Let's Abolish ALL Forms of Welfare

[krazy kaju]

I recently posted two entries in my blog (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/). The first entry can be found here (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-must-fight-all-welfarism.html) and the second one here (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/lets-abolish-all-forms-of-welfare.html).

My central argument is that we must fight for the immediate elimination of all forms of welfarism, including Social Security and Medicare. The reasons we must do this basically boil down to two reasons:
1. Radical ideas shape public discourse. Although practically nobody will agree with the immediate elimination of programs like Social Security and Medicare, arguing for that will shift public discourse away from ignorance and meaningless "reform" and toward the necessity of one day trashing these programs altogether.
2. Everyone would be better off with the end of welfarism. Basically, with a national debt beginning to be paid down and no taxes on saving and investment, the economy would grow at unprecedented rates. This would leave people flush with cash. What would these people choose to do with their cash? Well, according to the law of marginal utility, the more money you have, the less you value each individual dollar. With more and more people earning more and more money, charities would receive more and more donations. These donations could easily assist those who truly need it, while not funding wealthy taxeaters who use Social Security as purely supplemental income.

URLs:
Blog - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/
First Entry - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-must-fight-all-welfarism.html
Second Entry - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/lets-abolish-all-forms-of-welfare.html

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I recently posted two entries in my blog (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/). The first entry can be found here (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-must-fight-all-welfarism.html) and the second one here (http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/lets-abolish-all-forms-of-welfare.html).

My central argument is that we must fight for the immediate elimination of all forms of welfarism, including Social Security and Medicare. The reasons we must do this basically boil down to two reasons:
1. Radical ideas shape public discourse. Although practically nobody will agree with the immediate elimination of programs like Social Security and Medicare, arguing for that will shift public discourse away from ignorance and meaningless "reform" and toward the necessity of one day trashing these programs altogether.
2. Everyone would be better off with the end of welfarism. Basically, with a national debt beginning to be paid down and no taxes on saving and investment, the economy would grow at unprecedented rates. This would leave people flush with cash. What would these people choose to do with their cash? Well, according to the law of marginal utility, the more money you have, the less you value each individual dollar. With more and more people earning more and more money, charities would receive more and more donations. These donations could easily assist those who truly need it, while not funding wealthy taxeaters who use Social Security as purely supplemental income.

URLs:
Blog - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/
First Entry - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/we-must-fight-all-welfarism.html
Second Entry - http://bourgeoiseconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/lets-abolish-all-forms-of-welfare.html

I agree that all welfare needs to be abolished, I however don't agree that when we do abolish it, that it needs to be immediate. We have to eliminate it, in a way, that doesn't cause undue social strife. We may have to suck up the costs and for those who are dependant on Social Security promise to have that funded until they die, however, no further enrollees, and those who can afford to live without it, will be kicked off. In essence, no more FICA, however, cuts to other programs, and or shifting to private interests would free up capital to pay them. It would be a residual draw down until the last of them eventually dies, and then voila, no more SS.

With Medicare and Medicaid, SCHIP, etc....Seriously, the only way to get rid of these is to wholly privatize healthcare, meaning, get rid of licensing requirements, enforce the Commerce Clause for what it's worth (Until we get rid of the State of course) and "regulate" interstate commerce, vis a vis, allow people in one State to purchase insurance from another State, along with other numerous fixes, and then we need a politician that doesn't care about getting re-elected...

In essence. We need Statesman, not politicians. Who has the balls to carry out what needs to be done?

[krazy kaju]

By not immediately eliminating Social Security and Medicare you are doing two things:
1. Reducing the utility of everyone. You are slowing economic growth by increasing government transfer payments and taxes (and/or debt). You are also slowing economic growth by preventing current Social Security and Medicare taxeaters from leaving their state of dependence and reentering the labor force. Lastly, you are reducing the amount of private charity that would exist in the absence of these programs.
2. Violating the rights of those who would be forced to pay for Social Security and Medicare taxeaters.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest social programs in America. You cannot cut taxes satisfactorily and balance the budget without eliminating these two programs immediately. Together, they cost over $1.1 trillion. Social Security by itself is over $30 billion larger than the entire military budget (and yes, that includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). We must, without a doubt, eliminate these programs immediately.

For those who truly need outside assistance, the growth of private charity (as I outlined in my blog post) would by far make up the transfer payments they received from government.

[Revolution_Ready]

Damn, I just got back from reading your blog, Learned a lot! Thanks!

[armstrong]

geez if we did that and also stopped the wars and closed say 2/3rds of the military industrial complexes throughout the world we could fix allot of stuff here at home

[Meatwasp]

geez if we did that and also stopped the wars and closed say 2/3rds of the military industrial complexes throughout the world we could fix allot of stuff here at home

Yes give that money back to the tax payers

[krazy kaju]

Yup. I never quite understood why we have extremely large military bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. Even if we want to leave troops somewhere in East Asia, we don't need them in all three of those countries.


