On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 5:28 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote:
I think that a competitive market-based system for most things results in > the best price for the end-consumer, but for certain critical needs such as > medical and basic research, some govt/industry cooperation is warranted. > This goes with the caveat that the markets are truly competitive with NO > collusion/favoritism from government, which is a rarity these days. > This makes a lot of sense. I am not at all enthusiastic about enriching the pockets of a few lucky subcontractors who have no incentive to find efficiencies. **** > > For a hundred years after the country was founded, there were no > ‘entitlement’ programs; the only aid that the founders felt the fed’l govt > was obligated to was caring for veterans injured in the line of duty… and > that certainly makes sense. > I have only respect to the US founding fathers. They had some great ideas and put in place a remarkably stable democracy, and they had an allergic reaction to paternalism and to an extractive UK mercantilist policy. But I don't think they were any wiser than you or I, or that we need to feel bound by the solutions that they came up with to the problems of their times. Some of our problems are similar to what they were facing, and some are a world apart. We should look at the problems we face today and come up with our own solutions. This is what they would have done in our situation, and what they would have recommended to us that we do. > As far as other forms of entitlements, whatever happened to families > taking care of their own; why is it the govt’s responsibility to care for > people when they have family to do it! Or local charities, which are MUCH > more efficient than any government program will ever be… How about giving > tax-payers and companies generous tax breaks for contributing to local > charities to provide enough incentive to adequately fund the town’s social > welfare needs. > Saying that people should rely upon their families is effectively saying we're content to ignore the problem. Some people have no families. Some people are estranged from their families. Those who can do so are no doubt already relying upon their families. That leaves all of the rest, who are the ones I was thinking of. At a deeper level, I think this gets down to what divides the US -- what the basic social contract is. I'm arguing that as a society we will all do well and prosper if we look to the good of everyone, including those who are left behind in the current system. I'm open to the idea of tax-breaks to local charities for handling some of these problems. Let's look for some examples of where this model is being effectively used, and then go from there. > We also need to look at how the entitlement programs are structured… I’ve > seen examples about how the rules are not structured to encourage one to > become self-reliant, but promote dependency… dependency is just another way > the control freaks (politicians) maintain control, and their power and > elitist positions. I would have no problem if the programs ‘taught you how > to fish’ in addition to giving you some fish for a limited period of time. > Washington DC’s avg household income is now the highest in the country; > surpassing the Silicon Valley of California… that should tell you all you > need to know about politicians. We need to go back to one-term, citizen > politicians; get rid of all lobbyists and corporate influence-peddlers in > DC. > Yes, would not be surprised if dependency were a problem -- I have witnessed some of it myself. But with that I have two reservations. First, let's approach the problem empirically. Are there existing programs out there that have a proven track record of helping people at the margins of society without encouraging dependency? Let's copy what they're doing and see if we can tweak it. Second, dependency is only a problem for those who can avoid it. There are many people, incompetents among them, who are, by their nature, dependent. There is no conceivable way that we will educate them out of it; they will simply either sink into the existing social darwinism or, if we can help them, they will lead out lives in dignity at a modest cost to the public. I am persuaded that this will not only be satisfying in some ethical sense, but that we will all be better off economically as well. Eric
