Bitcoin Forum

The whole idea of social security appalls me. The idea that they take some of our money to save it for us. And in reality they just go and dip into those funds to spend at will. It's stupid.

Actually, it's not stupid. I'm sure there are some hundred million or so that are thankful that their parents receive a social security check.

Over half of America's budget goes into Social Security and Welfare.

To contrast, 2% is spent on education, another 2% on advances in medicine and science.  Anyone who finds this agreeable is the end result of a nation whose budget for education is 2%, while socialism, warfare and debt interest make up almost the entirety of the rest.

"thanks govn't for giving me my money back and saving it for me" . Meanwhile the government hopes that you die before you get what you put into it back out.

When you hit hard times, and draw upon your savings to get by, and then find your savings depleted, I'm sure you'll sing a different tune. The irony, of course, is despite your claim of not being short-sighted about saving your money,  you actually are too short-sighted to anticipate what can really happen.

And when the Social security system is revealed for the ponzi it is, and the coffers are dry, that tune will come to a grinding, screeching halt.

I guess I like the idea of personal responsibility and the freedom that comes with it. What right even does the government have to take some of your money and "save" it for you? If someone is too stupid not to save part of their paycheck then that's their fault.  If people want to develop a form of old people insurance then it should be something that is voluntary. Whoever wants in can get in. But you shouldn't force people.

when i hit hard times, i'll blow my brains out.  and give my bitcoins to my mom.  fick social security

The only difference between social security and a ponzi scheme is that a ponzi scheme is voluntary.

Your views and opinions are not very well articulated, nor do they factor in a lot of conditions which you, in your zeal, fail to acknowledge, or more likely, simply are too blind to see. Let me summarize how I see you:

You: "Drrruhh! Can't force me! Uuuunhhh!"

I have news for you. Force is a component of both nature and society. It compels, guides and influences everybody.

Now, regarding Social Security: in order for you to discuss it, you first need to understand it. Start with the fact that Social Security is not the equivalent of a savings plan. At the very least, please, understand that. Once you've done that, you can, should, and will stop equating it to you saving money.

Yes, Social Security is not a savings plan. It's more like forced insurance. They're stealing your money and giving it to someone else. It requires an ever-expanding base of payers in order to support the payouts. There is another activity which matches that description... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme)

At least you're intelligent enough to understand it more closely resembles insurance. It makes more sense to discuss it in that context rather than as savings.

Now, regarding the forcing, auto insurance is forced as well. A good foundation for discussion would be why insurance is forced in the first place.

A better foundation would be discussing why anything is forced. If it's important and necessary, people will do it themselves. And if they do not, the consequences should be on them, not the rest of us.

$$$ is not the measure of the value of life or intelligence  - if people are living freely on social security without wasting 8 hours a day helping shareholders make a profit doing some pointless repetitive meaningless task wasting their single chance of existence, then they are clearly cleverer than the rest of us.

Old people on the street are consequences on society, not just the individual.

You say the consequences should be on them. Note your use of the word 'should'. That word pretty much sounds like a demand. A demand is pretty much the suggestion of force. Now we're back to square one. Forcing. You seem to be in agreement with me actually. In order to put the burden on them, we should force them to pay over their lifetime.

I suppose they would block up traffic. Well, that's what street cleaning services are for.


Note your use of the phrase "pretty much." That means "not exactly."

In fact, it's actually the opposite. I refuse to force others to accept the burden. That places the burden on the people who failed to plan by default. No force needed. All is actually needed is to refuse force.

You were doing so well with regard to comprehension. Now you're regressing. Go back and reread my post(s).

I understood what you were saying perfectly. You're just wrong.

Refusing to pay for someone else's retirement is not the same as using force against them.

Please remember that, as an insurance/Ponzi scheme, one's SSI is not paid for with one's own money. It's paid for with other people's money, which is taken from them by force. If it were my own money coming back to me, that would make it a savings account.

If we stop using force, that will shift the burden back to the retirees.

Force aside, let's review how insurance works: other people's misfortune is paid for by all insurance subscribers. Do you understand that? I assume you do. If you don't, go study the principles of insurance.

Once you've done that, we can move on to force. As you know, buying automobile insurance is forced. I know you disagree with that concept, but it's reality. Can you think of other ways in which society forces things? I think you can. Please enumerate some.

Yes, I understand that. As long as it's voluntary, I've no problem with it.
 
