Eliminate Social Security - Dont 'Privitize it'

[Ming]

Or.. that younger person could be a serial killer or drug pusher... and in the long run, kill or harm more people that the 90 year old who develops a cure for a disease

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I'm inclined to agree with you, but in a lifeboat survival situation where you needed to get rid of one of them . . . it's still be a hard choice.

1) if the younger person will live longer, then you save the younger person because there's more life you'll be saving. And take it to the extreme case - if the older person has cancer and will die the next day, and the young person is healthy and will live for decades, which do you save? The young person.

2) If, by saving the younger person (who's strong, etc.) you are then able to save MORE people (because of his help), then you save the younger person.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming
Or.. that younger person could be a serial killer or drug pusher... and in the long run, kill or harm more people that the 90 year old who develops a cure for a disease

What do you think is most likely, Ming? If I post this, you MAY go into a rage and kill people, but it doesn't mean that possibility should factor prominently in my decision whether to post this.

And this cinches it: which society is preferable, 1000 90-year-olds or 1000 20-year-olds?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

wow ming has been missing the boat lately on a lot of issues. i think hes slowing down.

[chequita guevara]

That's cuz he's old and we threw him overboard to keep Kuci.

[Japher]

And this cinches it: which society is preferable, 1000 90-year-olds or 1000 20-year-olds?

What does that have to do with value? If your goal is to ring someone out for money than I would rather have the 1000 90-year olds, preferably those who are hooked on slot tournies.

I think, somewhere within the argument of young vs. old the real argument was lost. Young people may have more to offer society in terms of the years ahead of them, and yes that does have SOME value. However, that is not value that can be realized, especially since it is all potential. Older ppl intrinsically have more real value, in general, than do younger ppl (in terms of wealth). And from the looks of todays youth, this isn't going to change any time soon.

Money spent extending the life of the 90-year-old goes into a black hole, never to be seen again.

What if money is spent extending the life of many 90 year-olds such that the average life span increases to 110 instead of what 70, like today? Would ppl still retire at 59? Would we need to start paying out SS at 64, or could we push back that date? What value do we get out of saving the live of 20 year olds beyond their future potential?

Which is more valuable; old or young? Neither. Each has their own worth. It's like buying a one of a kind painting vs. a one of a kind statue.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Japher
What does that have to do with value? If your goal is to ring someone out for money than I would rather have the 1000 90-year olds, preferably those who are hooked on slot tournies.

I meant a society composed ENTIRELY of 1000 90-year-olds. It simply would die out in much less than a year.

I think, somewhere within the argument of young vs. old the real argument was lost. Young people may have more to offer society in terms of the years ahead of them, and yes that does have SOME value. However, that is not value that can be realized, especially since it is all potential. Older ppl intrinsically have more real value, in general, than do younger ppl (in terms of wealth). And from the looks of todays youth, this isn't going to change any time soon.

Hm?

Most of the potential of younger people is realized. Older people (who have retired) have no value beyond the intrinsic value of human life. Their wealth doesn't disappear when they die. A young person's potential labor does.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That's cuz he's old and we threw him overboard to keep Kuci.

How could we be that stupid?

[Kuciwalker]

[Ming]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
wow ming has been missing the boat lately on a lot of issues. i think hes slowing down.

I think it's others that are missing the boat with their broad sweeping generalizations...

The ole argument that young people are more valuable than old people is just pure crap, and discrimination at it's worst.

The point I'm trying to make is that an individuals worth to society should be judged on an individual basis, and not based solely on something like age. Again, a 90 year old doctor who is working on research is far more valuable than some 20 year old gang banger who will only hurt other people and probably be dead before he turns 21. Which would you prefer... 1000 20 year old gang bangers high on drugs shooting up the community or 1000 90 year old researchers working to better humanity... You make the call

[Kuciwalker]

The point I'm trying to make is that an individuals worth to society should be judged on an individual basis, and not based solely on something like age. Again, a 90 year old doctor who is working on research is far more valuable than some 20 year old gang banger who will only hurt other people and probably be dead before he turns 21. Which would you prefer... 1000 20 year old gang bangers high on drugs shooting up the community or 1000 90 year old researchers working to better humanity... You make the call

If you have the resources to discriminate individually without actually decreasing the effectiveness of what you're doing (by using up some of those resources), then of course you should do so.

[Agathon]

This isn't a lifeboat choice.

We live in the most productive era in history. We can easily afford to keep people in reasonable health and ensure them a decent retirement income until they die.

The idea that we suddenly can't afford it is just false. If we remove funding for welfare programs, then individuals will be left to prop up their elderly parents, which will annoy the hell out of them and their elderly parents.

The real problem is, as usual, that people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not as if there is a lack of wealth in our society, it's that people would like to spend theirs on consumer goods and hope that someone else pays for the upkeep of the elderly.

Welfare programs are cheaper for the vast majority of people than taking care of their parents themselves. They give older people the dignity of their own income, which they have paid for by their lifetime's work.

If you want to replace this with private retirement schemes, then go ahead; but we will end up paying a lot more individually down the road when grandma gets thrown out of her apartment and turns up at your house.

What are you going to do? Tell her to piss off?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The point I'm trying to make is that an individuals worth to society should be judged on an individual basis, and not based solely on something like age. Again, a 90 year old doctor who is working on research is far more valuable than some 20 year old gang banger who will only hurt other people and probably be dead before he turns 21. Which would you prefer... 1000 20 year old gang bangers high on drugs shooting up the community or 1000 90 year old researchers working to better humanity... You make the call

first of all, there is nothing wrong with taking drugs. they should be legal, so your negative look at shootter uppers is wrong.
now, i dont know any 90 year old doctors working on research. do you? now, can you really find 1000 90 year old doctors working on research? and even if you could, there would be no way to apply it, since they would all be dead in 5 years anways.

since taking drugs doesnt mean instant death, your homie gangbangers would survive longer, and thus would be better off than your 90 year old research doctor who i dont even think exists.

[Kontiki]

Damn right. Hit the bricks, ya old bag!



EDIT: re Aggie's last line.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ming

Again, a 90 year old doctor who is working on research is far more valuable than some 20 year old gang banger who will only hurt other people and probably be dead before he turns 21. Which would you prefer... 1000 20 year old gang bangers high on drugs shooting up the community or 1000 90 year old researchers working to better humanity... You make the call

If I remember right, the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr is still alive and he must be pushing 100...