From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Mon Dec 13 2004 - 11:17:47 GMT
Dear Platt,
You wrote 12 Dec 2004 09:17:48 -0500:
1) 'The best globalized social security system would not be a welfare
program but democracy and free markets. That way, people would be encouraged
to produce, not relieve them of their responsibility for making bad choices
by providing for them.'
2) 'So why not make [taxes and contributions to the social security system]
voluntary? Think of the enforcement money you would save that could be used
to feed the hungry.'
['So' refers to my estimation that 'There's no policeman needed to collect
them from me and from 99,999% of the Dutch. Of course there IS a real risk
of getting a policeman at your door when you don't pay. Without that risk
the percentage of voluntary payments might fall to say 99%. Another 9% might
be tempted to profit from that situation even though they agree that they
would be immoral doing so. Even then 90% of the Dutch would voluntarily pay
from 'their money' (hard-earned or not) a social security system that
prevents people from falling into poverty if the economy doesn't need their
labour.']
3) 'What has transpired in Afghanistan belies this statement. We shall see
what transpires in Iraq, and then the other countries in the Middle East. I
think the wave of the future is with democracy and capitalism, not more
tyranny.' ['This statement' refers to Graham Fuller's ideas that 'Democracy
is a punishment we inflict upon our enemies, like Afghanistan and Iraq. It
is not something we give our friends. Egypt, Tunesia, Saudi-Arabia, most of
the coutries in the region, have been shortening the reins. Partly because
of that the US have lost almost all credibility in the region. Even good
plans and ideas will be thwarted just because they originate form the US.
Spreading democracy by luring countries into the EU seems a more effective
way ... than enforcing democracy by war.' I phrased the last bit as my idea,
but it was phrased in other words by Graham Fuller also.]
4) 'The U.S. is the OECD's largest contributor with 25% of the annual
budget. Typically, others want the U.S. to kick in more.'
5) 'Yes. [Kerry-voters seem to have different "American values" {regarding
the UN and a Global Court of Justice}than Bush-voters.] And the Bush-voters
won.'
6) '"Social Security" to Americans refers specifically to a New Deal
government retirement program (actually a Ponsi scheme) that is rapidly
going broke. By "social security" you apparently mean what we politely call
"welfare," otherwise known as a "freebie" or a "handout." It helps to be
reminded from time to time that no nation was ever built by its citizens
seeking handouts.'
Your replies strike me as rather evasive. Are you able to concede anything
at all?
The general issue was whether a globalized social security system (in the
broad sense) could prevent resentment from breeding terrorism and/or would
imply being blackmailed by terrorists.
Side issues were:
a) The extent to which a social security system requires enforcement.
b) The relative merits for spreading democracy of military invasions and
luring countries into the EU.
c) Whether the USA took upon itself (as UN and OECD member) the obligation
to spend 0,7% of GNP on development aid (development aid understood as
starting point for a globalized social security system).
d) Whether the UN and a Global Court of Justice would qualify as carriers of
the carrot and stick required for world peace.
Let me first confess that I also answered evasively to your question whether
I would be in favor of making financing of social security voluntary.
The straight answer is: not in the Netherlands. Because -using my estimated
figures- 99% of the Dutch agree that they should contribute and because
enforcing collection from only 0,001% of the Dutch prevents 10% from evading
contributions which 9% out of these 10% agree are morally obligatory. Saving
on enforcement money would me much less than missed contributions for
providing people who can't work with a minimum of decent life.
The Dutch social security system is composed of mainly
- a government retirement program (at what's called the 'social minimum';
higher retirement pay requires additional individual or collective pension
insurance),
- a government scheme for those who are physically unable to work (at the
'social minimum', except when the disability started during working life),
- a scheme (enforced by government but administrated by organizations of
employers and employees) for solidarity between employed and unemployed,
sick and healthy persons, families with and without young children etc. and
- government enforcement per sector of the economy of other agreements
between organizations of employers and employees in that sector -e.g.
collective pension insurance- in order to prevent free-riding (provided that
what's being agreed is not out of proportion to what's agreed in other
sectors).
This is the outcome of Dutch democracy and of Dutch consensus that the
outcome of the interplay of market forces needs some amendment.
