The Low Cost of Social Security Administration

CSGnet Archive CSG2007
1

[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.31)]

To All:

I think it was Bill Powers who mentioned the low-cost of the US Social Security Administration in arguing for a single payer type medical system as is often promoted by Democrats like Ms. [Hilarity] Clinton and Rick Marken as a likely improvement in health care quality at little or no additional cost? I checked a few posts but could not find exactly what Bill cited.

What I do know is that even 3% of a very big number is a big number. Though I am not yet on Social Security, I think it is a very poor system. Some of the reasons are how the original intent of the FICA system have been obliterated. Interestingly, it is the Democratic party that sponsored the changes that disturb me. Would the Republicans do any better? I doubt it.

Take a look at the facts below and see how you perceive this government sponsored system? Bill should have a perspective as I think his life spanned the time interval.

···

** Dark and best kept secrets about Our Social Security.**

                  Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors,
                  Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on
                  a regular basis.  They were a great couple full of
                  laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel
                  at.  Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.
                  During the years of our friendship we had many, many
                  discussions about Elliott's parents (President Franklin D.
                  and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother
                  never intended for the Social Security and Welfare
                  programs to turn out the way they are today.  Elliott
                  used to say that if his parents returned to earth and
                  saw what the politicians had done to their programs
                  they would have burned all of them in hell.

                  Here is a story I received today regarding the Social
                  Security Program and I immediately thought of
                  Elliott's comments.  I Hope you will read
                  this and think about it.  

                  Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
                  Security (FICA) Program.  He  promised:

                  1.) That participation in the Program would be

completely voluntary,

                  2.) That the participants would only have to pay
                  1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
                  incomes into the Program,

                  3.) That the money the participants elected to put
                  into the Program would be deductible from
                  their income for tax purposes each year,

                  4.) That the money the participants put into the
                  independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
                  General operating fund, and therefore, would
                  only be used to fund the Social Security

Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

                  5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
                  would never be taxed as income

                  -------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
                  now receiving a Social Security check every month --
                  and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
                  the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
                  away" -- you may be interested in the following:
                  -------------------------------------------------------------

                  Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
                  independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
                  General fund so that Congress could spend it?
                  A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically

controlled House and Senate.

                  Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
                  deduction for Social Security (FICA) with holding?

A: The Democratic Party.

                  Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
                  Security annuities????
                  A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
                  "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
                  Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

                  -------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
                  annuity payments to immigrants?

This is MY FAVORITE:

                  A: That's right!  Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
                  Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

began to receive Social Security payments!
The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
-------------- --------------------------------------------------------

                  Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
                  of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
                  turn around and tell you that the Republicans
                  want to take your Social Security away!

                  And the worst part about it is uninformed
                citizens believe it!

==============================================

                  If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
                  awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
                  evolve.  Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully
                  sure of what **                      isn't so!!**

                  But it's worth a try.  How many people can

YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
Forward this E-mail to others so that they can
be informed of the truth.

** “THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING”**
EDMUND BURKE
.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

2

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.31.1940 CST)]

Kenny,

You have clearly gotten this from somewhere. And you call it facts. No, if you
don't document, and if you expect me (us) to regard this as facts, you are
misguided. Please document. Show the source, and tell me why you would call your
opinion "facts."

"Forward this E-mail to others so that they can be informed of the truth."

How does the purported writer call this the truth, when the items referred to
are not documented, and may be presented in a way that can be taken both ways?

Thanks, pal.

--Bry

···

[Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.31)]

To All:

I think it was Bill Powers who mentioned the low-cost of the US Social
Security Administration in arguing for a single payer type medical system as
is
often promoted by Democrats like Ms. [Hilarity] Clinton and Rick Marken as a
likely improvement in health care quality at little or no additional cost?
I
checked a few posts but could not find exactly what Bill cited.

What I do know is that even 3% of a very big number is a big number. Though
I am not yet on Social Security, I think it is a very poor system. Some of
the reasons are how the original intent of the FICA system have been
obliterated. Interestingly, it is the Democratic party that sponsored the
changes
that disturb me. Would the Republicans do any better? I doubt it.

Take a look at the facts below and see how you perceive this government
sponsored system? Bill should have a perspective as I think his life
spanned the
time interval.

Dark and best kept secrets about Our Social Security.

Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors,
Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on
a regular basis. They were a great couple full of
laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel
at. Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.
During the years of our friendship we had many, many
discussions about Elliott's parents (President Franklin D.
and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother
never intended for the Social Security and Welfare
programs to turn out the way they are today. Elliott
used to say that if his parents returned to earth and
saw what the politicians had done to their programs
they would have burned all of them in hell.

