On Monday, November 8, 2004 at 18:32:48 (-0800) David B. Shemano writes:
>Regarding the role of the family, for which I was criticized by
>various posters:
>
>1. However you want to characterize the family (and I never mentioned
> the nuclear family), I don't see how anybody can dispute that the
> family, in just about every culture we know of, served or serves
> as the primary "social security" for its members. As a policy
> choice, I think that is preferable to placing the primay locus on
> the state.
[I think we should be grateful that David participates in this forum
and we should carefully examine his ideas and try to respond to them
respectfully. I have tried, very hard, to maintain a civil tone,
thought I find it excruciatingly difficult. On to his ideas, then
...]
Actually in just about every culture we know of, the government plays
a very substantial role in social security, but never mind this
irrelevant fallacy. You fail to respond to the particular rebuttal I
gave to your previous post, in which I quoted you directly, viz:
Historically, the family was responsible for hunting, gathering,
medical care, personal safety. Therefore having an agricultural
system, doctors, and police means "the family will stop
performing those roles and ... be weakened". The straightforward
logic is that any burden taken from the backs of individual
families by others will weaken family ties.
You continue to claim, in an echo of a Nietzschean parable, that if
government "discourage[s] ... assumption of responsibilities by
families", families are thereby weakened and "family formation" is
retarded. The problem you apparently see, as I read it, is that
burdens somehow only act to strengthen bonds within the family, so it
seems straightforwardly clear that you do not therefore distinguish
between burdens lifted by government and those lifted by private
entities.
Suppose that the government arranges to pick up my trash each day and
to haul it to a dump, taxing me for the privilege. I now have 1 hour
more time to spend with my family. How does that harm my relationship
with my family? Suppose a private company does the same, charging me
a fee. Is my relationship similarly weakened? Is the "incentive" for
others to form new families weakened somehow by this?
If the government taxes me to manage funds that are paid to my
parents, and to their friends, to support them in old age, how does
that somehow weaken the bond between myself and my parents, who
realize that I am paying for their care that the government simply
guarantees will be present?
I would think that this act of selfless benevolence on my part, out of
concern both for my parents and for their friends, would be very
welcome and would bring us closer together --- imagine the gratitude
they feel toward me, their fine son, who has the wisdom to support a
system that provides a guaranteed income to them as they grow older,
into which I have paid gradually over time. In paying my taxes and
defending the system of Social Security, I have supported a system
that guarantees an income for them (making them directly happy) and
for their friends (making them again happy for the good fortune of
their friends); furthermore I am not suddenly socked for their care
out of my own pocket, so they are again happy that their son had the
good sense to take care of this long ago, when he started working.
Not only that, but they realize that I had the good sense and love for
them to support a system that will support them no matter what may
happen to me --- should I become disabled, sick, or die, their
security is guaranteed flat out, no questions asked. Multiply this
outpouring of love and gratitude by the number of friends and friends
of friends and the bonds in our family have grown stronger by leaps
and bounds.
As I said, opposition to Social Security on the grounds you propound
seems downright silly.
Bill
