Let's talk about anarchy!

[decay]

Why would I collect something I don't need?
I really don't care about getting what I paid into social security, i mean it would be cool to get an extra 1,200 bucks or whatever, but I'm not going to collect it.

why has this become about socialism?

shouldn't that be a separate thread?

[marshallnoise]

why has this become about socialism?

shouldn't that be a separate thread?

Blame mbonder.

[mbonder]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

[marshallnoise]

I appreciate your optimism mbonder, but getting more out of what you put in depends on one thing: how long you live, and that's it. There is no growing of the investment at any rate that even reasonably approaches what you can get in a free market.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[Mediumrarechicken]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

I'm not sure how old you are but when I was a kid everyone said SS would die out. I'm 34 so that was the early 90's, I didn't know exactly what it was so my dad taught me about it. Right then I learned a huge lesson, dont rely on the world rely on yourself, only you can truly cover your own ass and be where you want to be. SS is still here and I haven't heard of it dyin out yet, I just don't trust it.

I have a do not recesitate order, If my body fucks up it is my time, I don't want to burden my wife or kids with money problems to keep my ass alive only to have the same thing happen down the road. My in laws run an adult family home and I know how much money they take in, I don't want my family to spend 3k+ a month to keep my ass up

[mbonder]

I appreciate your optimism mbonder, but getting more out of what you put in depends on one thing: how long you live, and that's it. There is no growing of the investment at any rate that even reasonably approaches what you can get in a free market.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

Oh I know, which has always been a knock against SS, that when invested properly, the money would grow to be exponentially more than what it currently grows at. The problem is that too many people are too dumb to invest properly. Unfortunately, if you allow people the opportunity to opt out of it in favor of private investment the entire thing crumbles because there aren't enough people in the system to sustain it, so it's all or nothing unfortunately.

mrchicken(hopefully I can abbreviate your username), I'm 32 myself and I certainly don't trust SS either, so I'm doing my best to put aside close to 25% of what I earn into retirement (many people say 15% will do it, but I don't believe that either). As for medical expenses, I wasn't even really talking about immediate end of life that would require a DNR order. Just living and existing with assistance as you know is a pricey undertaking. Although you may not be in immediate danger of death, old age is an expensive proposition. I'm glad that assistance wouldn't run out regardless of whether I can pay or not.

Decay, to shift a bit back to the original topic, how do people who espouse your anarchist mentality feel about these types of programs? I understand at the most idealistic the anarchists would shun all government interaction, but certainly there has to be some merit in accepting things like Medicare if needed?

[decay]

Decay, to shift a bit back to the original topic, how do people who espouse your anarchist mentality feel about these types of programs? I understand at the most idealistic the anarchists would shun all government interaction, but certainly there has to be some merit in accepting things like Medicare if needed?

remember how I mentioned crowdfunding for the sick cat?

that sort of situation happened again, since this thread's inception. only this time, someone's husband died unexpectedly.

she's been a friend of mine for about 20 years, and here's the kicker- she's an employee of UC Berkeley. they would not allow her to take paid bereavement leave to handle everything involved in losing a spouse.

you would think that the stronghold of liberalism in America would be the most likely place that a person would receive that kind of support, but nope. the system has fucking thrown us all overboard. don't count on it when the inevitable bad times come, because it won't be there.

we crowdfunded her time off. I threw in $100. all told she got somewhere north of $5K. of course she is still dealing with grief, but our tribe took care of her so she could take time off to handle what she needed to.

I'm still bristling at that being called any kind of socialism.

[marshallnoise]

You are still confused if you think anyone here would call that socialism. We have stated time and again that all you are doing is being a good friend with it being organized by volunteers.

I am betting there is a whole lot more to the story that you aren't telling us either.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[mbonder]

remember how I mentioned crowdfunding for the sick cat?

that sort of situation happened again, since this thread's inception. only this time, someone's husband died unexpectedly.

she's been a friend of mine for about 20 years, and here's the kicker- she's an employee of UC Berkeley. they would not allow her to take paid bereavement leave to handle everything involved in losing a spouse.

you would think that the stronghold of liberalism in America would be the most likely place that a person would receive that kind of support, but nope. the system has fucking thrown us all overboard. don't count on it when the inevitable bad times come, because it won't be there.

we crowdfunded her time off. I threw in $100. all told she got somewhere north of $5K. of course she is still dealing with grief, but our tribe took care of her so she could take time off to handle what she needed to.

