The Social Contract?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sikander
We could cut medical costs by 10-25% simply by reforming the tort system, and that is only one aspect of the economy that might benefit from reform.

It hasn't happened in any state where malpractice "reform" was instutited. The only thing that slowed costs in California was the legistlature limiting the amount that malpractice premious could increase. Premiums are still skyrocketting here in Florida, even though we're capped at a quarter mill for most damages.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
Ah, nope. As far as I know, Britian's pension system has a very healthy surplus, as does the US and Canadian systems.

AFAIK that is not the case in the UK. I'm not sure how exactly you have a surplus when pensions are paid by central government, so there is no specific 'pension fund'. However if you mean employer/private pensions, I believe I saw some articles on how big the shortfall is, that showed it wasn't a surplus. I could be wrong, but the problems and protests of people who haven't received as much as they were supposed to do somewhat support this.

Originally posted by Tingkai
Besides, pensions are a tiny percent of government spending. Even doubling pension payments would not bankrupt the government.

Where would the money come from? Education? The NHS? The government is, IIRC, £37 billion in the red this last tax year.

Originally posted by Tingkai
And if you say there will be too many old people in the future, well that's what they said in the 80s and then along came the so-called Y-generation that is as big as the baby boom generation. Predicting future populations is not a science

Given the 80s boom it's not surprising that there was a population boom, as one generally follows the other. Given the recession now, the lowering birth rates, and most importantly, the advances in science that are leading to longer life expectancy, I think we can say the number of pensioners will be increasing. Since we pay pensions from 65, and the life expectancy is 77, we pay it for an average of 12 years. Increasing life expectancy by 3-5 years, as advances seem to be promising (article in the Times last week, IIRC), that increases the payment from 12 to 15-17 years. We therefore have an increase of 25-40% per person, plus the increase in the number of people about to reach 65. We don't have that increase in birth rates. Therefore more and more of our GDP will be spent on pensions, until we reduce them. Whatever the number is at the moment, that is not sustainable.

I'm not saying we'll go bankrupt soon. I'm saying in 50-100 years, we will. Anything increasing as a percentage of GDP with no sign of slowing down is a concern, as it is unsustainable. Payments, as a % of GDP, cannot increase forever, thus they must be reduced somehow, in the long term.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Tingkai
He and other Libertarians ignoring the indirect benefits of social programmes and that is the fatal flaw in their ideology.

No, looking at David's posts, it seems he notices the increase in poor people, the problems with crime, etc. that that brings. However to some that's a price worth paying. I'm not a libertarian, however I do understand that it's not being a leech, it's not asking for something for nothing, it's asking for nothing for nothing, rather than something for something.

Try as I might argue utilitarianism, that people as a whole benefit from services, I can't think of a moral argument for why someone can't opt out of the tax and services system, when it comes to education and healthcare. If someone has wholly private education and healthcare, why should they pay for others. I can answer that practically, in terms of the benefit to society outweighing the burden to the rich, but I cannot think of a moral argument.

I believe in higher taxes and better services, but I also believe in a meritocracy and the ability to spend what you earn. I don't think charities fill the gap well enough, so I must insist on government taxation and spending to fill it, but I still have concerns with it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drogue
No, the reason it will be stopped is because it is unsustainable.

If it's unsustainable, you may as well start setting your elderly out on ice flows. Either your society has the capacity to care for your elderly or it doesn't, and whether that care is privately or publically funded makes no difference. Making pensions private won't magically make more young workers appear to work to support the elderly.

One may make the claim that government pensions are inefficient, but there is a reason why elderly poverty fell so dramatically, and SS is the reason. It's kinda like saying, no one gets malaria around here, why are we paying for this mosquito abatement program? Because, you idiot, the program is the reason the problem doesn't exist!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It hasn't happened in any state where malpractice "reform" was instutited. The only thing that slowed costs in California was the legistlature limiting the amount that malpractice premious could increase. Premiums are still skyrocketting here in Florida, even though we're capped at a quarter mill for most damages.