Social security schemes are only marginally comparable to a Ponzi scheme
(after its discovery by Charles Ponzi in 1919). A Ponzi scheme is
unsustainable when not growing in size, so always unsustainable in the end,
because growth will always meet a limit. Solidarity based schemes ARE
sustainable when not growing in size and only temporarily vulnerable when
the numbers of disabled, umemployed, sick, children etc. grow. The extent of
vulnerability depends on the amount of reserves (built from the insurance
fee part of contributions). Dutch social security funds have relatively
large reserves (compared to countries like France and Italy). Social
security schemes are more comparable with solidarity within extented
families and religious communities than with a Ponzi scheme.
You are right, there's no wealth being created by citizens seeking handouts.
So social security schemes shouldn't be too attractive. I don't think they
are in the Netherlands. (I know from own experience: a few months in the
past and maybe a few more after 1/1/05 when my present job ends and if don't
find a new one in time. It can also be deduced from the amount of wealth
that is being produced in the Netherlands. It is at nr. 11 in the list of
rich countries when corrected for purchasing power, see
http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/data/indic/indic_124_1_1.html. The USA is at
nr. 4 of the list.) Social security schemes DO prevent destruction of wealth
by crime etc.(as well as destruction of nature, destruction of public
health. Because of that the Netherlands is above the USA on a Human
Development Index when such effects are taken into account (at nr. 5
compared to 8 in the UNDP HDI of 2004).
Back to the general issue:
- Do you concede that a social security system aimed at preventing
resentment from breeding terrorists (with the terrorists themselves being
treated as criminals) does not imply giving in to blackmail by terrorists?
- Do you agree that a social security system -given Dutch experience- cannot
be denied some effectivity in preventing crime in general and terrorism in
particular?
That would leave us to discuss whether there are better alternatives for
preventing crime and terrorism. American figures for crime, inprisonment,
political assassinations and terrorist actions do not compare favorably with
Dutch ones. So on what basis do you oppose a social security system with a
wider scope as a way of preventing crime and terrorism?
Democracy and free markets are not a real alternative. Dutch government is
just as much in favour of them (and promoting them in its own way) as the
USA.
The first side issue (conbining a and b) is to what extent prevention of
crime and terrorism require enforcement, either by enforcing solidarity or
by enforcing democracy and free operation of market forces.
Social security schemes require little enforcement in the Netherlands (due
to a long history of government and church organized solidarity), but
whether that's still 'solidarity' is debatable. As long as they are
democratically supported, that doesn't seem much of an issue to me.
Enforcing democracy and free operation of market forces is necessary only in
the sense of enforcing rules that reflect an already existing moral
consensus. Given the importance of consensus about those rules for proper
functioning of both democracy and markets, the primary way of spreading them
must be convincement (by education and by publishing their results in terms
of economic success in particular and human development in general). Using
carrots supports convincement, whereas using sticks undermines it. So
wherever available carrots (e.g. EU membership) are more effective than
sticks (e.g. war) whenever that moral consensus does not exist or is barred
from expression.
The second side issue (c) is about the obligation of the USA (as agreed on
by past US governments) to spend 0,7% of its GNP on development aid as
defined by the OECD. The contribution to the operating costs of the OECD are
irrelevant to that issue. A 25% contribution may well be proportional to the
size of the USA economy compared to that of the OECD in general. (The OECD
only has rich countries as members, those with a moral obligation to help
the poor ones, as recognized before by the USA in the Marshall plan.) Only
the Netherlands, Luxembourg and 3 Scandinavian countries meet that
obligation at present. The USA only spends 0,13% of its GNP on development
aid.
Talking about 'American values': you seem to share an emphasis on punishment
of crime instead of prevention (only a little bit less among Democrats than
among Republicans). Internally the result is one of the highest percentages
of the population in prison of the whole world, a perfect breeding ground
for more crime. Globally the result is support for authoritarian regimes as
long as they don't threaten American interests and turning them (by invasion
and occupation) into breeding grounds for terrorism as soon as they seem to
do so. That is I think true both for Afhanistan and Iraq, in the sense that
both function (together with Chechnya and Palestine, where Russia and Israel
do the same) as rallying issues for Islamist terrorism.
It's not clear to me at all what statement you think is belied by what
happens in Afghanistan. Not the statement that democracy is inflicted upon
its former Taliban government. Neither that the USA is losing credibility
because of it in the Islamic world. It has still not captured Osama Bin
Laden...
The third side issue (d) is about the qualifications of the UN and a Global
Court of Justice for promotion of world peace.
Is 'they do not represent American values' as expressed by a very small
majority of Americans really your strongest argument...? To what extent does
that vote express prejudices and the result of political propaganda rather
than serious evaluation of qualifications?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 13 2004 - 11:20:32 GMT