The White Ghetto

[Pointedstick]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

Moving money from person A to person B gobbles up 17% of GDP! Om nom nom…

[goodasgold]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/welfare_spending

Welfare is welfare no matter what name the government uses to describe (or hide) it. PS, you are good at finding visual aids, so please post a graph of the U.S. gov's unfunded liabilities. It is a shocker.

[moda0306]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

SS is up because we have more retirees in general... not an overall growth in dependency.

The most recent spike is obviously a natural result of a financial crisis followed by recession and rampant unemployment.

[Pointedstick]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

[moda0306]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

So education hasn't really changed as a percentage of GDP since 1970.

Thanks for proving my point.

All we ever hear about is how out of control spending on this stuff is.

[Pointedstick]

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

I don't know how you can look at that graph and say, "hmm, not much growth." To me it looks like welfare's share of GDP rose from 12% to 17%. That's a 40% increase!!!

Obviously there are reasons for this increase. But I don't particularly think any of those reasons are good. Having more people dependent on the government for their basic expenses doesn't strike me as a good thing.

[moda0306]

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

I don't know how you can look at that graph and say, "hmm, not much growth." To me it looks like welfare's share of GDP rose from 12% to 17%. That's a 40% increase!!!

Obviously there are reasons for this increase. But I don't particularly think any of those reasons are good. Having more people dependent on the government for their basic expenses doesn't strike me as a good thing.

I must have pasted the wrong graph.  I was looking at your "welfare" one where spending was about the same as 1980.

"Entitlement" spending is heavily driven by demographics.  Not that this doesn't present a real problem, but it's more of a "quantity" problem than a "quality" one.  It's not a degredation of a class of society morally... more just a ton of people are getting old.

This is going to present problems for a society, to be sure, but all I see it as is an uncomfortable bubble of consumption that we might have trouble meeting from a production point of view, and some adjustments might have to be made....

... then it will go away.  It's just a demographic bubble, and maybe there will be more in the future, but it's not representative of some great lazy moral decline.

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

[moda0306]

And if we consider education as a form of welfare:


http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/education_spending

So education hasn't really changed as a percentage of GDP since 1970.

Thanks for proving my point.

All we ever hear about is how out of control spending on this stuff is.

... and how ridiculous it is that the federal government get involved with education spending...

[Kshartle]

Do you have any figures to back this up, either in foreign countries or domestically?  Do you have anything that shows that welfare and social support is growing massively as a percentage of GDP?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ent ... t_spending

A few things....

So we're essentially not too far from where we were at in 1977 or so... There doesn't seem to be much growth there.  And maybe what growth there is, is POSSIBLY a result of, not a contributor to, the loss of opportunity in our economy for lower classes.

SS is up because we have more retirees in general... not an overall growth in dependency.

The most recent spike is obviously a natural result of a financial crisis followed by recession and rampant unemployment.

SS is dependancy. It is welfare no matter what the government calls it.

There is no trust fund. It's empty. It's a pay-as-you-go system.

The trust fund, as far as I know...is filled with T-bonds, IOUs from the government. I know some people think this is as good as money. That is laughable. That's like me writing myself a check for 1 million and claiming I'm a millionaire. If the asset is the same size as the liability there is nothing there. 

[Pointedstick]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

[Kshartle]

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

[Kshartle]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

It's called "failure to state".

It's an argumentative tactic that permits someone to disagree without ever explaining why the other party is wrong or stating a concrete position.

It's frustrating.

Please prove me wrong. I beg to be proved wrong so I can learn.

[moda0306]

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

They would have spent most of it .

[Kshartle]

I'm assuming you're not asserting that the existence of social security and medicare actually CREATED the demographic bubble that's going to present problems, correct?

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

They would have spent most of it .

Yes, spent some and invested some. What do you think they would have bought?

*hint - it would not have been wars, welfare, monuments, paper pushers (govt workers), spy agencies etc. etc. etc.

What do you think would have been different if they had been able to allocate the resources they earned, rather than the masters of this land allocating them?

[moda0306]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

I think I have offered my perspective a few times... that government should provide a general support for the basic needs of people.

Certain programs are crap.  Others are actually quite useful, and are difficult to "game."  Further, the mere existence of the vast claims of ownership of un-earned "private property," in my mind, necessitates payment to everyone else for those.  Withholding resources that you didn't create for others' labor is theft, IMO.  Though, it's all tough because I see us all in one big moral dilemma, with unearned "private property," and "government" being a couple imperfect quasi-solutions to the dilemma.

I can't "prove" any of this.  But I am ok to state my position, observations, instincts, and then admitbrting room for wrongness or that I haven't been able to "deductively prove" my position... no more than anyone can "prove" a moral solution to a moral dilemma.

