I disagree. Nobody has won yet. Martin hasn't even been arguing about the same thing. Red never said that he prefers private investing over Social Security nor the other way around. Merely that he is in favor of private investing. It's not mutually exclusive. He pays social security taxes and privately invests, and I'm sure he's not averse to receiving social security benefits.
Did not mean to have someone explain the thread. I've actually not even read much of it. Was just adding my infinite sillyness to the thread. :hihi: Was some mighty fine smack talk by martin though.
well, nobody will win in the sense that we will prove a system is better. i will win in the minds of people who favor personal freedom over government mandated insurance. my only point is that i am demonstrating that red is intellectually dishonest because he will not admit the simple fact that government mandated programs of any kind necessarily lessen personal freedom, and that he favors the government not allowing people to manage their own savings. so private money management and SS ARE mutually exclusive in the sense that you certainly cannot manage your own money if they government already has it or is mandating what you do with it. obviously you can take additional money and invest it, but that is stating the obvious, because the government hasnt taken ever single cent you own. no matter what the SS system is, at least some of your money will be be out of your control. and i dont think that is right. for example, if we socialize health care, you are forced to pay into the system. the fact that you could also buy health services on your own, independent of the government, doesnt mean your money was not also taken for the collectivist system. you cant argue that you still are managing your own healkth care budget, because government programs are NOT VOLUNTARY.
by the way i was being an ass on purpose earlier for the purposes of making myself laugh. i dont really make ridiculous victory pronouncements and mean them.
Had to bow out of this thread, despite it being one of my biggest hot buttons. But I really don't understand how you can think that martin is wrong here. It's no big deal if you like a paternalistic government. But if you do, just say it.
What I've actually said, if you've read any of my posts on this thread, is that there is a balance to be achieved between government and individual responsibilities. This is obvious to any rational person. Can I be any more clear? Never once have I said I prefer a paternalistic government! martin makes pompous statements saying that if I disgree with him on some point, then I must be a proponent of everything he he fears and loathes and "intellectually dishonest" if I deny it. What puerile nonsense. :lol: I'll discuss any point I've made here, MD, but not points that martin imagines I must believe. I've had to ignore martin again because he has stopped explaining his beliefs on this thread. Instead he is caught up in demanding that I defend statements I did not make or criticising positions he imagines I have, despite my clear comments to the contrary. He has the childish notion that getting the last post makes him a winner of something. I can sometimes make a fool of him several times on the same thread, because of this. But I tire of it. Cparso put it best--martin is arguing an entirely other matter, . . . and he doesn't even realize it. :grin: Don Quixote is tilting at windmills, again. Don't join him, Sancho. :yelwink2:
Trust me, I've read all of the posts here, much to my chagrin! I understand your point about a balance, but my personal opinion swings far to the side of personal responsibility and none to government. That's just my opinion, and I generally think that when the government seeks to assume tasks that I feel are personal responsibilities, they're being paternalistic. Just a personal opinion, as I tire easily of our society lowering out to the lowest common denominator. And yes, I understand that Democracy was built on such a dumbing down effect, but I'm still not happy about it.
That's cool with me. The balance point can shift around as needed. My point is only that there is a balance point. To insist upon no government at all is anarchy. To insist upon all government is monarchy. I insist only upon a proper balance between the two. Democracy.
