Whew. The insurance idea (pooling/sharing risks; mutual aid; to each according to needs/from each according to work/ability) seems pretty basic in different ways to liberalism, social democracy, socialism, etc.
But "completely lacking in substance"? Really. If there are no rich people, on whom do you have to rely other than your fellow men/women? On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > Whether social security (and welfare generally) can be considered as a > form of insurance is mostly an argument over terminology. > > An argument that is important for rhetorical purposes no doubt, but > completely lacking in substance. > -raghu. > > -- > Floggings will continue until morale improves. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