Do your own homework.

Saying "That's the way it is" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."  We have discussion to determine what is best.

Also, forced insurance is not universal.  In New Hampshire, for instance, car insurance is not legally required, yet 90% of people have it.  If you don't, and you crash and injure someone, you are liable for the damage caused, as you should be.  So, most people buy insurance.

So 49 states get it right, and one gets it wrong. Or let me guess, 49 states are wrong, and 1 is right? Seems like you are in the minority in your thought processes.

So let's see...

A non wealthy motorist without insurance hits another non wealthy motorist without insurance and the guy who gets hit incurs huge hospital bills and is maimed for life.

By your logic, it's okay to not have insurance, thus it is not forced. Therefore, both motorists were equally 'okay' in their decision making process. Yet the results clearly are not okay, nor equal, are they?

No seatbelt law, either... but people still wear those, don't they?


Just wanted to pull this bit of wisdom out to highlight it. I may want to quote it again.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

To paraphrase, saying "That's what everyone else is doing" does not equate to "That's what's right" or "That's what's best."


The result is the uninsured motorist is now liable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_(financial_accounting)) for those bills, and probably for the disability. That's both OK, and equal. (Well, equal after the liability is settled.)

True. But we moved towards mandating it, not the other way around.


In your starry eyed view of libertarian views, you completely missed the content of my post. Being liable does not equate to compensation.

Eventually, you could expect that people would be concerned that there is a small chance that an accident, moment of inattention or distraction, or error while operating a large, potentially dangerous machine at high speeds could cause damages that are more than one is willing to risk.  Someone with financial experience could seize this opportunity and offer to cover people's risk for a premium.

I think we all agree that insurance is a good thing.  We disagree that government should force us to use it.

Singling out car insurance mandates as an argument for forced-government purchases looks good on the surface and is more easily defensible since in the United States the State owns the roads and has laws which require doctors to treat people who are injured regardless of their ability to pay.  In the absence of a culture of personal responsibility, its easy to see how these laws exist, and why.

What is unseen are the benefits of a society with individual responsibility which is free from coercion.

"We"? I don't remember doing anything of the sort. Unless you're trying to equate yourself with the state legislatures? Or are you a lobbyist for the insurance agencies? I don't see how you're including yourself in the group of people who "moved toward mandating [insurance]".

But regardless, especially when government is concerned, rising popularity does not equate to better fitness, either.


No, it doesn't. However, having that liability settled does.

No. It doesn't. You can't get blood from a stone. You're fucking stupid.

You don't understand the meaning of "settled liability" do you? It means "paid off."

And just because someone is poor, does not mean they can't pay their debts. They'd have to be dead busted broke, and what good would requiring someone who is that broke pay for insurance do, anyway? As you said, can't get blood from a stone.

You're essentially saying that society is the group that must pay in the event of one person's lack of personal responsibility affecting another person.  I disagree.  I say that people should acquire insurance on their own free will that would protect them from the lack of personal responsibility of others.

A great example of this is called "Uninsured Motorist" coverage.

Granted, one could certainly argue that the cost of this insurance would go up quite readily in the absence of a requirement to have motorist insurance, but at least people would have the freedom to choose what risks they want to take in that regard.

Also, bankruptcy is a cop out.  If you owe someone money, you pay it, even if it takes the rest of your life to do so.

You're finally starting to see the light. But let me make it really clear for you:

Someone with no money and little income is unlikely to ever come close to paying off hospital bills and compensation for permanent maiming, severed limbs, or 3rd degree burns, etc., even in ten, twenty or fifty years. Meanwhile, the victim needs the money now.

You are so ridiculously naive, it's pathetic.

Insurance is society paying. Best to make uninsured motorist coverage mandatory if insurance isn't.

You're arguing that people should do this and that, without understanding the true meaning and context of 'should'.

Insurance is society paying BY CHOICE.  Nothing needs to be mandatory.  If a person can't pay their medical bills, they don't get served by the medical community.  They can turn to charity and other help groups if they like, at that point.

The rest of the thread seems to be going OT.

I agree partially with the OP though, but think of it different. It's not just stupid, it's a Ponzi scheme. The first recipients never paid into it. The younger generations pay for the previous workers. That worked great when we had baby boomers in the work force. Now, the ponzi scheme is collapsing.

Nor are they going to be able to afford the premiums for a policy that would do so. So all mandating that they must does, is make another class of criminal.

