From: golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: University of Toronto Chemistry Department
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:51:35 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.164340.16973@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>Human capital is the most important resource in a society...
>
>if that is true, then a true free market will be sure to maintain
>it at a high state of utilization.

Markets can not do absolutely everything...for example, markets
are not democratic, and do not necessarily protect the fundamental
right of an individual to a vote of relatively equal value...
legitimate government is limited by individual rights, and so
are markets.  A social safety net is essential to maintain the
fundamental political rights of the individual.  Democracy
does put constraints on absolutely free markets...which is
the other oversight Objectivists and pure libertarians tend to
make.

>socialists are not interested in "resource utilization". they are
>interested in providing goodies to the electorate, to make them feel
>warm and fuzzy, and to ensure they get to keep their jobs.
>
>>a society
>>is not going to be successful without a social safety net...
>
>says who? "government as parents" is a recent invention.
>justify your claim.
>

Individual have fundamental rights...and those include fundamental
political rights, which can really only be exercised freely when
at least the minimum of basic human needs is filled.  A starving
human being has been deprived of their right to vote "freely".

>>but the
>>social safety net should not be designed to create a poverty trap
>>and an underclass and a huge social service bureaucracy dedicated to
>>insuring that it grows.
>
>you assume that they are not inextricably linked due to the nature
>of the "safety net". it has to do with incentives and motivation.
>are there any safety nets out there that *haven't* turned into what you
>describe? if so, how come none of ours haven't?
>

Ours were designed by socialists...not by people committed to the
protection of individual rights.

>>A negative income tax or a guarenteed annual
>>income set at an appropriate level is the best and most efficient and
>>effective social safety net.
>
>as i said, i don't want to pick one form of poison over another.
>perhaps you are right, but why is either form good?
>

Then, you sir, are not a democrat and do not believe that the
fundamental rights including political rights of each and every
individual must be protected.

>>The focus of any other government programs
>>are programs for advancement and opportunity and for those who are
>>working and who want to work and who are the working poor.  The
>>problem with the current system is we focus our attention and services
>>on those who don't want to work, instead of on the working poor.
>
>how many "working poor" do you think there will be if you offer
>to pay them $15,000 minus however much they make now? do you think
>people are going to flip hamburgers at McDonalds for no reason?

Welfare is more attractive than a minimum wage job as it is now...

>do you think a company is going to pay people $20,000 to
>unskilled labor to lure them away from the "competition", i.e.
>the government paying them to stay home?

With a guarenteed annual income, there is no need for minimum wage
laws...companies need only pay labour what is required to make a
profit.  We can require that people able to work, work...or volunteer 
service to the community where there are things to be done.

>
>what is an "average citizen"? they are certainly not in *my* best interest.
>social programs are nothing more than transfers of wealth from the producers
>to the consumers. the "average citizen" gains if he consumes more than
>he produces. and that is what leads to the problematic attitudes and
>conditions in our society.
>

Well, you have demonstrated that you neither believe in democracy or
in fundmental individual rights which include political rights.
A starving person has been deprived of their right to a vote exercised
with "free will" and without coersion.

>
>also, if social programs are so wonderfully "long term", why is it
>that program after program results in corruption, waste, and long-term
>dependency? you described the current system as a "fly trap". do you
>think its original proponents thought that it would be anything
>but wonderful at the time? why do you give so much credit to yet
>another social program with a fancy name? why should it be any different?
>

The socialists who designed the programs, and people of your ilk, i.e.
Objectivists and libertarians, aren't motivated by the principles of
individual rights and democracy.  A starving person has been deprived
of their individual rights.

Gerald

Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada