Godwin’s law aside, I meant Social Security.
Facebook Commenter’s Point:
People are greedy and will not do something the aid each other, combined with the fact that the young will not save for retirement means that social society is necessary. “ It’s worked so far. People just choose to complain and scream “it’s MY money!!” that’s why I agree with EVERYONE paying into it equally.”…” if given the money they would otherwise be paying into SS, would actually save it for their own retirement? Next to none.” People would spend it on having fun.
Counter:
1. Greed
Economy is necessary part humanity; part of economy is the principal of supply and demand. This exists due to the fact that there will never be enough resources to go around based on a person to person idea of needs and distribution.
By saying that the elderly that you personally know deserve the appropriation of these resources you are indirectly saying that someone else is less deserving of the same resources. While you are calling people “greedy” for not sharing their section of resources you are in fact being “greedy” by putting the needs of one person over the other.
Greed is commonly defined as the excessive use, ownership or gain of a resource or resources. Excessive is very subjective. The mere idea the ability for one to be comfortable in anyone is excessive to someone that does not share these means.
2. Equally
The post does not go on to explain what their ideas of equal are based on.
A. Flat
Provided the fact that people do not earn the same wages, people are not skilled in the same manner, people do not have the same level of skills, people are constructions of different environments physically, socially, and genetically. There will never be a situation of Karl Marx’s equality. Therefore people will always gain resources at different rates.
This means that the subtract of a normalized flat rate would unaffected the people who, in the case of social security, would likely not need it and would devastate the ability to live, let alone strive, the people who will need these resources at a later date. This leaves the middle, if populations stayed normalized and the gain and lose of resources was constant then the true middle class would gain from this system.
Until payout, to continue this system flat amount goes in flat amount comes out. And this could not be adjusted for changes in economy. This would mean that the people who need it would be unable to get enough while the people who don’t need it still do not require it to live and the middle class is doing ok.
Any sort of redistribution of resources would be “greedy” unless it was done on an optional basis, at which point someone would have to dictate who deserves the resources which in itself are a form of greed.
B. Percentage
With this system, the upper and middle classes would be operating with normal conditions, but the people on the edge would need that little extra to survive or even gain comfort in their life’s would again be hurt.
On payout, the lower classes would not have enough to live on without adjustments, the middle class would make do and finally the upper class would receive a considerable amount that they mostly likely would not have a need for.
Again this all assuming that the world and its economy do not change, to help the lower class you must again use the system to dictate who deserves the resources and explore more regulated “greed”.
—-
All of this assumes that the world does not change, resources are not destroyed, but only moved and the cost to maintain each person is the same. If this and any of the other systems described above where true and could work, then they would not be necessary because we would not have human flaw and could live happy ever after in Karl Marx’s utopia.
3. Regulation
The ability to dictate what and how people live their lives and spend their money is not only greed for your idea of life, but it is also states that the ability for anyone else to think, reason or create a connection of neural path ways is far below your own.
When most people want to regulate they feel that since people have shown the inability to think for their selves and eat healthy or wear a seat belt or … or …, they do not contain the ability to do it in the future. If you do not allow a man to learn to read, what makes you think it will learn to read?
The more regulation you put on someone’s day to day lives, you limit their ability to make chooses, and this limits their ability to even be able to make chooses. This has been proven by test cases, and by people who spend 30 years in prison and do not understand how to live on the outside.
To create a population that has enough foresight to save for their personal future and to make good chooses you must all them to make those chooses. People will make the choices you consider to be wrong, this is Darwinism. They may fail at life, or do great things you are unable to truly judge until a long enough time period has passed. That period is their life, and the people who make poor choices will slowly but surely will remove themselves from the world. This process takes many generations, but humans are smart and can overcome.
—-
In short no system is perfect, and that is simply because not only does perfection not exists as something that is tangible, it does not exists as anything more than an abstract idea of what cannot exists. Given enough freedom and time people will ultimately make the right choice as a whole, humanity made it this far on that instinct and will continue to survive on that idea.
















