The Social Contract?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
chegitz, Libertarians are not anarchists. Of course we believe in laws that regulate behavior. The behavior we wish to regulate, though, is simply behavior that results in harm to another.

And if reasonable people disagree on what constitutes harm to another? Some would argue that porn is harmful to those who make it, even if they do so voluntarily. Other would argue that it causes secondary harm be creating an image of women that results in violence. You and I may think it BS, but reasonable people may disagree.

Reasonable people think that allowing children to go uneducated harms us all, and thus, just as we might be "coerced" into paying for a police force, we should be coerced into paying for schools.

This is why I think "soft" libertarianism is BS and moral cowardice. Because you don't follow through to the logical conclusion of your philosophy, which is a type of anarchism. The minute you open the door to government and the taxes necessary to pay it (and if there are no taxes there will be no police or prisons), you've lost.

Society has just as much right to place obligations on people or give them entitlements as it does to say they can or can't do something.

[David Floyd]

On The News Hour with Jim Lehrer today, they were discussing a new government program tracking air pollution and noting that it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars in sick days and medical treatment. Who should pay for that, the polluters or you and me? I say the polluters should, and so does your philosophy.

I certainly do agree that pollutors should be responsible for cleaning up the pollution they create, if that pollution is harming others and/or is on the property of another.

That's not at all true. They just want their sacrifice to be meaningful. There is a reason why the hottest car in the U.S. is the Prius, even though it costs $10K more than a comparable non-hybrid car in the same class.

Or maybe it's that they want to have a choice in the sacrifice. Many people WILL make the economic sacrifice, if given the choice to do so. What people oppose - at least, my understanding - is regulations such as Kyoto that FORCE them to make sacrifices.

By the way, there is also the relevant point that the "hottest car" on the market today might simply be the hottest car because it's the newest car. Consumers are silly like that.

But this is all fairly irrelevant anyway. It stems from a discussion about what Congressmen/Senators should be doing. My point is that they should not necessarily do what the vocal minority, or even the majority, wants them to do. Remember, I'm no fan of democracy.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Remember, I'm no fan of democracy.

No, but many of us are, and we want to keep it. If you don't want to live in a democracy, don't force us to give up ours. Just go away.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
nye,

It's silly to build a code of laws around the concept that I can do what I want, as long as I don't hurt or coerce others? Why?

Not at all. Build your code of laws on those as two principles. They just won't be enough, and they won't be paramount in any state that would work, or group for that matter since sometime before the chimps came down from the trees.

[Ben Kenobi]

But we are engaged in a discussion about the rights and wrongs of a situation, and hypothetically what would be better.

And this is what I am asking. Given your position in opposition to paying for social programs, which one of the 4 options would you pick?

[David Floyd]

And if reasonable people disagree on what constitutes harm to another?

Well, first define "reasonable"

Some would argue that porn is harmful to those who make it, even if they do so voluntarily. Other would argue that it causes secondary harm be creating an image of women that results in violence. You and I may think it BS, but reasonable people may disagree.

I don't agree that people who want to criminalize porn can be classified as "reasonable". There is no "reasonable" justification for the existence of any victimless crime (a point on which I think both of us agree, though I could be wrong), thus, people who support the criminalization of victimless acts are not reasonable.

Reasonable people think that allowing children to go uneducated harms us all, and thus, just as we might be "coerced" into paying for a police force, we should be coerced into paying for schools.

But the point can easily be made that in the absence of having to pay for public education - that is, in the absence of a public education system - the costs of private education would fall drastically (the free market at work), and people would have all sorts of extra money available that was previously taxed to pay for public schools. Result? Most people would still be able to afford an education.

The minute you open the door to government and the taxes necessary to pay it (and if there are no taxes there will be no police or prisons), you've lost.

There is a difference between taxes and user fees. Taxes are used to fund wealth transfer programs, while user fees force users to pay for what they use. Toll roads, for example.

[Kidlicious]

I think that individuals don't have a total obligation to society. Society, to me is like a tool. We all get to use it for our benefit, but requiring people to be obligated to society in an oppressive way isn't justified.

I don't agree with libertarians, but I think that any system that forces people to leave because they aren't treated fairly is not a just society.

[notyoueither]

Who 'uses' the armed forces?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Tingkai,
Actually, I went to private school most of my life, which I assure you, wasn't free. Given that, how is it fair to expect me to pay for an education twice?

How would it be fair for you to be a leech on society?

Your parent's paid for the school fees, not you so don't talk about paying twice. As for them, they had the money to pay those fees because they lived in an organised society, rather than one of chaos.

You receive benefits from living in a relatively highly educated society. Your teachers were likely educated in the public school system. If you own a business, you benefit from the free education provided to your workers. If your country did not have public education then it would not have a developed economy in which you can make lots of money.

You benefit from welfare, that ensures that people never reach a point where they must steal from the rich just to stay alive.

You can benefit from unemployment insurance that will protect you if you ever lose your job.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yet, the US is NOT overrun by the plague, and yet, our health care system is private - certainly private in comparison to European nations.

Life expectancy 2001

Hong Kong
(which has full public health coverage) 79.7
Canada 79.2
Australia 79
Germany 78
France 78.7
UK 77.9
US 76.9

See the trend. Almost all countries with extensive public health insurance have longer life expectancies than the US.

Originally posted by David Floyd
Which is a joke, because that won't exempt me from having to pay the same taxes - or greater ones - there.

But you're not complaining about taxes, you're complaining about spending on social services. You can easily move to countries where far less money is spent on social services, and as a result, tax rates are lower.

Of course, the problem for you is that every economically developed nation provides some form of social spending. Why? Because most people recognise that social spending is morally right and that they benefit from it.

[David Floyd]

che,

No, but many of us are, and we want to keep it. If you don't want to live in a democracy, don't force us to give up ours. Just go away.