But Kshartle carries with his "proven" assertions, and lectures about logical fallacies, with very little knowledge about how logic must be structured... hence him not being able to prove even to libertarians that he is right... and I have to do a few things with all these certainties he presents:

1) Define terms... Property... poverty... rights... ownership... deserve... violence/force...  it's really important to figure out what he means by these, because philosophers have debated inductively regarding human morality for centuries, yet K thinks he's figured it all out.

2) Establish true premises... If his premises aren't true, this needs to be questioned or pointed out.

3) Establish the conclusion logically follows from the premises in all cases... once again, if this is not obvious, we have to question and point out this bad logic.

So of course I have questions.  Him (and other libertarians, to a degree) are trying to hand-wave away the issue of poverty and misery of others via the word "charity." 

I'd try to "prove" something if I thought I really had a whole lot to prove other than definitions are being used sloppily, history is being misquoted, conclusions are not necessarily or even likely following premises, and the premises might not even be true to begin with.

[Pointedstick]

Moda, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tear Kshartle's premises down when IMHO it's totally obvious to everyone what the problems are, and you're not going to convince him of the contradiction between logical consistency and "I know it when I see it"-style moral judgements.

I would be interested to know if you think the government programs that you believe are moral actually work. Do you think they do? Or do you just think the morality of their existence obliges them to continue irrespective of whether or not they accomplish their stated goals?

Because from my perspective, most if not all of them wind up either failing to achieve their goals or even worsening the problem they are supposed to solve. To me that is a much more interesting conversation that the definition of "ownership" and "deserve" because, being individuals, we are bound to hold at least slightly differing definitions for such terms, and if we begin from the premise that we have to have total agreement on all terms before we can begin the discussion for realsies, we'll never get there.

[moda0306]

Moda, one thing I find a little perplexing is that sometimes it seems like you feel the need to defend government programs or welfare from attack, yet I don't recall ever actually seeing you claim that the programs are actually helpful. When we argue that welfare traps people in cycles of dependency, you quibble over terms and sometimes argue that welfare is necessary or morally justified as a consequence of private property, but I don't believe you've ever actually argued that welfare makes people's lives better or helps them escape from hopelessness or poverty (or whatever bad condition)--this is the whole point, I believe.

So, maybe you could offer your own perspective a bit? If you believe that welfare and transfer payments help people, could you explain your thinking? If you don't think they do, well then why are we arguing?

It's called "failure to state".

It's an argumentative tactic that permits someone to disagree without ever explaining why the other party is wrong or stating a concrete position.

It's frustrating.

Please prove me wrong. I beg to be proved wrong so I can learn.

You don't like questions.

You don't like to use logic correctly (nor do you know what it even is), but constantly accuse others of "logical fallacies" when the burden of proof is on you, not them.

You don't like links or quotes from outside sources.

You don't like hypothetical scenarios that illustrate a moral dilemma.

You don't like historical context.


K,

The reason your posts beg so many questions can be summed up in that you view legitimacy of interaction/force differently than 99% of the population that ISN'T an anarcho-capitalist, yet you carry with you 100% certainty about it.  When you carry such absolutism about a moral code that doesn't resonate with so much of the population, prepare to be asked questions about how you've built it.

Given this, we could (and have) discuss things ad nausium before we even get to me having to state one position.  Even if I did, I understand before hand that any political solution I may present is an imperfect solution to a moral dilemma we're presented with on earth that NECESSITATES force upon others.  Solutions to moral dilemmas DON'T come in the form of deductive reasoning. They come in the form of "uh this is kind of shitty... I guess I think this is a good compromise (based on details within human dignity, history, human nature, etc)."

[Kshartle]

The only reason I concern myself with understanding what is morally right and wrong is because there are consquences to doing right vs. wrong. If something like theft is truly wrong.....then there are negative consquences. The consequences are humans being less happy. Good doesn't come from bad. Good is better than bad. Wrong behavior = bad behavior = bad consequences. That's why if you understand that theft is wrong and that inflation is the theft of purchasing power, people don't need to understand all the mechanaisms by which the inflation ends up hurting us.

You can skip to the end. Dithering about the details might be interesting but let's not be confused about whether or not good can come from bad.

There is a real world expression in terms of consequences when something bad is done (like theft). Even if the goal is noble (helping the poor). Stealing to help them has the opposite effect. It entraps them and others and leaves us all poorer. Good, noble, voluntary, RATIONALE charity does not.

[Kshartle]

constantly accuse others of "logical fallacies" when the burden of proof is on you, not them.