Here is a story I received today regarding the Social
Security Program and I immediately thought of
Elliott's comments. I Hope you will read
this and think about it.
_____________________________________________

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to "put
away" -- you may be interested in the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
controlled House and Senate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) with holding?

A: The Democratic Party.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities???
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?

This is MY FAVORITE:

A: That's right! Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!
-------------- --------------------------------------------------------

Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
turn around and tell you that the Republicans
want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed
citizens believe it!

==============================================
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn't so!!

But it's worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
Forward this E-mail to others so that they can
be informed of the truth.

"THE ONLY THING NEEDED FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"
EDMUND BURKE .

(http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=101218)

************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
Improve & Protect your PC, Devices and Life with AOL Products | AOL

3

[From Rick Marken (2007.07.31.1925)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.31)--

I think it was Bill Powers who mentioned the low-cost of the US Social Security
Administration in arguing for a single payer type medical system as is often promoted
by Democrats like Ms. [Hilarity] Clinton and Rick Marken as a likely improvement in
health care quality at little or no additional cost?

Actually, at half the cost.

I checked a few posts but could not find exactly what Bill cited.

Here is is:

Bill Powers (2007.07.31.1120 MDT)

Relative to your comments on the single-payer system, the
last I heard, the administrative overhead of the Social Security
Administration was about 2.5% of the money it handles. I think
of that every time someone says that the private sector could
take over that system more efficiently.

Of course, the private sector already has taken over the provision of
health insurance in the US and they don't seem anxious to give it up.

What I do know is that even 3% of a very big number is a big number.

It was 2.5% and it is a big number only relative to smaller ones (like
0%). I think the administrative overhead of private sector insurance
is on the order of 7 - 10%. Relative to that, 3% is a small number.

Take a look at the facts below and see how you perceive this government
sponsored system?

There is nothing in that "analysis" that makes me care one way or the
other about Social Security or any other government sponsored system.
Government sponsored systems can be done well (as public education was
in California back when I was a kid, and we had a progressive Governor
and government was still seen by the overwhelming majority as "us"
helping ourselves) or poorly (as is just about everything the
government does when run by Republicans who want to show that
government is "them" and the enemy). I prefer it when government is
done well (as it usually is under Democrats). Then it works out best
for everyone.

But since you seem to think single payer health care and social
security are bad things, could you tell me what you would prefer in
their steads? How would you improve health care and retirement
insurance?

I know what you are against; what are you _for_?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

4

What I do know is that even 3%
of a very big number is a big number.
[From Bill Powers (2007.08.01.0008 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.31)

···

–

This was taken from

[
http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2003/20030806/89075.htm

](http://www.kscourts.org/kscases/supct/2003/20030806/89075.htm)which is apparently some kind of squabble between Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Kansas and Anthem insurance companies before the Supreme
Court:

======================================================================================

(b) Administrative expenses or overhead. BCBSKS has
lower administrative costs than Anthem. BCBSKS’s current
administrative-expense ratio is approximately 9%. When calculated in a
way similar to BCBSKS’s calculation, Anthem’s current
administrative-expense ratio is approximately 11.5%. The
administrative-expense ratio of the Anthem West Region is 13.7%, down
from 26.8% in 1999. Anthem presented no substantial evidence on how
material reductions in BCBSKS’s administrative expenses could be
achieved.

==============================================================================

9% of a big number is even bigger than 3%, and 26.8% is bigger than that.
The private sector supports its management in a style more appropriate to
minor kings and princes than hard-working civil servants, and in addition
to that, must produce a return on investment for private owners and
public stockholders. All of that is paid for by the customers and comes
out of what is available to provide services for them. The private sector
generally works on the principle of maximizing return on investment,
which requires providing as little service or quantity/quality of goods
as possible at the highest price possible, given the competition. That
primary motivation is in direct conflict with the interests of the
consumer, and is the main reason for attempts to legislate against
monopolies and restraint of trade. Most regulations exist because of
flagrant excesses in the past.

Though I am not yet on Social
Security, I think it is a very poor system. Some of the reasons are
how the original intent of the FICA system have been obliterated.
Interestingly, it is the Democratic party that sponsored the changes that
disturb me. Would the Republicans do any better? I doubt
it.
Take a look at the facts below
and see how you perceive this government sponsored system? Bill
should have a perspective as I think his life spanned the time
interval.

My experiences with Social Security have all been pleasantly surprising.
Service has been fast, friendly, and efficient – usually whatever
question or problem I have had has been handled at the counter within a
few minutes. Information is clear and readily available. And I am
collecting considerably more than I paid in (though of course there are
many less fortunate in their genes who will collect less). I’m glad I
don’t have to live on it, but I could if I had to.

