From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 13:07:21 MST
owner-extropians@extropy.org wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:59:23AM -0500, Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 11/12/2002 8:16:52 AM Central Standard Time,
>> maxmcorp@worldonline.dk writes: Actually I believe that the most
>> honest system is to have a minimum pension from government, as a
>> baseline income. Then you can have your own private pension on top
>> of that.
>>
>> Max,
>> I would approach that idea with maximum trepidation. You
>> will have let not the camel but the mooches and the power seekers in
>> your tent. Ron h.
>
> Oh lord. This is why I don't call myself libertarian anymore. Max's
> point was perfectly sensible. Rich societies these days try not to
> let people starve, especially old people screwed by forces beyond
> their control. So we can pretend everyone's responsible for
> themselves, and enjoy the fun of moral hazards as people know they'll
> be ultimately bailed out, or be upfront about the gov't providing a
> safety net, and let people take their risks above that baseline. The
> alternative is to actually let people die.
>
### You can have your cake and eat it, too, if you give guaranteed survival
but only those who prove they want it. Full-time work for 1500kcal/day
assures no mooches come but then no sane people die, either.
Vote for "The Poorhouse", a part of my plan to save the world!
No need for a minimum pension, to survive you need food and shelter, not a
cash handout.
If there are people willing to die of hunger rather than work for food,
well, I will not shed any tears after their passing.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:05 MST