I thought FOX *was* satire...Follow

Pay no attention to MonxDot's bankrupt Anarcho-Capitalist theology. His mish-mash of Libertarian and Austrian economic theory is about as relevant, and as realistic, as Das Kapital.

Take his "social welfare creates poverty" statement. The logic goes something like this:

1) In the absence of taxes, government, regulation, et.al., every person is free to maximize their wealth creation strategies.

2) All taxation is theft (remember Marx's 'All Property is Theft'?), therefore the very presence of taxation lowers the total wealth of society.

3) If society as a whole is less wealthy, there must be more poverty.

So we have two economic postulates that a majority of economists would reject out of hand and a conclusion that lacks any causal linkage.

If only the people that created this ideology had included a stage when the "Dictatorship of the Tax Free" assume control of society until the evil State withers away, we might have had some Libertarian revolutions.

Unemployment rates tell us all we need to know Red. We can't look at poverty rates because they're calculated differently in different countries, and some people (like you) seem to think that government assistance counts towards people not being poor anymore.



First off, I love how you switch countries as often as other people switch underwear, always picking the one that's best for the situation. I'll note that when wine and cheese was on the table, you suddenly were French...

Add up the cost for council housing. The cost for varous subsidized services. The point is that even if 38000 dollars isn't that much, it's going to give the appearance of tipping a number of people from "poor" to "working class". Sure. The truely unemployed are still going to count as poor, but when people like you don't measure it that way, it doesn't matter to you anymore.



Of course not. But providing those benefits *does* restrict the economic options of those in the middle class who might otherwise do more with their lives.

I would also argue that it is not the government's job to provide a lifeline to people. Their families should be doing that. But then, a component of social liberalism is to break up the traditional family unit so that the individuals who are left need help from their government more...

And you don't see it, do you?




That's absurd. Poverty as an economic concept has one meaning. But as a social concept it means something very very different. It has everything to do with the person/people being able to provide for themselves of their own efforts. It's the phychological animal knowing that his life is secure because he knows that he has the resources to provide for his needs. Having those needs provided for him is *not* the same as obtaining them himself.

When that human animal knows that he can't provide for himself, he goes into "survival mode" (as all animals do). He breeds faster (hoping his children will be able to overwhelm the children of those who are taking up the resources he lacks), and becomes violent. This occurs whether the person is poor and living on the street with no government assistance at all, or whether he's living in council housing with his needs met by his government.

It is absolutely important to realize that this state of "poverty" exists regardless of government benefits. It's why you still see rioting and violence and crime and high birth rates among those on income assistance just as you see it amoung those you would label poor. It's the same thing. No matter how much you try to make it something else.




Lol. That depends on how you spin the survey. If you ask a question like: "Do you believe it's right to provide for the poor and needy?", you'll get that 95% result. Of course, if you ask: "Would you like us to raise your taxes?", you'll get a very different answer.

The insidious nature of social liberalism is that over time it becomes more and more entrenched and harder to remove. Because as more of the people gain benefits from their government, more people will continue to support the agenda. And once you have more people gaining benefits then are paying for them, it's pretty much impossible to change.


Just because the masses want something does not mean it's the right thing to do. It's one of the reasons why modern democracies are all republics instead of true democracies. The problem is that in order for that to work, you actually have to have elected officials who are "leaders", instead of ones who simply cater directly to the wants of their constituents. Unfortunately, over time the idea that leaders are "good" if they do what the people want has become entrenched as well. Gee. I wonder how that happened?...



There's a difference between providing a service that benefits everyone, and providing direct entitlement style benefits to individuals.

And I've argued many times that I think the public school system is screwed up. I've argued that if we are going to pay for education for everyone, that we should simply provide vouchers and let people spend them as they wish.

The important point is to remember that these are things that government "can" do, not things that goverment "must" do. We should always balance those things with their cost and their benefit.



Except that when the cost of providing that home and that food is fewer jobs, then it doesn't matter, does it?

