From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Negative Income Tax (Was: Social programs)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 05:46:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.195135.5660@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>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...

how so?

>legitimate government is limited by individual rights, and so
>are markets.

then the current government is not legitimate. because it violates
my rights constantly.

>A social safety net is essential to maintain the
>fundamental political rights of the individual.

that's what the politicians tell you. but what "rights" are these?
what do you mean by this?

>Democracy
>does put constraints on absolutely free markets...which is
>the other oversight Objectivists and pure libertarians tend to
>make.

well, i said that a *true* free market would maintain high utilization
of labor. that is an unachievable utopia. so the utilization would not
be ideal. but it would still be better than the socialist bastardization
that exists now. which is an oversight that socialists/collectivists
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.

what rights are these? who has a right to have their basic needs fulfilled?
that's why you have two hands and a strong back. if you want to argue
for alms for the disabled, that's a different story, perhaps. but don't
tell me anyone has a right to have his or her needs fulfilled when you
are going to steal from me to fulfill them.

so what is a "fundamental political right"?

>A starving
>human being has been deprived of their right to vote "freely".

that's ridiculous. what does one have to do with the other?
the level of starvation necessary to cause someone to be "too weak
to mark an X on his ballot" would not happen in any society where people
cared about each other, even if they cared about each other without
governmental Robin Hoods running the show. food and ballots have nothing
to do with each other.

besides, we're talking about an *enormous* safety net here -- the current
one does far more than just give its recipients bread. and *still* there are
those who are hungry.

>>>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.

the idea of a "negative income tax" was also. so why should it be
any different. what kind of safety net can exist that does not violate
individual rights?

who are these "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.

that must be the "mother of all non sequiturs"...
i ask you to tell me why either social net is good and you conclude
that i am not in favor of democracy? why? what definition of
democracy are *you* using? and what are these mysterious political rights?

>>>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...

then why exacerbate the situation? you are in effect admitting that
these safety nets encourage people not to work. how can they be
justified if they produce this result? as i said, why choose between
poisons?

>>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.

ah, but you miss the point. before, business had to compete for
labor -- with too low wages (benefits or whatever), it would have 
trouble attracting personnel. it was a trade-off of compensation against
job difficulty. with this "negative income tax" monstrosity, they have
to compete against another "company" -- the government. and the government's
job description is: "do nothing. pays $15,000 a year". so the companies
trying to hire have to create a high enough differential between their
salaries and the government's that they can attract labor. in essence,
they have to say "the government will pay you $15K to watch TV. we want
40 hours a week of hard work. so we have to pay you a lot more than $15K
to get you to give up your cosy 'job'". this creates a de facto
minimum wage which would probably be at least $20,000, and probably more
(would you take a job flipping burgers at 11 pm for $20,000 over a 'job'
consistent of free time for $15,000? most people wouldn't).

then the companies will be fighting for position on the peace bridge
and the ambassador bridge, while the government tells us it's just
more "temporary FTA consolidation".

>We can require that people able to work, work...or volunteer 
>service to the community where there are things to be done.

yeah right. then why isn't this being done now?
i heard Metro Toronto chairman Alan Tonks on a radio show in TO one
day this year. someone asked him exactly why welfare recipients
weren't doing construction, providing day-care, or even crafting.
his reply (paraphrased): "what? we can't *force* people to work
against their will!" sure, but you can force those who do work
to give the recipients welfare against the workers' will...
there's protection of individual rights for you.

also, think about how efficient the government would be at organizing
and enforcing this "forced labor". i can just imagine.
they have such a wonderful track record.

>>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.

oh bull. i have demonstrated no such thing. define these political
rights and we'll see. my position is far more in favor of individual
rights than is yours.

>A starving person has been deprived of their right to a vote exercised
>with "free will" and without coersion.

what a load of crap. you think i will believe this more if you just
repeat it six times all over your post? justify this nonsense.

>>
>>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.

since you know it all, what *are* we motivated by?
and if you are neither a objectivist/libertarian nor a socialist,
what exactly are you? and again, how are the same socialists who designed
the other programs which you practically admit are failures going
to make anything better with *more* programs?

>A starving person has been deprived
>of their individual rights.

do you have a macro set up for that sentence or something?

again: what rights does a starving person lose? also, whose fault is it
that someone who does not want to work is starving? is it
mine? how? if not, why am i responsible to correct the situation?

--
charles
Newsgroups: soc.culture.canada,talk.abortion,talk.politics.animals