Paul Phillips writes: >> I think you miss the point of what I was trying to say. I have no doubt >> that the 'family metaphor' has become important in current political >> dialogue -- that is the whole point of David's posts. My point is that >> this metaphor is based on a faulty historical and institutional >> foundation and therefore, leads to wrong conclusions with respect to the >> role, function and importance of SS, in particular to the maintenance of >> the current family in an economy facing 'fundamental uncertainty' (which >> was, I believe, Ellen's point.) I was not trying to be nasty but merely >> pointing out that you can not engage in a meaningful debate when one >> side of the debate insists on historically faulty assumptions that are >> necessary to his position.
Why exactly can't you engage in a meaningful debate? If I am making a faulty assumption, how would I know unless I made it and was corrected? In fact, if you only debate with people who agree with your assumptions, how would you ever know an assumption was incorrect? Now, with respect to my alleged faulty assumptions, I really think you are exaggerating unreasonably. Why have and do women marry in various cultures? Is not a really important reason the (potential) economic security resulting from the marriage? Is it really "ahistorical" for me to make that assumption? Is it really "ahistorical" to notice that people care more about those who they are related to than those they are not related to? That they care more about those who they know than those who they don't know? That people are less willing to free ride on those they know than those they do not know? Comparatively, you make the argument that social security at the state level is necessary because of the failure of pre-capitalist institutions during the rise of capitalism. Seems plausible -- social security as we know it was developed in 19th Century Germany. But talk about ahistorical -- to cite 19th Century Germany, or even the economy of the Great Depression, as the end all and be all of assumptions for how should social security be structured. Call me crazy, but when I look at 21st Century United States, I see an economy that has little in common with 19th Century Germany, or even 1933 United States, that mandates I ipso fact accept the solutions that were apparent to policy reformers in the 19th Century or the 1930s. Just as one example, social security was created in the Depression as insurance, in the sense that the government was insuring you against the unlikely possibility that you might actually reach 65 and retire. Comparatively, 75 years later, where average life span has greatly increased and the average worker can expect 15-20 years of retirement, the "insurance" model is an anachronism, and for you to defend policies created in the Depression as the solution to the issues faced today is more ahistorical than anything I have said. David Shemano
