Social security is the govs way of saying you are too stupid to save your own $$

[myrkul]

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?

[1714000622]

1714000622

[1714000622]

1714000622

[enquirer]

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."

[Richy_T]

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.

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

[FirstAscent]

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.

+1000.

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

[myrkul]

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."

"[In] 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."

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

[TheButterZone]

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

[Beans]

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.

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?

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?

SS doesn't collect money by mugging people, it comes from the same people that receive it.

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:

I received it until I turned 18. Hopefully it was the money that came out of your check.

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

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Beans]

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.

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.

[TheButterZone]

Aesthetics and security theatre...

[myrkul]

If it was voluntary, people who needed it before they were 18 would not be able to get it.

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?

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.

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

People don't like to see old people homeless, I don't see anything wrong with that.

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.

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.

Read the booklet I suggested earlier, 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.