Re: OT: Politics [Was:Social Contract]
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
Mumia W wrote:
And public schools are doing such a fine job of educating, too!
Yes, they are. I was educated in a public school.
As was I. That is exactly the reason why none of my children will
*ever* go to a public school. I like to think that I am succeeding
in life *in spite* of the fact that I went to public school.
Not everyone has the choice that you have. For *most* people, it's
either a free education, or no education. That's why public schools are
needed.
And there are people who believe that America's laws should be
interpreted from the point of view of the Christian Bible--Pat
Robertson is one of them. Just because a few loons believe
something doesn't mean I have to buy it.
It's funny you bring this up. The thing is I am a conservative
Christian *and* a Libertarian. I was having a converstion about this
with my Pastor a few days ago. I was telling him that I think that
laws banning drugs, alcohol, prostitution, etc are wrong. All those
things the liberals like to call "victimless crimes." My point is
that, while *I* think those things are wrong, I have no right to
force other people to abstain from them. People like Pat Robertson
annoy me (Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fall into the same group in
my mind) because they spend far too much time spouting off political
nonesense and trying to have political influence and not enough time
preaching the Word of God. I mean seriously, if you are you to have
"Reverend" in front of your name, your full time occupation should
not be politics.
That's two things we agree on: Debian is a great O/S, and religion
should be kept of out the government.
I agree that social security is all sorts of screwed up, but
not because it involves collecting money and spending it in
ways that might not directly benefit the person paying.
It is a large part of it because it's pretty much a fact that the
people would have been better off with the money to invest and
save on their own.
No they are not. A few, knowledgeable individuals *might* be better
off, or they might screw up and choose the wrong investments and
lose most of it.
So, you believe that people are fundamentally stupid and need the
government to babysit them?
A person doesn't have to be stupid to not want to have to learn about
that stuff. And yes, even the stupid *deserve* retirement security.
The idea behind the Social Security system is that you shouldn't
have to know anything about stocks, bond or any other securities to
have your retirement protected.
That is why you hire someone who is an expert to do it for you.
The experts at the Social Security Administration *are* doing it, and
they're doing an incredibly efficient job at it too. Social Security has
less than 1% administrative overhead. No private retirement options come
even close.
And your retirement money shouldn't be entirely dependent upon the
twists and turns of the business cycle.
If you are smart they won't. Even if you are not smart, if you have
the wherewithal to hire someone who is, they won't.
[...]
Those people you'd hire screw up all the time, and they screw their
customers half the time. Social Security doesn't have that problem.
Social Security doesn't have fund managers that run off with all the
money. Social Security doesn't have brokers that churn and burn your
retirement nest egg. Social Security doesn't make risky investments just
to make a quick buck, and when their values collapse, they write you a
letter saying, "We invested in those ultra-high-yielding junk bonds
because we wanted you to get a lot of money, but now the bonds are
worthless, and we lost all your money. But it's not really our fault
because you were stupid enough to trust us."
Social Security is not driven by a high profit motive; it's purpose is
to provide stable retirement income to people, and it does a fantastic
job of that.
Reply to: