4 ms·

While you recognize that so much of this is a pyramid scheme, it seems to me that you're saying I've got to keep paying just so that the pyramid can keep going.

While you recognize that so much of this is a pyramid scheme, it seems to me that you're saying I've got to keep paying just so that the pyramid can keep going. Is there ever a point where it's OK to say "this is wrong, we must stop"? You're also assuming an extremely high degree of responsibility for neighbors. Now, I'm not going to go religiously Ayn Rand on you. I acknowledge that society is interdependent, and I couldn't have achieved as much as I have without neighbors that work together. But I think you're going too far. There are things I'd like to do in my life, and for those that are most important, I'm consciously laying things out in a way that should allow me to get there. This isn't without some pain. There are plenty of things lower on my priority list that I must forgo in order to get to the high-priority ones. I don't have an iPhone, I don't have an LCD TV, let alone HD. My wife and I each have a car: mine is 8 years old with 108,000 miles; hers is 7 with 130,000 miles. We rarely eat out. We don't have fancy furniture: much of it is from WalMart, as is much of my clothing. We use credit cards for convenience, and have never run a balance on them. This is not an extravagant lifestyle, this is thrift. Yet I see every day people living extravagantly: leasing cars and turning them over every 2-3 years; huge houses, refinanced at 45 years old so they'll be paying until they're 75; cigarettes and expensive drinks; $900 purses and fancy shoes. The result is that I have more assets. Yet I constantly hear complaints about how unfair it is that people have more in the bank, and those "lucky" few should have to shoulder the burdens that frequently result from the profligacy of the indebted. So I make myself suffer to save. And it seems that I'm to be made to suffer later, too, as my savings are looted. But on the other side of the screen, those living high on the hog will, by virtue of their very wastefulness, get a claim on proceeds of my frugality, allowing them to continue their party. How do you expect me to feel that I owe this to them? You say that I should help the younger generation by helping them shoulder some of the tax burden. But isn't paying the debts of the grasshopper creating moral hazard, doing harm to the younger generation by showing them that the path to happiness is finding an ant to carry them along?

Quarrelsome 17y ago
Yes it is a pyramid scheme. Yes we can stop it and yes that would cause people to die (earlier) and/or suffer. Personally i'm not willing to make that choice. I apologise that you've taken this personally, I just wished to point out that the tax burden does appear to fall on the younger generation. Especially if the older ones are shipping out due to "tax reasons". Please appreciate that i'm from the UK so my perspective in regards to the welfare state is a favourable one since it was built on the wishes of those that took part in WW2, a brighter tomorrow if you will.... I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. There are many people who have had crap, unfortunate lives that require our help. A balanced discussion of any welfare state requires us to acknowledge all of these types of people, both the wasteful and the needy. Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the wasteful what they deserve (nothing)?
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. ...Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the wasteful what they deserve (nothing)? Well, of course that's because it's easiest to argue against the wasteful :) For those that are truly victims of circumstance, the argument requires quite a bit more finessed debate, and obviously I'm better at the fiery rhetoric. I think that the best work concerning liberty and social justice is that of Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls ) and the reply by Nozick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick ). Your mileage may vary, I guess, because the topic is still argued, but I think that Nozick has the better argument. From a quick search, this (http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 ) appears a decent essay on the debate. Rawls wants us to create a fairer world today by taking from the fortunate to help the unlucky. But Nozick shows us that this interferes with the "natural" way that people will distribute money, allocating it to those who give to him the greatest benefit. Interpreting this through Hayek, we can see that diverting wealth away from those who would be delivering the greatest returns will, over time, hobble all of society. Without the work of those who would be creating more wealth, the entirety of society is destined to poverty relative to what could have been. Framed in this comparison, it looks to me like the disadvantaged aren't worse off in the big picture; it's not that anything is being taken from them, but that they're not benefiting as much from progress as the rest.

Quarrelsome 17y ago

Yes it is a pyramid scheme. Yes we can stop it and yes that would cause people to die (earlier) and/or suffer. Personally i'm not willing to make that choice. I apologise that you've taken this personally, I just wished to point out that the tax burden does appear to fall on the younger generation. Especially if the older ones are shipping out due to "tax reasons". Please appreciate that i'm from the UK so my perspective in regards to the welfare state is a favourable one since it was built on the wishes of those that took part in WW2, a brighter tomorrow if you will.... I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. There are many people who have had crap, unfortunate lives that require our help. A balanced discussion of any welfare state requires us to acknowledge all of these types of people, both the wasteful and the needy. Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the wasteful what they deserve (nothing)?

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I also find it unfortunate that you decide to debate this around those who are wasteful. ...Would you rather ignore the needy at the benefit of giving the wasteful what they deserve (nothing)? Well, of course that's because it's easiest to argue against the wasteful :) For those that are truly victims of circumstance, the argument requires quite a bit more finessed debate, and obviously I'm better at the fiery rhetoric. I think that the best work concerning liberty and social justice is that of Rawls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls ) and the reply by Nozick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick ). Your mileage may vary, I guess, because the topic is still argued, but I think that Nozick has the better argument. From a quick search, this (http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=28773 ) appears a decent essay on the debate. Rawls wants us to create a fairer world today by taking from the fortunate to help the unlucky. But Nozick shows us that this interferes with the "natural" way that people will distribute money, allocating it to those who give to him the greatest benefit. Interpreting this through Hayek, we can see that diverting wealth away from those who would be delivering the greatest returns will, over time, hobble all of society. Without the work of those who would be creating more wealth, the entirety of society is destined to poverty relative to what could have been. Framed in this comparison, it looks to me like the disadvantaged aren't worse off in the big picture; it's not that anything is being taken from them, but that they're not benefiting as much from progress as the rest.