I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the 
label "socialist," although on a larger level a rose by any other name still 
has thorns.  It's ironic, however, that Tom chose "pension reform" as an 
example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement of liberty is 
socialism, both because our Social Security system represents a massive 
transfer of income from poor young minority workers to idle, elderly white 
women--surely one of the vilest forms of socialism--and because German Marxists in 
league with Bismark out-maneuvered German (classical) liberals to produce "pension 
reform" as their first socialist success.

Most polls, incidentally, demonstrate that most Americans under the age of 40 
do not believe that Social Security will be around to take care of them.  
Whether or not people "need" to be forced to save for themselves represents a 
value-judgement, not some sort of postulate of economics.  I think we all agree 
that no poor person 
needs" to forced to save for a wealthy person.

DBL

In a message dated 6/17/03 4:25:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> > Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but
>
>> > they often support socialism by some other name.
>
>> > David
>
>> 
>
>> All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of
>
>> socialized money.  That is the most pervasive socialist 
>
>> program in the USA.
>
>
>
>It's a mistake to confuse the word "socialist" by refering to gov't 
>
>money as socialist money.  Most folks, I'm sure, would state that
>
>"socialist money" means the gov't gives more money to those who
>
>need it, taking from those who have it.  E.g. gov't socialist 
>
>redistribution.
>
>
>
>I don't even know why you want to call the monopoly legal tender laws 
>
>socialized money -- but now I'm not certain this is what you mean.
>
>
>
>There has long been a freedom-security trade off.  People want both,
>
>but will usually choose more real/ "felt" security in return for small
>
>amounts of (unrecognized?) freedom.
>
>
>
>Social security is widely supported because of the certainty element,
>
>folks are sure that they'll be taken care of by the SS program.  
>
>
>
>Since one of the main costs of inflation is the greater uncertainty,
>
>a reduced inflation/ uncertainty is worth quite a lot of freedom to
>
>many people.
>
>
>
>
>
>One conclusion I draw is support for mandatory savings programs,
>
>including, in Slovakia, a 3-pillar pension reform where the first
>
>pillar is a minimum poverty amount, pay-as-you-go from the budget;
>
>the second pillar is a required savings amount, which becomes your
>
>own inheritable property; the third is a tax-advantaged optional
>
>savings amount.
>
>
>
>Generally the irresponsible folk need to be forced to save more 
>
>for themselves, to reduce the number of needy in the future.
>
>
>
>Tom Grey

Reply via email to