The Social Contract?

[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.