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.