, even!

The only problem comes in when you try to force me to make similar decisions.

[Ben Kenobi]

And people lived shorter, poorer, and more miserable lives. Oh, let's go back to the feudal system.

Actually, I wouldn't mind being in a monastery back then.

[Al B. Sure!]

damnit, dave and berzerker... look at this, you got me and ben against you when we should be uniting against the dirty communists like chegitz!

And further, AS, for the kids who can't support themselves, etc. - if YOU feel bad about it, if YOU feel obligated to help them, then DO SO. Don't waste your time trying to convince me, just do what you think is right - if that means giving them money to feed them, if that means giving your job up so someone else can have it, then do so.

a few good people can't fix all the wrongs... i dont see how you can expect the same people that abuse and neglect their own children to give them money as charity.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Except that money isn't meaningless

Money only has meaning in a social context. If you're on a desert island, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you gotta do all the work yourself. Furthermore, money can and frequently does lose value, such that fortunes can disappear in the blink of an eye, and those who once were well to do, now are destitute.

No matter what, wealth exists only because we agree as a group to recognize that it exists. When we stop believing that it exists, it ceases to exist. So it doesn't matter whether the mechanism of wealth transfer is via government or savings, it still requires the young to work for the old.

One method, however, has proved far more efficient than the other, and that's why no one will ever be able to attack Social Security directly. It has proven successful results. Sucks to be you if your retirement plan goes bankrupt just before you retire (but at least the government is there to pick up the peices and you won't be forced to work until death or beg on the streets for food). Fortunately society is far more humane than libertarians would have it.

[David Floyd]

a few good people can't fix all the wrongs...

That's certainly true, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. The few people you CAN help will appreciate any help you can give them.

i dont see how you can expect the same people that abuse and neglect their own children to give them money as charity.

That's my point. I don't "expect" anyone to give to charity. That's the whole point of charity - giving voluntarily of your own free will.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Actually, I wouldn't mind being in a monastery back then.

No all monestaries were great places to live, and those that were lived on the backs of peasants. Either way, you either live the life of a peasant or a lord. One sucks donkey butt and the other was evil.

[Al B. Sure!]

Actually, the post-war prosperity was created by the fact that World War 2 resulted, in part, in the US acquiring over 50% of the world's gold reserves, well over 50% of the world's manufacturing and industry, and around 50% of the world's combined GNP.

The WELFARE STATE was responsible for the prosperity of the 1950s? Give me a break

BLAH? HUH? WHAT?

where'd you get that from... i was just pointing out that the welfare state didn't cause moral decay... we had moral decay in the 20's before the welfare state and we had great moral strength in the 50's with the welfare state... the 1960's was the cause of moral decay, not the welfare state.

[Ben Kenobi]

The only problem comes in when you try to force me to make similar decisions.

Oh I wouldn't dream of forcing you to help someone out just because it is the right thing to do.

Try not to end up like poor old Ebeneezer, eh?

[Ben Kenobi]

No all monestaries were great places to live, and those that were lived on the backs of peasants. Either way, you either live the life of a peasant or a lord. One sucks donkey butt and the other was evil.

Sounds not all that different from the Poliburo and the workers.

[Al B. Sure!]

That's my point. I don't "expect" anyone to give to charity. That's the whole point of charity - giving voluntarily of your own free will.

missed my point entirely...
we live in a society filled with neglectful and abusive 'parents'... those people would never even think about giving away money to help children as they abuse their own kids.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
And yet civilisation has proceeded for eons without welfare states.

And the previous models of human society are so great.

I wonder why US politicians (including the Framers) didn't see this impending destruction for ~150 years.

Because we had plenty of land to steal from the Indians and give to Americans. Government sponsored wealth transfer, backed by genocide. You libertarians keep getting worse and worse.

[David Floyd]

Money only has meaning in a social context. If you're on a desert island, it doesn't matter how rich you are, you gotta do all the work yourself. Furthermore, money can and frequently does lose value, such that fortunes can disappear in the blink of an eye, and those who once were well to do, now are destitute.

Naturally - the CONCEPT of money rests on perceived value. I already made that point (or agreed with you, if you made that point).

No matter what, wealth exists only because we agree as a group to recognize that it exists. When we stop believing that it exists, it ceases to exist. So it doesn't matter whether the mechanism of wealth transfer is via government or savings, it still requires the young to work for the old.