The problem is that both trial lawyers and insurance companies make out like bandits on malpractice. I'm not surprised that California had some success by capping insurance increases, as that starves the entry point of the money for both groups. I'm also not all that surprised that simply capping suits doesn't necessarily have the impact that people hoped. Most suits are settled out of court for significantly less than a quarter million. I'm also not surprised that legislatures haven't managed to close the door on this, as they are so awash with both trial lawyer and insurance company money.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If it's unsustainable, you may as well start setting your elderly out on ice flows. Either your society has the capacity to care for your elderly or it doesn't, and whether that care is privately or publically funded makes no difference. Making pensions private won't magically make more young workers appear to work to support the elderly.

I agree completely. With longer life expectancy, we need longer working life too. We can't, as a society, pay for 20+ years of life beyond working for every person. Therefore, if life expectancy rises from 77 to, say, 80, we need working life to rise from 65, to say, 67 or 68.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One may make the claim that government pensions are inefficient, but there is a reason why elderly poverty fell so dramatically, and SS is the reason. It's kinda like saying, no one gets malaria around here, why are we paying for this mosquito abatement program? Because, you idiot, the program is the reason the problem doesn't exist!

Exactly. The only sustainable way to care for our elderly is that when life expectancy increases, so does average retirement age. Efficiency gains can help pay for more retirement years, but the maximum will be reached at some point.

Since raising the retirement age is political suicide, phasing out the state part of pensions, meaning you save some percentage each year for life in a personal pension, then when you retire, that pays for your care, is the only way. The more you save, the earlier you can retire. Then for the poorest people, who have been on low income jobs, or some measure to find out people who couldn't afford to live and save, have something to help them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
chegitz -
Is that where they lived before Social Security?

Frequently, yes, before dying.

That wasn't an answer. Were the peasants living under feudalism free to keep the fruits of their labor or not?

Some were, most weren't. Yeoman peasants have always existed along side serfs, and just because they didn't have a lord to whom they owed labor doesn't mean that they had an easy life.

Bingo! But you used feudalism to dis-credit a ~modern nation without a welfare state.

Modern nation = welfare state

This master is called nature, my need for resources is not my employer's fault...

No, the master is called "boss." You have no choice over whether or not nature will rule over you.

Might make right ("democracy") is not the basis of morality

Sure it is. Morality is nothing more than a set of rules created by society. The form by which those rules are decided do not negate the fact that it is morality. It's not like morality exists free floating in the universe, to simply be plucked from the aether. It is created by humans.

Since y'all assume the moral authority to steal "legally" from others, why would you stop at some border?

You've no guarantees that people don't give. Why should I assume that the average person will get any semblence of a fair shake from the powerful in a libertarian society? Because you say so?

But you're making up these "obligations" to satisfy your needs - that is not a contract, it's authoritarian.

The obligations don't come for nothing. You receive soething back from society, protection, services, etc.

I'll remember that suggestion the next time you complain about Bush, maybe early in November?

I'm not the one saying it's not fair that a majority has the right to inflict their moral code on me.

Hey, people have always practiced slavery...

No they haven't. It's only about ten thousand years old as a human institution. Since we've been around for 3 million years, it's more of an aberation than a norm.

Can we speak for ourselves?

What, I'm incapable of reading or listening to libertarians and drawing conclusions from those arguements? It's rather probable that I've heard more libertarian arguments than you, since as I'm likely a bit older than you. And, unlike most people, I actually pay attention to politics and the various arguements. It's my aqua vita. Just cuz I take your aguments to their logic conclusion, a place you're afraid to go doesn't mean I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue
Since we pay pensions from 65, and the life expectancy is 77, we pay it for an average of 12 years. Increasing life expectancy by 3-5 years, as advances seem to be promising (article in the Times last week, IIRC), that increases the payment from 12 to 15-17 years.

On a related note,
In Canada, there's a debate about whether to change or completely eliminate the retirement age. This is being driven by longer life expectancy. As people live longer, they want to work longer.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In response to che saying most people think Libertarian morality is ****ed, David replied:

Not really.

I wonder David, if you can show me the last Libertarian candidate for President who scored over 1% of the popular vote? If not, then I'd say 99% of the population counts as 'most people'.

Second point I want to make is that the libertarian government is, IMO, exactly what Marx was thinking about when he wrote his Manifesto and Das Kapital. A society with no welfare will quickly seperate into a have and have-not situation, and frankly the have-nots would have revolted a long time ago. The one thing che is correct on is that if FDR hadn't come up with the New Deal, they would have been a revolt and the US of 2004 would resembled Sweden of 2004, if not worse.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drogue
Therefore, if life expectancy rises from 77 to, say, 80, we need working life to rise from 65, to say, 67 or 68.

