On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Max Sawicky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I am not sure I understand your question. I agree with the necessity and desirability of risk-sharing. The debate over whether "social security is a form of insurance" is, I still maintain, a meaningless exercise. Soc Sec has some characteristics of insurance i.e. risk-sharing against old age poverty. But it also lacks some characteristics of a normal insurance policy e.g. means testing. Whether you choose to call it insurance or not is mostly a matter of taste. Of course, for public discourse, it does matter what we choose to call something. So if it is expedient to win popular support to frame it as insurance, so be it. If it is not, then call it something else. A rose by any other name... -raghu. -- Now entering Iowa. Please set your clocks back 20 years. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
