what you're really arguing against is democracy. We all vote for these socialist programs. My guy doesn't always win, and I usually don't like what all the other people think is good, but what's the alternative?Quote from logic_man:
All of your points boil down to "I decree that the Federal government shall take from some to give to others". It's mob rule.
Can't you just admit that rather than resort to ludicrous rationalizations?
What you are also enabing is for young low wage (and now you're bringing the middle wage earners in, too) workers to substitute other types of current consumption over retirement savings, which is another prioritization of consumption over savings which distorts capital formation. You're basically saying to them, "Go buy that flat screen because Uncle Sam's got your back for retirement". Is that really the most socially-beneficial message to send? If individuals had that 12%+ of income that they contribute and their employer contributes to SS, that would be more than adequate to fund a retirement account that they would OWN rather than one subject to shifting benefit rules and other program changes. Why don't you want poor people to own capital? You'd rather they depend on the whims of bureaucrats and politicians? How many of those poor could leverage that ownership into other things, such as starting their own business without the need for bank loans? You are a typical narrow-minded supporter of a "least common denominator" society where choices and freedom are circumscribed to narrow options that simple-minded people can handle. Yet, I'd be shocked to find that you consider yourself anything but a broad-minded person. You just don't know what you don't know.
Please find me even 5% of workers who remain "low wage" their entire lives. Do these people never upgrade their skills? Do they never get promoted in their workplace? They just do the same menial work for 50 years? Even a guy who starts on the frying station at a fast food place gets promoted to manager some day.
As for my "short-sighted" views, you may recall that I was the one saying that programs like SS and Medicare, which distort individual incentives to save, should only be put in place if they can be shown to be sustainable for centuries. Yeah, I'm soooo short-sighted. We know what works for centuries and it's private ownership of capital, i.e. private retirement savings.
Quote from oldtime:
what you're really arguing against is democracy. We all vote for these socialist programs. My guy doesn't always win, and I usually don't like what all the other people think is good, but what's the alternative?
Until you get a dictator made in your own image you are stuck with mob rule.
I guess a better question would be, "Have peoples spirits become so broken that they will vote for their own interest against the common good?"Quote from logic_man:
I'm arguing on behalf of options. I'm not asking for anyone to "dictate". Quite the opposite, I'm asking to decide for myself.
In a republic, property rights take precedence over voting outcomes. We are a republic.
This shouldn't be a matter of "my guy vs. your guy". Both our guys need to agree to certain ground rules or the game is up. Governments cannot long survive when half the population finds them illegitimate. Legitimacy is the most important element of any government and forms the spiritual foundation of the connection between the individual and the state. Mob rule is not legitimate in the minds of any thinking man, even one who is currently in sync with what the mob wants.
Quote from oldtime:
I guess a better question would be, "Have peoples spirits become so broken that they will vote for their own interest against the common good?"
oh, are we going to start that crap again?Quote from hughb:
According to the World Bank, the USA is the 4th most business friendly country in the world. Haiti is the least business friendly. Just as an optimist sees the glass half full where a pessimist sees it half empty, you can look at the USA and say it's unfrienldy to do business when a customer can spill coffee in her lap and sue the restaurant that made it for millions of dollars and win. After all, the clumsy coffee drinker would not have gotten a penny if it had happened in Haiti.
It's socialism that gives us police, fire, army, navy and a good network of roads. It's the poor regulation that allows your clumsy customer to take all of your money via the courts.
Quote from oldtime:
I guess a better question would be, "Have peoples spirits become so broken that they will vote for their own interest against the common good?"
I know you're trying, but until you can convice the mob to think like you, you are stuck with them.Quote from logic_man:
Well, certainly the people who would take office to administer to the public good shouldn't tempt the people by pandering to their narrow interests over the public good. Otherwise, we may as well be governed by random selection, which I actually am in favor of, as well as having co-Presidents, each with absolute veto power, to ensure, in the first case, that no one stays in office for multiple terms and, in the second place, that only laws which have broad support get passed over the veto power.
We'd see a lot of this mob rule crap go away quickly.
Quote from hughb:
It's socialism that gives us police, fire, army, navy and a good network of roads. It's the poor regulation that allows your clumsy customer to take all of your money via the courts.
Quote from oldtime:
I know you're trying, but until you can convice the mob to think like you, you are stuck with them.
The one that cracked me up was William Buckley, "I would rather have nine people picked at random from the phone book sitting on the Supreme Court than nine Harvard graduates."