The Looting to Come

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

...what rewriting of history? when did I say the industrial revolution made everyone rich? the industrial revolution greatly advanced the standard of living of the time...

Did I misread what you wrote? I don't think so...

...Look at the industrial revolution it was not some government mandated effort it was "free-market" reforms that led to it and the subsequent expansion in wealth.

As people became more wealthy parents no longer needed their children to work and education became more important, even before the US passed a law saying children had to go to school many parents were already sending children to school...

That is all I said, do you deny that the industrial revolution advanced the standard of living?...

Yes, the industrial revolution certainly did advance the standard of living...for some...sort of the same way the FIRE economy advanced the standard of living for some...;)

...Also it seems you do indeed believe education leads to economic progress, is this the case?

Guilty as charged.

Unlike you...

There inlies the problem in the line of thinking of many. The developed countries did not advance because of education...

...I think education is a vitally necessary condition for development...

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Looting to Come

Did I misread what you wrote? I don't think so...Yes, the industrial revolution certainly did advance the standard of living...for some...sort of the same way the FIRE economy advanced the standard of living for some...;)

Maybe I made the mistake of using the word wealthier, I didn't mean they became literally wealthy, just that they had more money.

I disagree with the assessment of only "some", or at least in its comparison to FIRE. FIRE was a government backed industry, in terms of tax breaks, low interest rates, laws etc. It also was an industry were wealth was literally created out of thin air. ie. no value was really being produced (finance especially).
However, the industrial revolution led to so many different tangible inventions, assets and creation of wealth. In broad terms it did increase greatly the standard of living (communication, job creation, wages etc.).

Guilty as charged.

Unlike you...

...I think education is a vitally necessary condition for development...

I disagree that for developing economies or economies not even at developing level, education is not vital. However, as a country progresses the education will also progress regardless of government efforts. I really think that if you would of have 0 government involvement in education you would of still had more and more of the population becoming educated. Technological and economical changes dictate that.

As for education being vital, again I point out the countries I mentioned. If education was vital, those countries would be much better off.

[Sharky]

Re: The Looting to Come

My point is not that education isn't helpful or that it isn't useful in advancing society.

Rather, the issue is that when you start educating people and paying for that education at the point of a gun, it loses its effectiveness. The same is true when the educational system gets co-opted by government.

One of the most important things young people should be learning is morality, and one of the best ways to teach it is by example.

The also gets back to the Social Security issue. By introducing the government as a middleman into the process of funding their retirements, it becomes possible for people to vote themselves additional benefits; something that wouldn't be possible in a private system. We basically have one gang (the elderly) battling with another (the working class) for benefits, with the government in between, helping to pit one against the other. The fact that the elderly paid into the system when they were younger is immaterial, because those funds are long gone; they were simply given to other beneficiaries at the time.

What's wrong with personal responsibility? Isn't that at the core of what it means to be an American? At least it used to be.

For me, on principle, on moral grounds, I will never ask for nor accept Social Security benefits, even though I've paid into the system for my entire working life. If I did accept them, I would not be getting the money I paid in back; I would be accepting money that was stolen from another. How can one stand against government oppression, and yet accept their benefits?

[Andreuccio]

Re: The Looting to Come

2. The people being taxed have no choice about it; money is stolen from them and given to others.

It is not stolen, it is taxed, as you state in the first half of the sentence. Thus, the people do have a choice, indirectly, since they get to vote for their representatives to congress, who then can change the law.

2. This makes the program immoral, in spite of how "sound" the concept might be.

Just being a tax doesn't make something immoral. GRG gives the example of public education. I'll give an example that, I assume, is even less controversial: firefighters. We all agree that we need firefighters. Trying to contract private ones when needed isn't particularly efficient. So we agree, through our representatives, to pay taxes and give money to firefighters so they'll be there for us if we ever need them. Would you argue that the money to pay them is "stolen" from you if you never plan to use them? I would instead argue that it would be immoral not to pay.

Social Security is an agreement to each pay a bit of our wages so that the oldest among us don't fall into destitution and poverty. You might argue that it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons and should be eliminated, or that it's poorly implemented and should be changed. But I don't see how you can possibly argue that it's "immoral" because money is somehow "stolen" from one group and given to another.

[tombat1913]

Re: The Looting to Come

It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.

The whole social contract is that younger, working age people pay the highest taxes which go to either end of the age demographic - some to those too young to work but presumably future taxpayers [public education funding] and some to those who are well past the point where they earn enough income to support themselves solely [public pensions].

The whole argument is that all of us pass through these phases in our lives, and gain the benefit when we are very young and very old, and make the contribution in the middle years.

If you folks in the USA break that contract instead of fixing it, you will end up with an unstable society...

The problem is that there are too many economic factors weighing in on us. I'm sure you've read EJ's latest. These contracts will have to be broken, there is a huge demographic of people retiring while the middle class is being crushed by debt and unemployment.

[Sharky]

Re: The Looting to Come

It is not stolen, it is taxed, as you state in the first half of the sentence. Thus, the people do have a choice, indirectly, since they get to vote for their representatives to congress, who then can change the law.

"Indirect" choice isn't a choice at all.