The problem is, no one is ever going to stop believing in the concept of money. In a world of limited resources, having no concept of money just doesn't compute. It's like saying 2+2=5. Money is always a factor, whether it's in the form of gold bars, sheep and cows, dollars, or grass. Of course money is only relevant when there is more than one person, but that doesn't invalidate my point. Until you find a way to freely provide unlimited resources, then money WILL exist, because it is a concept tied, in part, to the reality of a world of limited resources.

One method, however, has proved far more efficient than the other, and that's why no one will ever be able to attack Social Security directly. It has proven successful results.

Well, what are those results? It has resulted in a system of quickly accumulating debt, it has resulted in a situation in which eventually the top of the pyramid will have more people than the bottom. And yes, it has also resulted in giving old people money - that point has never been contested by me. If your only wish is to make sure old people have money, then sure, Social Security works (for now, which is the point of the thread).

Of course, someone of us question the means to your end, which is where the debate comes in - if I choose to opt out of this pyramid scheme, I should have to be worried about men with guns coming to take me to jail and assess all kinds of penalties and fines.

[DanS]

Re social contract, it exists although unwritten and is remarkably stable over time. But it's a more general thing -- it doesn't just refer to the contract we have now. You could have a social contract with much smaller government, for example. Also, it also covers other details of our economic structure, like the corporate role in society, the rights and responsibilities of public corporations, and the primacy of the middle class.

For the US, the current social contract was "written" in the depression and settled into tight ranges post-war. Government spending in the 25-35% of our economy range. Corporate profits constitute 3-6.5% of our economy. Corporate business activity constitutes about 55% of the economy.

I don't know if this is sustainable or not. We don't have major social unrest, so I'm guessing that it is sustainable. That's not to say that we couldn't or shouldn't change it to something better (smaller) to fit the realities of our world today.

[Ben Kenobi]

One method, however, has proved far more efficient than the other, and that's why no one will ever be able to attack Social Security directly. It has proven successful results.

Successful?

The fact that those paying into the system can't hope to benefit from the system?

40 years isn't bad for a trial, but compared with past societies, that's rather feeble.

[Berzerker]

chegitz -

And people lived shorter, poorer, and more miserable lives. Oh, let's go back to the feudal system. Yay!

Life doesn't improve because of social spending, it improves because of advancements in technology. And social spending reduces research and production...

AS -

i disagree... soon after the creation of the welfare state, we had a period of prosperity and moral strength (the 1950's)... our moral decay does not come from the gov't but from the late 1960's

No, WWII created that prosperity by leaving the US intact with much of the industrialised world in bad shape - a monopoly of sorts - so the US had 3-4 decades to produce and sell until other countries rebounded from the war. But then it was another war that caused the anti-establishment reaction in the 60's, a reaction to a morally bankrupt government that became globalist after WWII.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Sounds not all that different from the Poliburo and the workers.

Except the pay differetial between the top bureaucrats and the average worker wasn't all that great. Nor was it transferable to their children. Anyway, I don't advocate that kind of system, where as you were advocating a fondness for a system that was openly brutal and exploitive. Even if I'm lying, I at least pretend to be in favor of an egalitarian society.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Maybe you Brits don't pile up debt like we do, the problem here is that future generations we'll "educate" in government schools to embrace this "contract" are being stuck with our promises of future spending. It's one thing to force your fellow man to pay for what you want from government, it's worse to burden your own children.

it's our payback for them putting us in nursing homes.

**** the children!

[David Floyd]

AS,

where'd you get that from... i was just pointing out that the welfare state didn't cause moral decay... we had moral decay in the 20's before the welfare state and we had great moral strength in the 50's with the welfare state... the 1960's was the cause of moral decay, not the welfare state.

Your original post linked the welfare state to prosperity in the 1950s.

"soon after the creation of the welfare state, we had a period of prosperity and moral strength (the 1950's)..."

While that is true, it is not accurate to link US economic prosperity in that era to the welfare state.

BK,

Oh I wouldn't dream of forcing you to help someone out just because it is the right thing to do.

But that's exactly what you do when you support and vote for government social programs. You force me to help others.

AS,

we live in a society filled with neglectful and abusive 'parents'... those people would never even think about giving away money to help children as they abuse their own kids.

I don't know what fantasy world you live in, but the vast majority of parents are not "neglectful and abusive". If yours were, I'm sorry, but most parents are not.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
if I choose to opt out of this pyramid scheme, I should have to be worried about men with guns coming to take me to jail and assess all kinds of penalties and fines.

It's possible to opt out of Social Security. A job I applied for in Orlando doesn't make payments to SS, but instead has their own retirement plan. I don't know the extent of the details however.