Honestly. If that argument were true, then why does Europe have on average a double digit unemployent rate, while the US has historically had a very low rate? Clearly, the opposite is true. People are better able to obtain jobs even if they are living on the street. What matters is that the jobs are available for them to get.

A guy facing living on the street will find a job. Any job. And he'll work to keep that job. Thus, he wont be living on the street for long (or at all). A guy who's going to be provided a place to live whether he works or not has less motivation. And if jobs are less available at the same time?...


Your argument is blatantly false. Again. Employment rates tell us all we need to know here.




Well. Kinda. It was created out of a belief that in a modern industrial world, the fruits of liberty were being enjoyed more by those who had wealth then those who didn't. It was created out of a realization that the very process of industrialization allowed economies to grow beyond the base land resources they had, and that the bulk of the wealth thus generated was being held in the hands of a few "Marx's: those who control the means of production".

It assumed that if the wealth were obtaining a larger portion of this wealth that this meant that the working class was somehow being cheated. But what was missed was that even though the working class wasn't gaining as quickly as the wealthy, they were still gaining. Their quality of life increased. Their opportunities increased. But they didn't increase as quickly.

Thus, those who "lead" the cause you follow created concepts like "gap between rich and poor", and "poverty==inhumane treatment" to put into the minds of the people the idea that these things were somehow a violation of their rights and an inhibition of their freedoms, and to pull on their heartstrings to get them to empower those leaders to "fix" society and make everyone better.

Of course, it's just another way of gaining power. At the end of the day, someone else controls the money and the power, right? The difference is that in a socialistic system it's the government that does. In a capitalistic system political power is in the government and economic power is in the wealthy (which may not necessarily be the same). Personally, I'd rather that the wealth be controlled by private citizens then by the government. I'd rather that my livelyhood be owed to my ability to get a job from the "rich", then it be owed to the largess of my government. Because the rich need me (and everyone else) to continue to be rich. Thus, there's a balance and a contract of sorts. But, once I've given my government the power to control all the money and decide who gets what, it really doesn't need me anymore.

But hey! What's the odds that would ever happen in a European country?



Yes. You can. But it does not mean that you should.

I can afford to eat nothing but chocolate every day. Probably not a good idea though. People need to feel useful, or they get restless and cause problems. The flaw in the social liberalist movement is the assumption that providing the "objects" of success is the same thing as providing success. As I've said over and over. It's not even close.




In the case of a nation like France? I don't think they have 20 years. I'm not kidding. Unless they make drastic changes, their unemployment rate will continue to rise. Their GDP will continue to flatten, losing them ground after inflation. The lack of growth, combined with increased unemployment will increase the burden of those benefits on the tax base (which is shrinking), causing all of those things to continue to get worse.

Of course, you'll have riots in the streets (more then they've had already) for years before the full collapse. If you're lucky, they'll be a mini-revolution, a new political power will take control. If you're *really* lucky, that power will not be some dictatorial power, but will be more like a US conservative movement that will stress job growth over individual benefits.

But they'd have to be lucky for that at this point. The UK is much better off thanks to Thatcher.



Since when is it greedy to expect to *not* have your property taken away?

Funny. You talk about definitions, but this one is a dozey. You've redefined "greed" to mean that anyone who does not agree that his money would be better spent in the hands of the government via benefits programs is "greedy".

Um... Have you ever read Locke? Seriously. Go read. Educate yourself on what the founding principles of liberalism really were. Then look at the travesty that has occured in most nations of the world (especially Europe) in it's name.

The systems you have are almost in direct violation of virtually every basic ideoloty of freedom. They've just been adopted so slowly and with such clever language that you don't realize it. You've been born into a world where specifical assumptions where fed to you, so you really don't know anything else.

[quote]Well yeah, we gave a bit of it up. Not much though. Check out the recent bonuses in the City of London, and you'll see the richest are still doing ok. I understand you feel bad for them, being taxed 5% more on their 4$ million dollar christmas bonus, but I'm sure they'll survive.[/quote]

Of course they will. That's what you *really* don't get. The rich don't suffer under this form of system. In fact, they thrive under it. Because it doesn't actually hurt those who are already wealthy. It just raises the bar before you can be wealthy, and makes it harder for anyone else to become wealthy. It's the ultimate protectionist ideology. It's perfect if you're rich and want to keep that power between you and a small number of others who currently have the power and influence.