I actually accuse others of argumentative fallacies.

When people make an argument it's so much better when there is a basis.

Saying "I'm right because professor X agrees, or 99% of people agree".....this just an appeal to authority or to the group and not a valid argument.

Saying "Either we have a welfare enforced by the government and you shouldn't complain about it or there should be no private charity" is just another fallacious argument (excluded middle).

I like to point them out so we can all try to make better arguments. It actually will force you to think about something if you can't use these false arguments.

[Kshartle]

The reason your posts beg so many questions can be summed up in that you view legitimacy of interaction/force differently than 99% of the population that ISN'T an anarcho-capitalist, yet you carry with you 100% certainty about it.  When you carry such absolutism about a moral code that doesn't resonate with so much of the population, prepare to be asked questions about how you've built it.

And answer them i have....over and over and over. I've explained them inside and out.

I started with the simple concept that we exist.

99% of people think that theft and the initiation of force against others (who have done nothing to "deserve" it) is morally acceptable? Hmmmm.....do you really believe that?

Even if they do....60% of Americans profess a beleif in angels. Does that mean angels exist?

[moda0306]

Moda, you spend an awful lot of time trying to tear Kshartle's premises down when IMHO it's totally obvious to everyone what the problems are, and you're not going to convince him of the contradiction between logical consistency and "I know it when I see it"-style moral judgements.

I would be interested to know if you think the government programs that you believe are moral actually work. Do you think they do? Or do you just think the morality of their existence obliges them to continue irrespective of whether or not they accomplish their stated goals?

Because from my perspective, most if not all of them wind up either failing to achieve their goals or even worsening the problem they are supposed to solve. To me that is a much more interesting conversation that the definition of "ownership" and "deserve" because, being individuals, we are bound to hold at least slightly differing definitions for such terms, and if we begin from the premise that we have to have total agreement on all terms before we can begin the discussion for realsies, we'll never get there.

Program I think "work" to reduce poverty from where it would otherwise would be without the program:

Medicare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment Insurance
Public Education
Universal Healthcare
SNAP benefits

None of them are perfect, and most of them are probably gamed by some people in certain situations.

The vast majority of cash flow goes into programs for seniors... which K has referred to as essentially being welfare (that's fine).  Senior poverty has gone WAY down since before these programs were introduced.  I think SS probably pays too much, and Medicare probably covers too much (especially at end-of-life).

SNAP probably buys too much junk food.  And unemployment probably pays some people who could find a job or are working on the side.

[Mountaineer]

Anyone ever read "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" by Steven Covey?  Great book for understanding how to relate to others and seek a "win-win" solution vs. the win-lose that so many seem embeded in.

... Mountaineer

[moda0306]

The reason your posts beg so many questions can be summed up in that you view legitimacy of interaction/force differently than 99% of the population that ISN'T an anarcho-capitalist, yet you carry with you 100% certainty about it.  When you carry such absolutism about a moral code that doesn't resonate with so much of the population, prepare to be asked questions about how you've built it.

And answer them i have....over and over and over. I've explained them inside and out.

I started with the simple concept that we exist.

99% of people think that theft and the initiation of force against others (who have done nothing to "deserve" it) is morally acceptable? Hmmmm.....do you really believe that?

Even if they do....60% of Americans profess a beleif in angels. Does that mean angels exist?

You've certainly attempted to flesh out your positions.  Myself and others disagree that you've validated your positions.

[moda0306]

K,

I've stated dozens of times that we're essentially stuck on a rock together, and need to access its resources, so we have no choice but to compete with each other for resources...

No. Choice.

So, yes, in a world where we have no choice to force others in one way or another, I think I have one possible solution of many to limit that force for a better scenario.

99% of people are NOT anarcho-capitalists, so they basically disagree with you about what is "force" vs "enforcement."

Of course, if you ask people "is initiating force right or wrong," they'll usually say "wrong."  However, if you want their definition of "initiation of force," and dig into that, then you'll see stark disagreement, because they see the government as having some legitimate "enforcement" roles.

[moda0306]

It most certainly did.

Imagine all that stolen money having never been stolen...and people not working and spending their entire lives just waiting for the day they could become wards of the State so they can retire.

They would have spent most of it .

Yes, spent some and invested some. What do you think they would have bought?

*hint - it would not have been wars, welfare, monuments, paper pushers (govt workers), spy agencies etc. etc. etc.

What do you think would have been different if they had been able to allocate the resources they earned, rather than the masters of this land allocating them?

You really weren't answering my question anyway... I asked if SS actually created the current demographic bubble.  As in, would there be far fewer boomers alive today without SS?