----- Original Message ----- From: "dshemano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I do not understand how these posts are responsive to my point. From my perspective, they confuse the fundamental issue, which is what is the appropriate role for the family and what is the appropriate role for the government. To the extent that the government assumes roles traditionally assumed by the family, the family will stop performing those roles and the family will be weakened. I am sure that there are those who think that would be a good result, but I do not. ----- One would be hard pressed to find a more ahistorical argument on this list. One could easily assert that the very emergence of government undermined the family by taking over familial functions and that the State, as such, should be abolished. > Let me try a different tact. From a technical perspective, social security is a ponzi scheme. People pay in and "invest" in nothing more than the hope that there will be future workers who will pay in to the system, who will similarly "invest" in the same hope. However, can we not agree that there is a population problem in all countries with developed welfare states? Western Europe is not reproducing itself and therefore finds itself in need of immigrants to pay the taxes to finance current benefits. At a certain point, the game, like all ponzi schemes, is going to be up. I would add that a significant reason for the population problem is precisely because the welfare state is a disincentive for children (why have children when the state will pay for your retirement). ----- You left out the issue of labor productivity and the possibility of an ongoing rising real wage. That completely undermines your demographics argument. One heck of a lot of people in welfare states are not having children for reasons that have nothing to do with welfare state provisions/incentives. Ian