Taxation through representation doesn't make it moral. It's fine for the majority who agree, but the minority who do not are being taken advantage of. Just because someone gets elected by the majority doesn't give them the right to steal from (and actively harm) one group for the benefit of another.

In addition, in today's political climate in the US, even the majority are lucky to have their views represented by their elected representatives; the whole electoral process has become massively corrupted.

Just being a tax doesn't make something immoral. GRG gives the example of public education. I'll give an example that, I assume, is even less controversial: firefighters. We all agree that we need firefighters. Trying to contract private ones when needed isn't particularly efficient. So we agree, through our representatives, to pay taxes and give money to firefighters so they'll be there for us if we ever need them. Would you argue that the money to pay them is "stolen" from you if you never plan to use them? I would instead argue that it would be immoral not to pay.

My view is that all taxation is immoral, because it's not voluntary. If I don't pay, someone effectively puts a gun to my head and forces me to.

Saying that "we agreed" to pay is simply wrong. The majority agreed, not "we." *I* didn't agree. Some call that "majority rule." The way it is today, I call it "mob rule."

Many parts of the country have volunteer fire departments that operate just fine. Given a choice (which I'm denied), I would prefer to volunteer myself than to be forced to pay through taxation. Instead, we have things like insanely high salaries, outrageous benefits programs, etc, because "we need our firefighters." Well, no, actually *I* don't need them--at least not badly enough to be blackmailed into the current situation. (I recall reading a recent story about a fire chief in northern California who was earning something like $325,000 per year, plus a hefty pension)

It's slightly OT, but in fact, the last house I built was effectively fire-proof. The structure used no plywood and no lumber or wood beams. It had a concrete foundation, steel framed walls covered with plaster, a steel roof, foamed concrete insulation, aluminum siding, aluminum framed windows, steel cabinets, metal window shades, and marble and concrete flooring. The only thing even remotely flammable was interior furnishings or maybe a grease fire in the kitchen. When the construction was almost done, the fire dept came for a visit. They were shocked that such a building was even possible. Did I receive any discount from them or the city for building something that wouldn't burn? No way. Did I need their services? Maybe, but certainly not as much as my neighbors, in their 50 yr+ old all-wood, termite-ridden homes--yet I paid more in city taxes than they did.

Social Security is an agreement to each pay a bit of our wages so that the oldest among us don't fall into destitution and poverty. You might argue that it's a bad idea for a variety of reasons and should be eliminated, or that it's poorly implemented and should be changed. But I don't see how you can possibly argue that it's "immoral" because money is somehow "stolen" from one group and given to another.

What does it mean for something to be stolen? It's when property you own is taken without consent, right? Money is a type of property.

Property rights cannot morally be denied to me by a vote; my rights exist independently of government. In fact, the sole valid role of a proper government is to protect those rights.

*I* did not consent to paying money for Social Security; I will not use the service they claim to offer (which is also being represented fraudulently). Therefore, it most certainly is theft (and fraud).

Granted, it's a legalized form of theft, but that doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't make it moral (morality, too, exists independently of government).

[tombat1913]

Re: The Looting to Come

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

Supplemental question: In most developed countries the public education system is funded by taxes [apparently stolen from citizens]. Does that make public education an "immoral program"?

Just askin'...

Yes, it is an immoral system, we're being forced to pay for substandard education. Our education system is failing miserably.

[Master Shake]

Re: The Looting to Come

Charles Ponzi (mug shot)

It's recently become popular to say that the Social Security system in the US is no different from a Ponzi scheme. Not so for several reasons, and here's the major one:

A Ponzi scheme ends ineluctably in collapse, but Social Security can be -- and has been -- adjusted so that the retired and disabled continue to receive benefits. See this CNNMoney article for a succinct analysis.

SS will inevitably collapse due to demographic and economic changes. Having the power to tax and print money means the system can be extended. If anyone other than the government tried to run the system as is, they would be in jail for financial fraud.

[Techdread]

Re: The Looting to Come

My view is that all taxation is immoral, because it's not voluntary. If I don't pay, someone effectively puts a gun to my head and forces me to.

So why don't you emigrate to the amazon I'm sure they don't pay taxes there
Or if you don't like their standard of living try Dubai.

What does it mean for something to be stolen? It's when property you own is taken without consent, right? Money is a type of property.

Our society, community provided's us with the tools to make the money so we can pay our taxes and have the standard of living we enjoy.

The roads, railways, schools, sewers, energy infrastructure you get my point our paid for and maintained through taxation,

Property rights cannot morally be denied to me by a vote; my rights exist independently of government. In fact, the sole valid role of a proper government is to protect those rights.

The role of government is to govern, to make sure all of its citizen's have the opportunity to live full & happy productive lives:cool:

Granted, it's a legalized form of theft, but that doesn't make it right, and it certainly doesn't make it moral (morality, too, exists independently of government).

What's immoral is those whom have benefited most from the system not to contribute through taxes a larger proportion of their wealth to the system.

[Master Shake]

Re: The Looting to Come

...I think education is a vitally necessary condition for development...

Necessary, but not sufficient. There's also the issue of just how the populace is educated.

