08 February 2012

Ditto*


* I agree with this, but I also think it's fine for government to smooth our way by taxing us when we work to pay for OUR education when we are young and OUR pensions when we are old. By that, I mean government programs that are open to everyone but used according to age or need (poverty, healthcare) are better than programs marked for special interests (by industry, geography, etc.). While agreeing with false claims of "compassion," I also see a benefit from a basic -- and easy to access -- safety net. Most existing programs are far too complex.

2 comments:

Jay said...

We shouldn't get fooled by false choices. The choice is not between doing nothing and the government doing something, though this is how the political agrument is often framed. (Hint: Framing it this way transfers power to the ruling class.)

There are many traditional, institutional arrangements where the assistance can occur, from family, to neighborhood, to friend groups, to church groups, to fraternal organizations - or other affinity groups (though these are a bit out of style these days), to commercial relationships like insurance, before government organizations become involved.

Bottom Line: The design of programs to maximize the positive externalities and minimize disincentives and costs is important.

Anonymous said...

jay is right on. shorter glibertarian magician: IGMFY