[ExI] Strong libertarianism, societal good, & suffering (was: Cephalization, proles)

[Kelly Anderson]

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Damien Sullivan
<phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 12:58:02PM -0600, Kelly Anderson wrote:

> I don't think those -- maybe Medicaid -- fit the mooching you had after
> the word 'social' up there.  I don't have a copy of what you said,
> though.  Thus the distinction betwee welfare and the pension programs.

Indeed, they do in my book. If I pay in enough Social Security to pay
for two years of old agedness, and then I withdraw payments for 15
years, then I am mooching. At least this is the case when that is the
average demographic. If the actuarial tables worked, then no, it would
not be mooching.

Same for Medicare and Medicaid, but the numbers don't work there
either. It's not even a separate tax, but comes right out of income
tax. You can't even call this insurance. It is plain and simple
welfare. (Disclaimer: Several of my children are on medicare due to
their original parents being screw ups. So I consider myself a
moocher. I never said I was not a hypocrite in these matters, and in
fact before I was a moocher, I had much more respect for the socialist
government programs.)

It's a transfer of wealth from one party to another without their
consent. That in and of itself is evil.

Now, a system maintained by the government in which you pay for your
own retirement, inheritable by your heirs, that would be OK, but in
that case why make it a government program at all?

>> If 2% of Federal spending is going to research, I would imagine that a
>> LOT of that must be in the military budget.
>
> IIRC much of it is NIH, actually.  Natl Inst of Health.  Lots more money
> going there than to NSF.  Don't know about defense, though how much of
> that would be 'basic' research?

DARPA does quite a bit of basic research.

> NSF budget is $7 billion, 0.002 of the budget, or 0.2%.  NIH seems to
> be $30 billion, or about 1%.  I'd remembered something on the order of
> $70-80 billion for all research.

While I don't consider this a constitutionally supported use of funds,
it is at least better than paying interest on the debt.

I heard this morning that the Federal Reserve is now purchasing 70% of
the T-bills that are coming up for auction. Talk about a snake eating
it's own tail!

> Oh, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122957411475117509.html says $99
> billion, so 3%.  Don't know if all of that is basic research.
>
>  though how much of that would be 'basic' research?
>
> NSF budget is $7 billion, 0.002 of the budget, or 0.2%.  NIH seems to
> be $30 billion, or about 1%.  I'd remembered something on the order of
> $70-80 billion for all research.
>
> Oh, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122957411475117509.html says $99
> billion, so 3%.  Don't know if all of that is basic research.

I wonder how that compares to the money spent by universities... not
counting, of course, the money universities get from the government. I
have no idea what it would be, but if anyone knows, it would be
fascinating to compare to the government investment. Also, I think
some of the larger states like California invest in some research...

> Right.
> Unless the risk-averse can pool their bets, of course.

That's what Mutual Funds do. It's a pretty good model, and it doesn't
require the government.

-Kelly