- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I used a similar argument with a progressive journalist who used to be a Representative at the state level (called the General Assembly in CT). We were discussing my libertarian views and he criticized me for driving on government roads. My answer was that I live in the world and government roads are all that is available. The only possible way to leave my property and go to work is on public roadways.
He was completely satisfied with that answer.
I introduced similar reasoning when our state Libertarian Party, of which I was on the SCC for many years, was discussing whether or not Libertarian candidates should take public matching funds. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "No, that violates libertarian principles so I won't accept public funds." Always eager to be the contrarian I offered, "Libertarian candidates are playing a game where the rules were created by others. If we insist on playing by different rules, essentially saying we're playing our own game, then we may never get elected. A principled Libertarian may refuse public funds, but a Libertarian who accepts them is only recognizing that to win the game we have to be playing the same one as our opponents."
The SCC left it that we would not object if LP candidates accepted public matching funds. To date the choice has been academic because no candidate in our state has ever qualified. My state's LP has also advocated for complete repeal of public funding. As you could predict, those currently in power simply laugh. Why would they ever shut off the money-spigot?
Nevertheless, most people do contribute money so it's not unreasonable to consider that money "yours" and be perfectly happy to have it returned to you. What most people don't realize is that they will receive their own contributions back after a very short time and all subsequent payments are other people's money. Even if you were to tack on interest equivalent to what you could have earned from US Treasurys during your working years you'd recover your own money after a short while.
If the funds were invested in the market as has been proposed the return would be much greater and would in fact be the investors. In addition the principle could be left as an inheritance for your children or your cat and dog if you wished.
it's easy enough to use a lifelong contribution to figure out the returns after 40 years of work.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Yes, but they aren't and I was discussing the false notion that Social Security payments are simply a return of money that you already paid into the system.
With regard to your suggestion, who would do the investing? If the money were left in the Soc Sec system then government would do the investing and there is no way they would do other than invest in government debt.
If you want the individual to control the investing then we must scuttle Soc Sec and allow people to invest or not invest, however they see fit, and to manage the investments themselves within their private IRA.
Beside the point, but ultimately important, is that the general public is completely unqualified to manage their retirement savings and most of them would end up with very little to show for their efforts. But that doesn't mean it isn't the correct course of action.
Under the Bush Administration the plan was to offer two avenues for the funds now going into Social Security. One was to set up a system to invest in the market and that could have been by allowing the same amounts to be handled by competing investment companies. Mutual funds certainly would be a better option than social Security as it now exists. the other avenue would have been to continue to allow social Security as it now exists. you are of course correct that if government handles the funds it will be a disaster as it now is. If private industry did what social security does, the administrators would all go to jail. SS is the perfect example of a Ponzi scheme. Any Ponzie scheme depends on new investers to increase in order to pay the original investors. At the beginning of SS life expectancy was about 2 years after retirement, now it's closer to 18 and obviously it's a system that can't help but become insolvent.
this option of two avenues for the workers funds still are available, but then the politicians couldn't steal the money to use for their own vote buying schemes. by the way, those schemes are being perpetrated by both parties and are the greatest bank robbery ever committed.
As far as your comment regarding the question of "allowing" people to invest their own money, it's not governments place to make that choice in the first place. On the other hand, many people are perfectly capable of creating and managing their own IRA's and other retiremnt plans.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
Yes. I think we should just ignore this claim.
Months ago I saw a cartoon that mocked a conservative. By his bed was a gun, a Bible and a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Comrade citizens, stay away from those!
And you're right: if it's our money to begin with, we should draw on Social Security. The test seems to be: (a) do you oppose the overextended State, and (b) do you still put in more than you draw out?
Good work, Scott!
#5 - Greenspan spoke positively of her in his book, but who cares.
#11 - It was obvious to me that this was her own kinky fantasy, not a way she recommended people act. I do not hold the rape scene against her at all.
#19 - It's funny that under The Truth: it says See this Fox News article. A lie is pretty lame when we need Fox News to debunk it!
#20 - Yes!!
#21 - Yes!!
#22 - The SS lie doesn't merit repeating, but they did a good job debunking it concisely.
With that in mind, I'd like to start a thread of links to (and ratings/criticism of) other online communities that help us learn to be more rational. My own favorite is LessWrong.com, a group that teaches logic puzzles and in particular Bayes' Theorem.
Thank you! I have saved this to my H.D. for future reference.
Regards,
O.A.
One example is religion. I can practice the Piano religiously. I can treat auto mechanics like a religion. Pilot are religious with their checklists.
Miriam-Webster shows different definitions.:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
People do not pay any attention to the "Rational" part of self-interest.
The fault for this is the collectivist state run education system.
Fact is we are lambasted more over that word than our beliefs, which is what we should be propagating, rather than trying to bend a society's common understanding if a term to a new ideal.
Rational self interest is much clearer.
Rand did not invent words or define them (except maybe Objectivism) and attempts to defend her use of the word selfish because it was "her definition" of the word are incorrect and misleading to say the least. She used the word selfish because it was, and still is, the only word that fits.