----- Original Message ----- From: "paul phillips" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Michael, My argument is not only moral, it is also technical and personal. Yes we must have a moral compass, but we also must have a technically sound plan. This is why I quote Keynes who pointed out that intergenerational transfers are the only sound economic system for providing pensions. David may be consistent and consistently libertarian, but he is technically unsound. Finally, on a personal security basis, if I am not willing to provided for my parents, how can I expect my children to provide for me. I am now retired and living off my pension, including my CPP, and I never complained about paying premiums throughout my working life. As far as I was concerned, it was only (intergenerational) insurance for my own welfare. The attitude of David's I find incomprehensible not only on a moral basis, but also on a technical and self-interest basis. Paul P ====================== David's arguments are technically unsound precisely because -it seems to me, at least from the arguments he's provided over the past few years- he hasn't thought through the intertemporal/multigenerational implications of a libertarian perspective on ethical issues related to savings and investment. They are *very tough* issues even for those of us who think liberty is of paramount importance in a finite world and the proclivities for authoritarianism are something we must constantly keep our minds on. Even from a libertarian perspective, the "privatization" of SS would be a form of *forced savings*. That's why we need to rethink not only the technical issues of risk/uncertainty but the normative issues of risk shifting across time and, more importantly perhaps, ecological space[s].