I understand we aren't going to solve the on-going debate between collectivism and individualism in this thread, or push understanding of the difference between society and government.  However, it is enjoyable to debate the details and refine our understanding, until it resorts to this.

Yeah, he gets frustrated that we don't immediately bow to his wishes, or the "greater societal good," and so proceeds to drop insults, thereby admitting defeat.

To sum it up, we have several fine thinkers in this thread.

And then this one...

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m27z329S401qkp3qu.gif

If he used that as his avatar, it might be worth taking him off ignore.

More like your posting is stupid. A lot of people don't save enough, it's hard to know what is enough. SS is not just retirement anyway, I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

Would you be so proud had the money to raise you come from muggings?

So in other words, you receive it, ergo you are in favor of it.

That's great, but, if your only point is to say that he's stupid, I have bad news.  Mostly about pots, and kettles, and the color black.

It resorts to that because that is what is displayed by the forum participant on the receiving end of those observations. How many libertarian dimwits does it take to argue against one person in opposition to libertarian views, anyway? Clearly, a lot, all apparently victims of groupthink, as well. Such independent thinkers you are - not.

Pretty much :)

I never understood people that spend more time insulting the person they are responding to than actually progressing the argument.

Perhaps because the stupid person needs to be made aware of the stupidity of his claims and/or statements?

If that's your goal you are doing a poor job. People don't respond well to emotional and personal attacks--it doesn't make them realize they hold stupid beliefs but usually only hardens their position. I know from experience because I used to believe some stupid things. It wasn't ad hominems that changed my mind, it was rational discussion and friendly discourse which prompted further research of my own.

Are you aware of the history between myrkul and I? Probably not. Don't make our fight yours.

And have your insults ever done more than display your inability to discuss rationally the topics in which you are emotionally invested?

No, I think not.

Actually, my insults of you were and are a direct reflection of the absurdity and naivete of your views. You made a statement implying that being held financially liable for damages equates to actual compensation to victims. Change your tune, and I'll change my observations of you.

That's quite misleading, as federal government has very little role in funding education, and 2% is too high already, it should be zero. Education is funded by local property tax and state budget.

Insults do not change minds. Rational discussion does. Prove my ideas wrong, and I will discard them. Insult me or them, and I will understand that you are incapable of doing more than flailing around on the ground like a child.

You deserve insulting simply by your demand that I prove your claim wrong. I don't need to prove your claim wrong, as that is work for me that I didn't sign up for.

Honest questions: Do you honestly get off insisting something that is obviously not true just because it fits your political belief? Do you actually believe the crap you say?

Simple fact: victims are not always compensated just because the courts say someone needs to pay them. And if they are compensated, it's rarely in a timely matter, nor in full.

Then I must research more about this subject :P I'm in the middle of a fed gov class but they don't teach you everything...

No doubt, the majority of humans on this Earth are indeed too stupid for such things.

You seem to want me to change my mind. If that is your desire, You'll have to show me that I'm wrong. If you don't want to put out that effort, I suggest you just leave me be. That is, after all, all I desire, to be left alone.

What is it that I have said that is "obviously not true"?


True, which is what insurance is for.

Fun fact: 13% of Texas drivers have no insurance (this makes them criminals).
In Mississippi, 26% of drivers have no insurance (again, this makes them criminals).
In New Hampshire, 9% of drivers have no insurance. Unlike the other states, this does not make them criminals....

Why should you save when you can rob other people, physically... And that is a valid solution model for individual in some ways. Not ethical, but still valid.

I think social security as price paid for stability and general safety.  Other option would be to kick out everyone who can't provide for themselves and are risk to others, but there is certain lack of places to place them and prisons can also be considered to be social security for prisoners, they aren't penal colonies were prisoners are set to make living for themselves...

I don't disagree with the current system not being very good.

On other hand I think that some system is needed. I'm probably a socialist, but I believe it's best for government to provide the minimum living standards for individuals. 

That's all well and good, but those resources have to come from somewhere. The question is, are they collected voluntarily, or is it mandatory?

You're right I probably am not. Did he leave you for another man? That's unfortunate, but doesn't change the validity of my points. If you're here to change someone's mind you are going about it the wrong way. If you're here simply to fling poo, well, that's your choice. It just seems a poor one to me.