But you don't see that part of it either, do you?

[quoteThey'll appreciate your concerns, though.[/quote]

No. They're sitting in their mansions laughing at all the plebs who actually belive that they're helping the poor at the expense of the rich. They know that it's really your own opportunities that you're removing, not their personal wealth or comfort or power.

They're rubbing their hands together and happily watching millions of people adopt this ideology, never having a clue what it is really about.

How can you just negate a 6,000 word thesis with a one-liner.

Oh. Wait. Yep. Gottit.

How can you just negate a 6,000 word thesis with a one-liner.

The nuns said I was 'gifted'. Also 'doomed to an eternity of torture at the hands of the vilest demons of hell'.

For example, if you want to spend $60,000 a year in retirement, expect 2% inflation per year, a 7% return on your conservative investments, and have to pay 20% in taxes, you need to sell $75k of your assets per year to support yourself after taxes, which means you need 75k / .05 = 1500k, 1.5 million in savings to support yourself without cutting into the principal.


One, that makes absolutely no sense for a variety of reasons I'm far too lazy to go into.

Two, even were it the case, and hell, let's stipulate that raising taxes to provide more services for the poor and middle hurts a small segment of the upper middle class suddenly faced with terrifying prospect of having to pay more taxes on their assets accumulate largely through tax deferred contributions to retirement plans at the height of their earning power, that's a more than acceptable tradeoff when compared to poor people DYING because of lack of services.

The "rich" aren't hurt by increasing taxes to pay for social benefits.

Awesome, let's tax the **** out of them, then.

Problem solved.

Aside from the boring data aspects, I'm going to tell you a personal story that illustrates what I think is great about this social welfare. Because, at the end of the day, that's what it's all about. Humans.

I live in a nice area of London (West Kensington, for those that know). I live with my girlfriend, and our flat is quite expensive (£1100/months, so roughly $2000/month for a one-bedroom flat). Not a huge flat, but we have a balcony.

The flat next door, with an adjacent balcony, is temporarily owned by the local council. A year ago, some guy moved in. We started chatting and smoking weed on the balcony together.

He's a 19 year-old black guy from Peckham, a deprived area of London. His mother died when he was 4, his father is some guy in Jamaica he's never seen or heard of, so his grand-mother took care of him, until she died when he was 14. He was then placed in care homes, until the day he was 18. Now, anyone with any sense of reality will udnerstand that it's a hard life: no parents, no money, no education (he has 0 GCSE), living in a rough area of london where gangs and guns are rife, and not mane people to turn to. When he got kicked from social care at 18, he applied for a coucil flat, and miraculously, was given the flat he has now, which costs him roughly 1/4 of the rent we pay, eventhough it's exactly the same.

He used to pay his rent by selling a bit of weed and being on benefits, but was often struggling for food, and late at paying the rent. I'd help him out a bit, giving him frozen pizzas, or inviting him for dinner.

Then his girlfriend got pregnant. We talked a lot, since he had no family, and his friends were still in South London. I found out he could buy his council flat (worth £250,000) for roughly half the price, since it was a council flat. So i kept telling him to get a boring job, stacking shelves, being a salesman, whatever, just so he could make sure to pay rent, and eventually start buying this flat. But he was hesitant, since he thought it was "humiliating" to be stacking shelves. He had too much "pride" to do menial jobs. We kept on talking about it, and I kept banging on about how this flat was a god-sent, and how his whole financial future depended on him keeping it.

When his girlfriend was close to giving birth, I invited him over, and helped him apply for jobs. Eventually, he got an interview to be a cashier in a bank. His interview is tomorrow, but if he gets that job, then he is sorted. Almost for life. An stable income, a chance to buy a great flat for half its value, and a nice home for his girlfriend and his daughter in a nice part of London.

