Originally Posted By: sinij
My case is, as always, was :

Nobody exists in a vacuum, every one is part of society. Your contributions, be it wealth creation or something else, are also product of the society as a whole. Functional society requires outlays for all individuals in order to continue functioning. As such existence of these outlays, be it in form of taxes, social programs or else is what enables society that enables individuals to be productive.

TL;DR version - if you cut social spending, society that allow you to create wealth will cease to exist in a massive wave of riots and anarchy. You can create wealth only because you are willing (or forced to) share portion of it in order to maintain this society.

Quote:
No, current western lifestyle is a result of capitalism. The couple instances of widespread socialism that occurs without demonstrable immediate problems is a result of large energy exports.


Current lifestyle is a result of greater degree of cooperation within population, direct result of more equal and more protected societies we have built. Capitalism isn't new and existed long before our present level of prosperity and quality of life became possible.

Read this - Budget Cuts and Riots

Quote:
Once you cut expenditure by more than 2% of GDP, instability increases rapidly in all dimensions, and especially in terms of riots and demonstrations.


So, you are saying that restraining entitlements to Clinton-era levels and halting the rapid expansion of govt and halting the centralization of control over health and other systems in the hands of the Federal Govt will turn the USA into a no-mans land?

Clarify this for me so I can be sure I am not swinging at a straw man here.

Also, even if it did result in social unrest - your position seems to imply (by virtue of it being the one you are pushing for) that you believe it to be the most correct one. I would also take issue with this. It is arguing that the threat of mob violence should take the place of rational decision making. I would also call it immoral if the argument you make above as I described it is actually the argument you are making.

It is one thing to provide a system that provides as much fairness of opportunity ( not equality of results) as humanly possible, it is quite another to bow to extortion.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)