Damn, I just got back from reading your blog, Learned a lot! Thanks!

Why thank you. :)

[ClayTrainor]

Eliminate the concept of welfare and promote the concept of charity :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You have Ludwig Von Mises as your avatar. He was as big a promoter and understander of Human Nature as any. You can't just toss aside Human Nature when you're trying to accomplish goals. Of course we would all like to immediately dismantle all welfare, but that's not realistic. By immediately dismantling it, you cause massive social strife, and ultimately expansion of the police state. Not exactly, the goal now is it? While, yes, my way will take a bit longer, at least it doesn't cause an increase in the Police State, while also at the same time dismantling the Welfare State.

Remember, you have to include Human Nature into whatever you're trying to do. You of anyone should understand this.

[Danke]

Yup. I never quite understood why we have extremely large military bases in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. Even if we want to leave troops somewhere in East Asia, we don't need them in all three of those countries.



I'm pretty sure our footprint is small in the Philippines now.

[krazy kaju]

You can't just toss aside Human Nature when you're trying to accomplish goals.

I'm not.


Of course we would all like to immediately dismantle all welfare, but that's not realistic.

I know it isn't politically realistic.


By immediately dismantling it, you cause massive social strife, and ultimately expansion of the police state.

Not at all. Although there certainly would be political repercussions, it's not like retirees would take to the streets and start a revolution. Newfound economic growth and large increases in charity-giving would protect those who truly need assistance and quiet protests from the vast majority of the population.


While, yes, my way will take a bit longer, at least it doesn't cause an increase in the Police State, while also at the same time dismantling the Welfare State.

Anything taking "a bit longer" would effectively lead this nation to bankruptcy. Medicare and Social Security are supposed to go into the red as soon as 2012, but realistically probably much sooner.

[krazy kaju]

Supporters of Ron Paul are in favor of keeping the largest parts of the welfare state intact, despite Ron Paul's own views?

[ronpaulhawaii]

I prefer the phrase "phasing out" it is less scary to the people we need to attract (and teach gently)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I prefer the phrase "phasing out" it is less scary to the people we need to attract (and teach gently)

Honest Question: You support Adam Kokesh and work on his campaign. This is the man who said it's time to water the tree of liberty. We all know what Jefferson was talking about. What is the difference between that, and saying "abolish" welfare, which, we should all be for. Abolish doesn't mean instant.

I think as soon as we water down our message, we lose our message. It's not time to water it down, our founders certaintly didn't. Ron paul doesn't water it down.

As an aside, I support Kokesh and have donated. I'm just curious why the duplicity.

[krazy kaju]

Ok, well I won't be picking a fight about semantics, but the entire point of this thread and this position is that it's supposed to be shockingly radical and in-your-face. I'm saying we need to get our point across and not bend on issues.

Radicalism, in my view, drives the public debate. "Privatizing" and "phasing out" Social Security might be good ideas, but as soon as you implicitly assume the need for welfarism in the short-run, you give in to your opponents.

That said, I don't mind others disagreeing with me. I don't mind other liberty lovers thinking we should gently "phase out" welfare programs, as long as they believe that these welfare programs must eventually be eliminated.

The entire point of me posting this was educating people about the benefits of immediately ending all forms of welfarism, including retiree-favored welfarism.

[Brian4Liberty]

Let's not forget corporate welfare and foreign welfare (aid/nation building/policing).

[Zippyjuan]

Ron Paul has said he favors keeping Social Security and welfare to honor commitments made to those people who presently qualify but allowing "young people" the ability to opt out of it (as in not pay in or collect). Social Security taxes brought in an estimated $949 billion in revenues according to the 2009 budget. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If you are going to honor those commitments you need the money to pay for them.

Bush proposed "privatising" Social Security by allowing people to decide how "their money" would be invested - particularly into stocks. The recent economic situation will make that sort of idea a very tough sell.

On both ideas, the money is not in any sort of account for you. The money coming in by taxpayers today goes to paying current recipients.

We definately will need to do something about Social Security and Welfare- they are the largest consumers of our tax dollars and will continiue to grow. The original intent of Social Security was to help those with no money. It has grown into being the primary retirement fund for the vast majority of people. The age limit when it was started was set fairly close to the life expectancy of people- they were not expected to collect it for twenty or thirty years. As people started living longer, the minimum age for Social Security should have been raised too. We can still do that but it must be done slowly- say one year increase every two years rather than telling somebody elgible this year that we are suddenly going to make them wait ten years when their year older brother or sister still gets theirs.

[ronpaulhawaii]

Honest Question: You support Adam Kokesh and work on his campaign. This is the man who said it's time to water the tree of liberty. We all know what Jefferson was talking about. What is the difference between that, and saying "abolish" welfare, which, we should all be for. Abolish doesn't mean instant.

