3 ms·

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.

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.

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.