jj@alice.UUCP (12/06/85)
Muth makes a number of misleading statements in his article, the first that comes to mind is "Since it's repressive, why aren't the liberals against it and the REAGANITES for it". While no one can argue the general tendencies, Muth is ignoring the reason Reaganites are against it, and liberals are for it. The "Reaganites" <and some of us teddy bears, too> are against it because the idea is an unsound pyramid scheme that requires compulsory participation. (this position also gets some votes) This offends on several counts, freedom (from compulsion to take care of yourself), wisdom (to avoid schemes that have fatal design flaws), and the concept that government MUST take care of you, and by damn you better help! The 'liberals' are for Social Security because: It gets votes... It "protects" the poor (a falicy which Muth quite rightly points out as such). It represents a form of compulsory RELIEVING of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY just like seat belt legislation, etc. Frankly, it's the relieving of personal responsibility that I find most distressing. As with seat-belt legislation, RATHER than place the blame on those who don't wear seat belts when they're injured, it interferes with the freedom of the individual. In other words, rather than encourage a sound, farsighted financial policy, it allows the individual to act in an unsound manner, and to VOTE FOR UNSOUND governmental policies (tariffs, various anti-business taxes, etc) because the stability of the economy doesn't matter in the long run. (Well, it does, but not to the extent that the individual will be wiped out... Yes, I remember 1929, second-hand.) If each individual in the US had a personal, and vital, stake in economic stability, I believe that the average individual would learn enough to protect him or her self from the average political lie. -- TEDDY BEARS ARE SHY, SAVE A POWDERMILK BISCUIT FOR YOURS! "There are bridges, bridges in the sky, and bridges in the air..." (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj