First Ayn Rand, now Hayek and Koch

[kingyak]

kingyak,  I can see your point.  it is undeniable that having SSI allows for elderly to live or live better than they would without it, and although it doesn't necessarily follow that not having SSI leads to the opposite situation if you allow for a different system of protection, i would agree that simply relying on the generosity of neighbors doesn't cut the mustard.  you're right, it never has, and likely never would, and just wishing it would be that way, and basing policy on the fact that it should be that way would certainly lead to unfortunate circumstances for innocent people.

I'm not saying SSI is the only solution, but whatever different system of protection you come up with is still going to cost something, so it's ultimately a matter of how to distribute the costs and payouts. The end result is still the same.

[The Rev]

Ipt, it's Rationalism 101.  

If one has ideas about Reality, and then experiences things that are contrary to those ideas, the one must change their ideas about Reality.


If you say that SSI is wrong and unecessary, and then find yourself in a situation where you are in need of it and use it, then you need to rethink your ideas about SSI.

Look at the Feynman quote in Dok Howl's sig, and think about how that applies to the conversation we're having.

I don't think it was established that the SSI is correct and necessary.  They're simply recouping their losses, right?  would they have fallen to rock bottom had the safety net not been there?  and if they would, and the safety net saved them, would that imply that there is not any alternative that could conceivably work equally well without resorting to what they oppose?  It may be the case.  perhaps so. but i they have not invalidated their position in their actions, from what i can see.

look, i'm not advocating anything here that anyone is opposed to, so i guess i don't have a dog in the fight.  it seems apparent that the only reason that i am engaged in debate here is because there was some ribbing of some guy that is commonly seen as a nincompoop amongst the people here, and i got in the way of the poking because i didn't think it was warranted in this case.  i shoulda known better, and i really don't want to get anybody riled up at me, over it.

so, actually, i'll just do the milquetoast shuffle on outta here.  sorry for pooping in the punch, guys.  
i love you all.

Do you have a job? I sure hope so. My SSI Disability check comes on the 1st.

[Elder Iptuous]

are the coffers running that low already?!

[Telarus]

are the coffers running that low already?!

I think this conversation had some teeth because you decided to play devil's advocate for a bit. 

Libertarians = sociopaths.

It was unclear to me before, but now I understand. "Rational self-interest" actually says it all.

Aaaah, my pal Uriah posted to his G+ account something that gave me a similar illumination (he's a little wordy... I like your summation):

If you think that the progressives don't give a shit about liberty I don't think you know a damn thing about liberty OR progressives. If you can't see that it's important to demand the right to liberty for the weakest among us above the objections of the powerful, then we have no common ground. Liberty is demanded, and then taken from the powerful, and there is no meaningful difference between making that demand on the national level and doing it on a local level, except that operating at the national level ensures that there are no holdouts but the simmering discontent of the bigots who have been reduced to outsiders. No matter what level of government it happens at, it is still imposing the will of the majority over other people, no matter how small you atomize it, even if you reduce it to just a social contract, like white people basically agreeing not to say the n-word, it's still imposing upon others the will of the majority. There is no such thing as a society without a social contract. It's not even that a society that promotes individualism above all else is tantamount to barbarism-- it's that it cannot even be said to exist, it's not even possible. It is in our natures, indivisible from the human experience itself, fundamental to all of human interaction.

The question is not whether or not a society imposes its will on its members, nor is it a question of what scale or organizational structure that imposition uses-- the question is whether the impositions that society places upon its members are just, it's whether they are in support of liberty or not, it's whether they have a reasoned and firm basis to believe that liberty and justice will be furthered by their program. THAT is the difference between the neocons and the progressives.

Libertarianism is not even wrong-- it is simply so hopelessly naive that it can never begin to achieve its aims, and so directionless and idealistic that it can be used to justify most any injustice, so long as it's not done at the hands of democracy. It is anti-democratic at its heart, the abandonment of the social responsibility for pursuing justice that we all have.

[The Rev]

are the coffers running that low already?!

You asked for that one!