Now, that guy is really a good kid. Sure, he has 0 education, he has severe lacks in general knowledge (he thinks the world is controlled by 3 Free-Masons), and if he hadn't gotten that council flat, then he would be dead or in jail. There is no doubt it, and he himself says so all the time. His peckham friends are all into criminal acitivties, and none of them have a job. That guy, intelligent, determined, friendly as hell, started out with very little hope of bettering his conditions: black, South london, no parents, social care, no education. It doesn't get much worse.

And yet, because of the benefits, because of the social housing, he's going to make it. Not only that, but his daughter is most likely going to be ok too.

When I see this, I wouldn't want it any other way. Hell, I'd even pay 5% more taxes so that more people get chances like this. And all the data and conspiracy theory in the world won't make a difference about it.

I know it's just one story, and I'm sure there are lots of others where things didn't turn out so rosy.

But if those programs can help people that started our in life with no chance at all, then how can they be anything else than completely worth it?

It's not a zero cost issue. That's what I'm trying to get some of you to understand. Folks like Red seem to think that they don't actually lose anything in the deal. They do. He just doesn't realize it.

Of course he realizes it. Your capacity to miss other people's points entirely and instead substitute the supposition that they are, in fact, drooling simpletons never ceases to amaze. What he's saying, what a child could figure out from reading his posts, is that he disagrees with you as to the actual impact on the middle class, and that he's willing to accept that level of impact if, in exchange, poor people don't die.

But, hey, let's assuage your worries, shall we? Let's tax the net *assets* of the top .01% of wealthy people a flat 3% per year and use that money for national health care and social welfare programs.

I do.

I just think it's worth it.

As everyone seems to understand but you...

Edited, Mar 8th 2007 9:30am by RedPhoenixxx

Course if you advage out the unemployment rate across the country, you get a lower rate then if you compare the unemployment rate between an inter-city neigborhod wih substantard housing and the Nice neigborhood next door with it mansions and exta city police coverage. Here some data to back up how having the right parents, helps a person avoid proverty.

I once live on the Edge of an neigborhood were they would call the police if they saw a black walking down the street, but I could wander freely. I often went when I found life in a mainly low income neigborhood depressing. Just to enjoy seeing clean streets and beautiful yards. BTW we were buying the house and had were rehabing, while living in the house. My parents did the same thing in 1977 and raised the cost of living around them. They paid $22,000 for a house now easily worth over $375,000. Dad was making $24,000 a year at the time, with one daughter in about to start college, at a private art school.

I paid off my student loans back in 1997 just for 2 years there before going to State Univ where with only a small increase in my Pell grant, I had enough in financial aid to cover both tution and housing for the year. Darn how I wish this computer had a spell checker. Doesn't even have the space on HD for me to download a free spell checker.In the imagionary world you live in, I should be living in a nice house in the suburbs, just due to my parents living standards.



Edited, Mar 8th 2007 1:29pm by ElneClare

After I spent one full evening trying to make enough space on the HD, so I could defrag it, I told the owners to detete everything they don't use. They were only able to create 10% freespace. They don't have the space for d/ling an program update or I would have already upgraded firefox days ago. This computer is so useless, they been told by others that they should just buy a new one.

After accidently saving a contract with changes over an orginal file, they still needed, I also told the owner, he should backup all his buiness files daily. They owe me a large screen TV with surround sound system, for my computer services. Normally I will work on a family member's computer for free.

I understand that just fine. However, I believe that you don't really know or understand the true costs for those benefits (which is why you're ok with the price). You're like someone who hasn't read the fine print arguing that since you're ok with the contract you're about to sign, no one should argue with you that it's a bad idea.


Just because *you* believe that the costs are worth it does not mean that they really are. That's the point you don't seem to get. You also have to remember that this is an issue that affects more then just you. Obviously, I'm not talking about you personally, but those who believe as you do aren't just deciding to spend their money on something they believe is worth the cost. They're deciding to spend my money as well...

So yeah. I'm going to argue those issues. Hard.