Mandatory. If you want to live in system, you play by common rules. On other hand no one should be stopped from moving to place not controlled by that system. Not that the system having control is a good thing either and without problems. Still it's only way to prevent some other problems. Whole thing is obviously very complicated and no good solutions have yet emerged.

The problem is that there isn't any place for libertarians and certain thinking people just now.

OK, and when all the people who don't want to pay for everyone else have left, and you're left with a population consisting mostly of people who can't (or simply decide not to) provide for themselves, what then?

Where do the resources come from to feed all those hungry people?

The department of homeland security just ordered 450 million bullets. Perhaps its some elaborate plan to steal the 2 trillion dollars sitting in social security  :P

Here's the truth about social security: it was invented back when people didn't live very long, and you were expected to die around 5 years after you received it.  Because SS is locked into this system, and people are now living much, much longer, it is now sucking the nation dry.  SS was phenomenal back when the baby boomers were still young men, and you had all these wonderful young men working hard and putting lots of cash into SS.  And now they're old and getting the same SS they paid for, except the tables are turned; instead of a giant amount of young people supporting a small amount of dying old people, you now have a ton of longer-lasting old people eating the cash of a dwindling work force.  It's not right, it's not wrong, it's simply unsustainable.  It implies there would be MORE young people being born and working to feed into SS for the baby boomers, but it just isn't happening, and cannot happen: the economy is not growing to match this rate.  It is dying, and SS is a good chunk of the blame.

What would still be left is land which could sustain certain amount of population or resources to buy food.  And really why would people leave, how often it happens unless there is massive downfall of society? Generally it seems that majority will bear the payments and stay instead of moving out. Majority pays to minority for their own protection. If they don't they have to either deal with minority in other ways or minority will deal with them.  Most modern societies seem to be able to afford this.

Would everyone leave? Has that happened in stable conditions?

Land has to be worked. By whom?


Of course they would. And it has happened all the time when such changes are implemented. Even here in the US, tax rates changing tends to move people around, and especially businesses.

Let's posit two people, Adam and Bob. Adam is rich, productive, and smart. Bob may be smart, but he's neither rich nor productive. The nation they live in announces a minimum living standard, to be granted to all citizens. To pay for this, a new tax must be introduced. Anyone making more than the minimum must pay this tax.

Bob is happy, he makes less than the minimum, so he now gets that minimum, no matter what he does. He may even quit his job, and just live on that minimum. Why not, after all, if he's going to get it anyway?

Adam is not so happy. The new tax is a percentage of his income, and a pretty hefty one, at that, with what he's making. Being rich, of course, he can afford to move to another country, one without that tax. So he does.

For an example: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/gerard-depardieu-quits-france-because-high-taxes-173222852.html

Money is not the only thing people care about.

No, it isn't. But it is what lets them get those other things.

Unless you're trying to tell me that people who have sweated, and slaved, scrimped, and saved, to get to where they are, would then stick around and support the rest of the population out of the goodness of their hearts?

And if so, why then make such support mandatory? Would they not do it anyway?

People do moan. But most don't go very far. It all really depends on levels of support. If you get double or triple by working most will work. Also for most people moving away will likely lower the quality of life. And some might even be able to look further than their current situation. By being in this system they know that they will get same support if they need it.

Mandatory system gets rid of free riders, or atleast prevents real issues with those.

Sorry, man, my answer to you was censored (freedom of speech, my ass). I basically agree with your statements.

Can you guarantee that those who do work will get triple what those who do not do? Even after the taxes for the dole are taken out? And still make the minimum level a survivable amount?

Can you make the reduction in quality of life produced by such a tax smaller than that suffered from moving to a nearby country?

And I'm sorry to say, making the system mandatory does not discourage free riders. Rather, it gives everyone three options to choose from: Stay, and work to support everyone else as well as yourself, Leave, and work to support yourself, or stay, and be supported. Most will choose the last two options. At least a voluntary system adds the option of "Stay, and occasionally support others"

There's a reason socialist countries have traditionally had closed borders.

I used to for college and a new car, but not sure what anything has to do with muggings... SS is about distributing money to people who cannot earn it themselves. If you don't like it, you can always move to some crap hole country that doesn't mind if you starve or go homeless.

I'm sorry, let me rephrase. Would you be so proud, had the money you used to go to college and buy a new car had come from muggings?

Oh, and to explain what SSI has to do with mugging, think about where the money comes from. If it is not OK to use a gun to take money from people, why is it OK to use a politician? And if it is OK to use a politician to take money from people, why is it not OK to use a gun?