I'm not necessarily against living in a democracy, I'm against the majority using the power of majority rule to force the minority to, for example, give them money. You want to vote in a President? Fine, I don't care - like I've said many times, I'm not picky about how you select a government. I'm only picky about what powers that government has.

nye,

Not at all. Build your code of laws on those as two principles. They just won't be enough, and they won't be paramount in any state that would work, or group for that matter since sometime before the chimps came down from the trees.

Again, why not? Because some people might end up starving? I concede that possibility, yet I don't concede that has any relevance.

BK,

Given your position in opposition to paying for social programs, which one of the 4 options would you pick?

Well, if I felt abortion was murder, as you do, I could not in good conscience pay for it. I don't feel that way, so we're gonna have to find a different example. Let's take the one we're discussion - Social Security.

My choice is to continue to pay into the system, to avoid going to prison, with the caveat that if I make a decision with a gun pointed at me, it isn't really an un-coerced decisioin. My choice is also to work to change it, and that includes discussions such as these, with the reasonable expectation that those who support the system can come up with something better than "If you don't like it, leave".

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by David Floyd
nye,

Again, why not? Because some people might end up starving? I concede that possibility, yet I don't concede that has any relevance.

Because a state will require someone to run it, others to protect it, and still others to maintain it. That will all cost taxes, and that's where you'll get into coercion that you will not approve of.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And that's not different from what I said earlier. They built on the base of family, or filial responsibility to form a social contract.

Social contract is an Englightenment term form ancient tradition. Throughout history people have recognised the benefits of "social programs". Long ago it might be a communal grain reserve. They would take care of a neighbour who had a stroke of bad luck, knowing that their neighbour would do the same for them. The community is the village

This local system broke down with the development of railroads and industrialisation. People moved to different places in search of work. Wealthy cities would be swamped by the unemployed and local social services couldn't handle the load. As a result, national programs developed. The community becomes the nation.

With the advent of cheap air travel, we see the need for international aid programs growing. If we don't help people in another country then we could easily be swamped with refugees. Mass media informs us of international disasters and we react by helping people in need. The community becomes the world.

[David Floyd]

nye,

Who 'uses' the armed forces?

Good point. That's why I oppose ALMOST every war ever fought by the US, and feel that our military spending is about 99% higher than it should be.

Tingkai,

[quote]Your parent's paid for the school fees, not you so don't talk about paying twice. As for them, they had the money to pay those fees because they lived in an organised society, rather than one of chaos.

What's your point? That doesn't make it fair for either them or me to pay twice for a service received once.

You receive benefits from living in a relatively highly educated society. Your teachers were likely educated in the public school system. If you own a business, you benefit from the free education provided to your workers. If your country did not have public education then it would not have a developed economy in which you can make lots of money.

I disagree. The US was a relatively rich nation prior to public education, as was the United Kingdom. Has an educated public helped increase our economic prosperity? Undoubtedly. Yet look at public schools today - I'd hardly call what you receive there an education. And as I've pointed out, in the absence of a public school system, most people could still receive an education. They'd pay for it - which they do already, in the form of taxes - but they'd also have more choice.

You benefit from welfare, that ensures that people never reach a point where they must steal from the rich just to stay alive.

That assumes that it is OK for people to steal in certain situations. I certainly don't grant that point.

You can benefit from unemployment insurance that will protect you if you ever lose your job.

Well that depends on a number of other circumstances, but I can also protect myself from unemployment by a)making sure that I am invaluable to my employer, b)saving, c)making contacts and keeping my options open. If I lost my job today - as long as I wasn't fired for cause, which would make me ineligible for unemployment, anyway - I'd have a number of options.

See the trend. Almost all countries with extensive public health insurance have longer life expectancies than the US.

Yet, the US has a longer life expectancy than many countries with full public health programs. The US doesn't have the world's highest life expectancy, but then again, that might also have something to do with the population and diversity of the US compared to that of Australia or Canada.

And again, for specialists, complicated procedures, etc., almost anyone who can afford it comes to the US. The US is known for having the best medical training, and the best medical universities. As far as I know, that's pretty much beyond question.

But you're not complaining about taxes, you're complaining about spending on social services. You can easily move to countries where far less money is spent on social services, and as a result, tax rates are lower.

Actually, I am complaining about being forced to fund programs that I derive little or no benefit for, and programs that I don't support. I'm complaining about my money being taken against my will. Toll roads, for example, are not coercive because I only pay for what I use - someone who uses a toll road every day pays more than someone who uses it once a month.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Who 'uses' the armed forces?

Maybe you don't benefit from the armed services, but you do benefit from society.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
FDR was such a clever man for keeping the welfare state going... we can't stop s. security now because the old timers already paid for it and it wouldn't be fair if they didn't get their money back.

Well I usually resent paying for freeloading previous generations and feel guilty about sticking coming generations with my bills, but if the coming generations are this ignorant then perhaps we should just stick it to them and live it up. The GI generation did it, and they're laughing all the way to the grave.

Bottom line:

Seniors are the wealthiest segment of the population.

The first generation to pay their own way with social security will be (most of) the baby boomers. The easily most screwed generation will be Generation X, at least so far. Travelling further down this same road might make the Millenials the greatest donor generation.

Health care for the elderly is both medically and fiscally the most wasteful possible use of health care money.


Solutions:

A good start would be to immediately shift Social Security from a ponzi scheme masquerading as a pension system to a welfare program for those who need it. We'll have to ween people from it, with those who have wasted more years paying into it requiring more of a payoff / buyout. This will require everyone to pay taxes to help shift this program, but we'll pay either way. At least this way people's retirements will actually be backed with assets at the end of the day, and the program will automatically adjust to demographic shifts without problems.