[ExI] Homelessness (was Re: Social right to have a living)

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 8:13 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 July 2011 17:36, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> And that giving "help" on an ongoing long term basis is evil.
>
> I am not entirely comfortable myself with the "humanitarian" angle
> which seems the invariable Leitmotif of US liberals - who, btw, used
> to be ferocious Social Darwinists just a century or two ago.

Hard to see how the switch happened, but yes, you are right.

> But socialism has other conceivable rationales.

Go on... ;-)

> For instance, libertarians accept that shareholders in private
> corporations touch dividends, possibly very high dividends, even when
> they do absolutely nothing and certainly cannot be counted as A-type
> individuals in Ayn Rand's sense.

I'm not sure I followed you here. Are you saying stock holders don't
earn their money? I'm sure you are familiar with the banker Midas
Mulligan in Atlas Shrugged...  He didn't do anything but provide the
money that made their economy work.

> Now in the example of the
> conglomerate becoming a political community and a State for all
> practical purposes, why shouldn't they continue to do so? And if this
> is the case, why existing States should not pay citizenship dividends,
> in cash or in nature, to their members?

In some ways, multinational corporations are replacing governments
internationally today. I'm not entirely sure it's a good thing or a
bad thing, it just is. I don't see this as a justification for
socialism... If you are equating social security with corporate
dividends, then I think you are way off track. Dividends are based
upon the profitability of the company, and can be issued in no other
way. Social security is paid with some money that comes in for the
purpose, and by printing money. There just is no comparison of those
two systems.

-Kelly