I'm still bristling at that being called any kind of socialism.

I understand your example, but the reality is that both examples are on the small scale. How do you handle someone who gets cancer and needs expensive treatment for that cancer? Or a grandparent that needs 24/7 care in a nursing home to the tune of $5-10k per month? You'll need a pretty big crowd to achieve sourcing those funds, so large that you'll have to tie together disparate types of people, which is where the government comes in. That's kind of where I'm going with socialism in a sense.

[gwb72tii]

At least we're having a civil discussion about it. The reason is that there is clearly a connection to socialism because decay first mentioned his beliefs as socio-anarchism, not pure anarchism (which I think everyone agrees is impossible in a globalized world). Plus, some of what decay has advocated (like soup kitchens) are microcosms of socialist-style programs, so it seemed to me to be a natural progression to discuss socialism to some degree here also.

For a more simple answer, we're 14 pages in, you guys started bickering so I threw something else out there to refocus the discussion away from "you're an idiot, no you're an idiot" style responses.

Anyway, mediumrarechicken, if you decide not to collect Social Security I applaud you for standing behind your principles by foregoing a socialist program, most people, however, don't have the will-power to practice what they preach.

Marshall, I don't really view Social Security Tax or medicare/medicaid Tax as money that's "stolen" from you by the government. As stated, if you live a long and fruitful life you'll get back more than you put in. I wish and hope that is the case for every decent person that I come into contact with in-person or over the internet on this forum or others I subscribe to. These laws were voted on by representatives of the people, in a democratic process. People agreed and therefore it's law, so the Feds aren't "stealing" anything. You can't accept portions of the democratic process and then deny others, the laws are the laws.

Don't get me wrong, it can be a tough pill to swallow every paycheck, but in later years I think many people are thankful that those programs are in place.

This is a very reasoned response.

Social Security is not socialism. It is a tax you pay for a benefit later in life.

The problem arises in the promises made by the government which cannot be kept at their current levels. The government is promising a higher rate of income that can be supported because of demographics.

[decay]

You are still confused if you think anyone here would call that socialism.

No I'm not, because people have. It already happened.

I am betting there is a whole lot more to the story that you aren't telling us either.

Oh? Like what?

[marshallnoise]

No I'm not, because people have. It already happened.

Where?

Oh? Like what?

I don't know, but I am doubting very much that the UC system would deny an employee bereavement time off unless they actually didn't work for the UC system and they are a contractor or something. So I think this story stinks.

[decay]

Where?

Search.

I don't know, but I am doubting very much that the UC system would deny an employee bereavement time off unless they actually didn't work for the UC system and they are a contractor or something. So I think this story stinks.

The reason given was that she had very recently been promoted out of a union job into management and therefore was no longer entitled.

That said, fuck what you think, you're a troll and an asshole.

[marshallnoise]

Search.

You are making the claim that people here think that helping someone out = socialism.

The reason given was that she had very recently been promoted out of a union job into management and therefore was no longer entitled.

That said, fuck what you think, you're a troll and an asshole.

Ahh, there is the little piece of information that was missing! Still nice of your group of friends to help out, but that ain't the responsibility of the UC system. She got promoted to a better paying situation with different rules and she lost her husband (which sucks balls). She is a victim of circumstance, not the failure of the government.

I am betting that last salvo will net you in another vacation.

[decay]

You are making the claim that people here think that helping someone out = socialism.

Yeah and it was posted in this thread. Use the forum's search feature or google, you lazy ass.

Ahh, there is the little piece of information that was missing! Still nice of your group of friends to help out, but that ain't the responsibility of the UC system.

Yes it is.

I am betting that last salvo will net you in another vacation.

You've done worse lately.