[GRG55]

Re: The Looting to Come

Maybe I made the mistake of using the word wealthier, I didn't mean they became literally wealthy, just that they had more money.

I disagree with the assessment of only "some", or at least in its comparison to FIRE. FIRE was a government backed industry, in terms of tax breaks, low interest rates, laws etc. It also was an industry were wealth was literally created out of thin air. ie. no value was really being produced (finance especially).
However, the industrial revolution led to so many different tangible inventions, assets and creation of wealth. In broad terms it did increase greatly the standard of living (communication, job creation, wages etc.)...

I don't really think we are in major disagreement over the effects of the industrial revolution. There's no doubt it was one of the most important catalysts to create important elements of the societies that we have today. Among other things the industrial revolution created the incentive for people to move, for the first time, in large numbers from agricultural activities in rural areas to [ultimately] more productive and better paying jobs in the cities.

I disagree that for developing economies or economies not even at developing level, education is not vital. However, as a country progresses the education will also progress regardless of government efforts. I really think that if you would of have 0 government involvement in education you would of still had more and more of the population becoming educated. Technological and economical changes dictate that.

As for education being vital, again I point out the countries I mentioned. If education was vital, those countries would be much better off.

MasterShake said exactly what I was going to respond. Education is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. To illustrate, investment capital is also a necessary condition to develop a modern industrial economy...and the oil exporters of the Middle East have capital coming out their ears. And they also have some of the most uncompetitive, inefficient and moribund economies anywhere in the world. Necessary...but not sufficient...



And I will note that one of the outcomes that I've seen of an increasingly deficient education system is that employers start educating their new hires to make up for the deficiency [and I am making a distinction between "education" and "training" here]. The problems I see with this approach are:

1. Anybody without basic reading, writing and math skills generally can't get hired in the first place;
2. Is having corporations running the "education system" any better than having "the government" in charge?...maybe in some ways it's worse...

[Verrocchio]

Re: The Looting to Come

The gist of your argument is that social security and Ponzi are alike in two important ways.

But it shares two critical similarities. Your money is going to pay out current payments to others, and you're going to get less than you should.

1. Yes, current contributions fund payments to others,
2. Yes, you're going to get less than you should.

However, your second point isn't valid. Some who contribute to social security will get less, but some will get more (for example, young parent who dies after contributing for a short time, leaving spouse and dependent children). In a Ponzi, most who contribute ultimately lose all that they invested, not "get less than [they] should."

Anyway, comparison to a Ponzi serves a useful purpose in that it associates the social security debacle with theft by deception. This is simpler and easier to understand, I suppose, than the main problem with social security: Payroll contributions that were not paid out to recipients were "loaned" to Congress for decades and used to mask Federal deficits.

We should use something other than the Ponzi comparison to focus outrage over this. I propose the provocative, and agreeably simple, image of the file cabinet of IOUs from the Federal Government to the Social Security Trust Fund as an icon of betrayal of the public trust.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: The Looting to Come

Some who contribute to social security will get less, but some will get more

I was speaking too cryptically. Of course some individuals will get more, some less.

I was speaking of the averages, the totalities. More will be collected, after properly discounting for inflation, than is paid out in benefits.

[tsetsefly]

Re: The Looting to Come

MasterShake said exactly what I was going to respond. Education is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. To illustrate, investment capital is also a necessary condition to develop a modern industrial economy...and the oil exporters of the Middle East have capital coming out their ears. And they also have some of the most uncompetitive, inefficient and moribund economies anywhere in the world. Necessary...but not sufficient...

With subdeveloped economies and developing economies (where much of the lower skilled workers will be employed in manufacturing, agriculture etc.) I dont think education is a necessity. But I agree that to continue to progress it is. However, we were discussing the time of the industrial revolution and that is were my argument was directed at. As you point out many uneducated workers left the countryside to work in low skilled but better paying jobs. What they needed was jobs not education. But off course as the economy and technology changed education became more and more important.

And I will note that one of the outcomes that I've seen of an increasingly deficient education system is that employers start educating their new hires to make up for the deficiency [and I am making a distinction between "education" and "training" here]. The problems I see with this approach are:

1. Anybody without basic reading, writing and math skills generally can't get hired in the first place;
2. Is having corporations running the "education system" any better than having "the government" in charge?...maybe in some ways it's worse...

I agree that employers are educating new hires, because the school system is failing to educate student. Off course the education system is run by government.

1. In the US I agree, however government is not needed to do that. In fact you can find many public high school student without basic reading, writing and math skills! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw

2. Government is always worse because they can "legally" use force to achieve what they want. And in education I think you would find many different alternatives and we would not see just 3 major corporations running things.

[hayekvindicated]

Re: The Looting to Come

Let me ask you a few of simple questions:

1. Did you go to school in a public education system?
2. If so, do you think you derived any benefit from that experience?
3. How much did you pay into the system before you started using it?

Supplemental question: In most developed countries the public education system is funded by taxes [apparently stolen from citizens]. Does that make public education an "immoral program"?

Just askin'...

I recommend that you send your kids to taxpayer funded British schools. That experience may make you reconsider.