2 ms·
Well, if the privatized version doesn't allow other people to take my money away from me at the point of a gun and give it to other people, using the state's pr
by greentxt 2y ago
Well, if the privatized version doesn't allow other people to take my money away from me at the point of a gun and give it to other people, using the state's proverbial "monopoly on violence" it doesnt seem like a very fair comparison. Apples and oranges. Maybe that was your implicit point?
- Terr_ 2y ago> Well, if the privatized version doesn't [risk loss because of] the point of a gun Except it does. A soldier with a gun in your face can take your insurance payout just as easily as they can take your bank balance. With respect to a kleptocracy, neither option protects you. > take my money away from me Ah, this is the place where you've confused an apple for an orange: The premiums collected for "destitute in a ditch" insurance is not "your money", because that's not how insurance works. Similarly if you buy "house burns down" insurance and your house is fine until the day you sell it, then you get zero dollars back from the insurance company and nobody blinks an eye. Your payout is potential, conditional, and generally non-transferable, and that's normal, because an insurance policy is not an investment account. There was never a discrete "your money" pile sitting around in the insurance-company vault waiting for you to reclaim it. (Well, aside from in the minds of criminals plotting insurance fraud.)
- greentxt 2y agoPerhaps it is actually myself that's confused. I was not thinking in terms of "destitute in a ditch" money but rather the money that's currently being provided the the vast majority of American seniors. Sounds like you're talking SSI (dissbility) not social security (retirement). My bad.