Tired old argument that doesn't really hold up. Like someone else said, go somewhere else then. Somalia awaits. And don't let the back door hit you on the way out. Need help? Maybe you could solicit some donations here to help you get some coach airfare to Somalia.

Maybe if you say that enough, someone will actually believe it.

Maybe.

Don't hold your breath.

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it. Should kids feel bad for going to public schools? I don't know what kind of close minded, dumb ass views you have. But they seem pretty damn ridiculous from where I'm sitting. 35% of the people in the world don't even have toilets, I'm betting those folks have just the kind of government's you wish we had.

So, they take money, and then give (some of) it right back? If that's the case wouldn't it be more efficient to let people keep the money?

And didn't you say:

So doesn't that mean it doesn't come from the same people that receive it, that it comes from other people?

Where the hell is my SS?  I haven't seen a dime.

And you never will, unless you enter into a cold war with the government, like my parents are having to wage every fucking month.

Sooner or later, the young people will get pissed off and say "Enough".

Then the old people will say "But what about all the money I paid in"

And the young people will say "That was your responsibility to put a stop to that when *you* were young. You failed to protect your income to provide for your own future."

And those that see this coming will be prepared and live comfortably

And those that hoped to live off the backs of others in the face of brutal demographics...

Government is not society.

It's high society, where you can violate civil rights and common laws with practically absolute impunity.

A society without any social security at all is not a futuristic/libertarian concept at all, but today's reality for a large part of Earth population. You are old/sick/stupid/have no money - you die. Very simple and good from natural selection point of view. The problem is those societies are universally much worse off than societies with social security. So the empirical evidence strongly suggest in favor of social security.

I think you may be suffering from sample bias. Where are all those societies with no social security?

http://beta.globalmarch.org/news/201110.php
"Taking into account those who are not economically active, it is estimated that only about 20 per cent of the world’s working age population and their families have effective access to comprehensive social protection systems."

"n sub-Saharan Africa, only 5 per cent of the working-age population is effectively covered by contributory programmes, while this share is about 20 per cent in Asia, the Middle East and North Africa."

Cause... effect... yadda yadda...

+1000.

Someone else finally calls myrkul out with his meme repeating nonsense about muggings.

So, third-world countries. Yup, definitely sample bias. Got any developed nations to show me?

So, if a country does not have social security, it's a third-world country, and if those third-world countries were to implement social security, they would become first-world countries within a generation?

/rolleyes

Umm, no. That means I didn't pay it then, I pay it now. And if no one didn't pay it like your suggesting then where do the kids get it from? It's just a reality that not everyone can save what they need or predict how long they will live. It's hard to argue with someone who think no government would be a good idea. Sorry but we are not going back to the days of being raped and pillaged. It's called progress, and you should be damn happy about it.

If "no one didn't pay it," then everyone would be paying, wouldn't they? College education well spent, I see. I think you meant "If no one payed it." That's not exactly what I'm suggesting. What I'm suggesting is that it be voluntary, like other forms of insurance.

And I see you also conflate "government" with "provision of security." That's sort of like conflating "the power company" with "provision of electricity." Security, that service currently mostly provided by government monopolies, can most definitely be provided by other entities, and that provision need not be paid for in such a mafia-like way. This is not a new idea. Gustave de Molinari suggested it well over a century and a half ago (http://library.mises.org/books/Gustave%20de%20Molinari/The%20Production%20of%20Security.pdf).

If it was voluntary, people who needed it before they were 18 would not be able to get it. Older people would most likely still receive money though some other method without every paying in. People who need to save the most would probably opt out. Forcing them to pay is the only way they will save anything for retirement. People don't like to see old people homeless, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Government does provide security and power companies do supply power. Not sure how you think a county could be defended without a government but good luck with that.

Aesthetics and security theatre...

You mean they couldn't sign up to get money, and then pay it back later, like you're doing? Or failing that, their parents?

So, like the OP says, you consider people too stupid to save for their own retirement.

Nor do I. It's when they care so much that they're willing to pay other people's money that it starts to trouble me.


Read the booklet I suggested earlier (http://library.mises.org/books/Gustave%20de%20Molinari/The%20Production%20of%20Security.pdf), and you'll see that While the government does provide security, like the power company supplies electricity, those are not the only way to go about that.