I think as soon as we water down our message, we lose our message. It's not time to water it down, our founders certaintly didn't. Ron paul doesn't water it down.

As an aside, I support Kokesh and have donated. I'm just curious why the duplicity.

OK finally back home. One thing people were probably unaware of is that, in addition to dealing with issues on this board, I have been out seeding the district all weekend... Hence, much of my frustration regarding distractions...

In answer to your question:

1 - Abolish means destroy, generally people react negatively to the term and assume it to be instant.

2 - RP chose to use the term "audit" for 1207, even though everyone knows his intent is to abolish the fed. Isn't that watering down? And hasn't it been much more effective than his previous bills to abolish? Why do you think that is?

3 - I take Jefferson's words to mean something different than I believe you do. I have chosen to water the tree with my own blood, sweat, and tears, as long as that option is available.

4 - what duplicity? I have always argued against using radical rhetoric in regards to affecting electoral politics. RP was running an educational campaign and chose to use the words he did for whatever reasons he did. I disagree that it was a good move, as far as winning an election. To accuse me of duplicity is not only unfair, but also hints that you think I feel RP infallible, which is erroneous, more based on assumptions that fact.

Me-thinks you should be careful with your assumptions...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

OK finally back home. One thing people were probably unaware of is that, in addition to dealing with issues on this board, I have been out seeding the district all weekend... Hence, much of my frustration regarding distractions...

In answer to your question:

1 - Abolish means destroy, generally people react negatively to the term and assume it to be instant.

2 - RP chose to use the term "audit" for 1207, even though everyone knows his intent is to abolish the fed. Isn't that watering down? And hasn't it been much more effective than his previous bills to abolish? Why do you think that is?

3 - I take Jefferson's words to mean something different than I believe you do. I have chosen to water the tree with my own blood, sweat, and tears, as long as that option is available.

4 - what duplicity? I have always argued against using radical rhetoric in regards to affecting electoral politics. RP was running an educational campaign and chose to use the words he did for whatever reasons he did. I disagree that it was a good move, as far as winning an election. To accuse me of duplicity is not only unfair, but also hints that you think I feel RP infallible, which is erroneous, more based on assumptions that fact.

Me-thinks you should be careful with your assumptions...

Fair enough. Would you however agree with radical rhetoric and action once elected? Anyways, much respect for all your efforts. I've been attending more community events, and spreading the message as best I can. Last community meeting, I think I may have gotten through to a Neo (And the head of the LP for the county was there, and I was vastly more radical hahaha)

I think it's pretty much common acceptance what Jefferson means, and what most people interpret it as. "...the blood of tyrants and patriots" Can't get any more specific. I thought Kokesh's speech was amazing.

I guess we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs in politics. I believe that a Statesman, vice a politician, should let his beliefs flow freely. I'm tired of politicians, and much of the nation is also. They don't want the watered down version. I guess we can agree to disagree :p

[ronpaulhawaii]

Fair enough. Would you however agree with radical rhetoric and action once elected? Anyways, much respect for all your efforts. I've been attending more community events, and spreading the message as best I can. Last community meeting, I think I may have gotten through to a Neo (And the head of the LP for the county was there, and I was vastly more radical hahaha)

I think it's pretty much common acceptance what Jefferson means, and what most people interpret it as. "...the blood of tyrants and patriots" Can't get any more specific. I thought Kokesh's speech was amazing.

I guess we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs in politics. I believe that a Statesman, vice a politician, should let his beliefs flow freely. I'm tired of politicians, and much of the nation is also. They don't want the watered down version. I guess we can agree to disagree :p

I believe there is a time and a place for radical rhetoric both before and after an election, but I believe that discretion is needed to discern when each is appropriate. For certain I believe it is best to start off gently, in most cases, and see where the envelope can be pushed. I canvassed a flea market Saturday, for some folk I stated "we are not politicians, we are activists" for others I stated, "we are not politicians, we are r3VOLutionaries". For most it was very effective, but no-one is perfect at instantaneous discernment and some I had to tone up or down depending on reaction. I do not feel this is a matter of "playing a crowd" and actually feel it is a matter of having empathy and consideration for the folk I am talking to. Most want what we want and it is our job to find a way to get them to hear, not just listen.

I have vast experience in talking to people and have found the vast majority come around quicker if approached gently. I don't know how much experience you have with waking the sleeping giant, but I have traveled through 35 states in the last two years doing just that. In my experience, first appearances matter. In the end it is a numbers game.

I do think it important to address the political success of "audit the fed" vs. "abolish the fed" Why do you think we have had such success with the former and none with the latter?

Finally, Adam's speech said, "Whether with our blood or yours, we have come to water the tree of liberty" Yes, it was referencing r3VOLution, but Adam has always emphasized the LOV3 in revolution and his statement left the door open for the peaceful one we all are working towards.