There is a certain age beyond which it is highly impracticable to have people working. Both mental and physical abilities begin to deteriorate to the point where it's simply not worth paying a person to do the job.

Efficiency gains can help pay for more retirement years, but the maximum will be reached at some point.

This is what you anti-SSers don't get. It doesn't matter how much money there is. Even a fully funded pension system that magically required no input from current workers will still fail if there aren't enough young workers to support the economy as a whole. If one person is supporting two retirees, that is still the case whether the pension system is private or public. Either you have a demographics problem or you don't. Either there are enough people who are so productive that the economy can support a large non-working population or there aren't.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Drogue
No, looking at David's posts, it seems he notices the increase in poor people, the problems with crime, etc. that that brings. However to some that's a price worth paying. I'm not a libertarian, however I do understand that it's not being a leech, it's not asking for something for nothing, it's asking for nothing for nothing, rather than something for something.

The trap is to only look at direct benefits.

Originally posted by Drogue
Try as I might argue utilitarianism, that people as a whole benefit from services, I can't think of a moral argument for why someone can't opt out of the tax and services system, when it comes to education and healthcare.

I can give you the economic reason, and some would argue the moral reason.

If I opt out of tax system for healthcare, I will still receive benefits from the tax-funded system.

With public health care, people are healthier because they can afford to see a doctor. If people are healthier then I am less likely to get a contagious disease. I receive an indirect benefit that would be impossible to measure.

Meanwhile, let's say I get bitten by a mosquito carrying a contagious disease and as a result other people get sick. My illness will affect the public and create costs for the public system. By only looking at the benefits, we ignore the cost we cause society.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In response to che saying most people think Libertarian morality is ****ed, David replied:

Not really.

I wonder David, if you can show me the last Libertarian candidate for President who scored over 1% of the popular vote? If not, then I'd say 99% of the population counts as 'most people'.

In addition, I'd like to point out that while most people have a problem with welfare, it's because they see it as fundimentally screwed up, allowing welchers to spounge off the system while the working poor suffer. While the reailty is far from the image, it isn't that people don't want to help the poor. In poll after poll, when asked, "does the government have an obligation to help the poor," 60% majorities say yes.

Thus, the problem people have with welfare isn't that it's taking money out or their pocket to help poor people, but that they think it does a terrible job (which of course, is the point; a humane and useful welfare system would result in higher wages since poverty wouldn't be such a horrible fate).

Of course, when asked to vote to help people, Alabama voted no overwhelmingly, but, after all, we are talking about Alabama. Interestingly enough, states with better welfare tend to have better economies. More money circulating means more economic growth, but then, more economic growth means more money is available to give to the poor. I'm sure there's a feedback mechanism and which function is primary is difficult to say for sure.

[Ned]

Re: The Social Contract?

Originally posted by Berzerker
I was just watching Pete Petersen on MSNBC talking about how social programs are killing us and he put the "social contract" nonsense to rest. This social contract is an ambiguous (intentionally I believe) "justification" for a variety of social programs that we "owe" to others as part of this "contract".

The problem: social spending is bankrupting the country.

We're something like $20 trillion in debt because of future outlays for entitlement programs, etc... So Petersen "asked" his granddaughter if she agreed to adults leaving her with all the higher taxes to pay for what we wouldn't pay ourselves.

Greenspan has been saying this for some time and I have been including this in my posts as well. We cannot afford any new social programs because we cannot affort the ones we already have -- especially the most important one of all, social security.

We need to grow the economy, dramatically, in order to just to pay for our current commitments. This is why I support Bush, because he is the ONLY candidate whose primary focus is economic growth, rather than class warfare hate politics you will hear from the leftist candidates.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: The Social Contract?

Originally posted by Ned
Greenspan . . .

. . . is an idiot and has probably done more damage to the economy than any single person alive. This is the man that yanked the rug out from under the Clinton boom and the Bush recovery. He needs to be taken to a muddy field and shot.

[Ned]

I am not going to dispute what he did Che because I agree with you. I do dispute that his motives were political.