I can’t speak to those carefully-selected facts, nor do I know how they
came about. Some of them concern clearly impractical goals. Saving 1% of
one’s income can’t possibly cover retirement costs, particularly for the
poor who have no surpluses at all. And voluntary participation means
giving wealthy freeloaders the option of not helping to support the
system with their surpluses, an option they would immediately put into
effect.

Many people have been violently against Social Security because they hate
anything with “social” in the title, and they don’t want to
share anything they have with anyone else or help support people who are
less competent or intelligent or lucky or ruthless than they have been.
They view government as some alien power that keeps them from doing
whatever they want, and indeed it is, because government speaks for the
rest of us and is our only protection against the accumulation of private
power in the hands of sociopaths. While our government sprouts warts at
the slightest provocation, it is still better than what we would get if
General Motors or WalMart were running the country for their own benefit.
Compare the Constitution of our country with the Statement of Purpose of
any large corporation, which usually says that the company exists to do
anything and everything it can to further the interests of the company
and does not mention employees, customers, or other companies. An
individual whose stated purpose in life was like that of a major
corporation would be viewed by most of us as a public danger, or even as
insane.

There are, of course, much worse systems than the one we have. There are
many mechanisms in place in our system to limit power and redress
injustices. When things get bad enough, the people do wake up and force
changes to take place, and in this country the changes are almost always
peaceable. We’re not doing too badly, particularly in comparison with the
past, but there is still a long way to go. We still, somehow, are
organized so a few can live the maximally good life, but only as long as
the many don’t. Greed, power, and acquisitiveness have somehow been given
a higher priority than the virtues most of us admire. Eventually we will
correct those errors, too, but it’s hard to wait.

Best,

Bill P.

P.S. Here is a relatively reasonable (despite the “angry bear”)
discussion of health care costs:

[
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/01/us-health-care-system-administrative.html

](http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2006/01/us-health-care-system-administrative.html)

5

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.01.0200 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke
(2007.07.31)

Scanning for “SSA administrative overhead” I keep seeing the
number “1%”, which is lower than the 2.5% I remembered from 15
years ago when I started getting benefits. The system is apparently now
run by an Oracle program that makes all data instantly available
everywhere in the system, a feature I noticed in the branch office in
Durango. Whatever the politics involved, it’s a remarkable
system.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.01)]

<Bryan Thalhammer (2007.07.31.1940 CST)>

<Kenny,

You have clearly gotten this from somewhere. And you call it facts. No, if you
don’t document, and if you expect me (us) to regard this as facts, you are
misguided. Please document. Show the source, and tell me why you would call your
opinion “facts.”

“Forward this E-mail to others so that they can be informed of the truth.”

How does the purported writer call this the truth, when the items referred to
are not documented, and may be presented in a way that can be taken both ways?

Thanks, pal.>

I got it from a forward. I did look back if there was source info in it. There was not. To my knowledge the purported changes in the SS System did take place. They appear factual.

But, it is truly just someones written opinion as you say. It would have been more accurate for me to have said “purported facts” or “facts” in quotes as I did not check them out personally. But, I am not in a court room under oath. Only because the SS System had been mentioned on CSGNet at the time I received the forward did I decide to send it along as “food for thought.” You can ignore it or condemn it or provide the factual errors in it.

Here is a fact according to SSA. I paid $101,412 into FICA over about 40 years. Investing $2500 a year in a savings account at even 5% interest would have my balance be $302,000. I would feel pretty secure with that in the bank.

I have yet to collect a nickel. If I start next month, I would get $1,587 a month. That is not near enough to live on for me. It would barely pay my health care costs. It will take me 16 years to break even making me 78. If I croak before then, someone else will enjoy my remaining savings. I would rather provide for my own financial security. Why not let people be free to sign up with SSA or opt out?

···

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

7

[from Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]

From Kenny Kitzke (2007.07.31)

Take a look at the facts below and see how you perceive this
government sponsored system? Bill should have a perspective as I think
his life spanned the time interval.

This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might
question the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
changes listed if they are true. Let’s go through them.

···

** Dark and best
kept secrets about Our Social Security.**

  Many years ago in Seattle, two wonderful neighbors,

  Elliott and Patty Roosevelt came to my home to swim on

  a regular basis.  They were a great couple full of

  laughter and stories that today I continue to marvel

  at.  Both are now deceased, but their stories remain.

  During the years of our friendship we had many, many

  discussions about Elliott's parents (President Franklin D.

  and Eleanor Roosevelt) and how his father and mother

  never intended for the Social Security and Welfare

  programs to turn out the way they are today.  Elliott

  used to say that if his parents returned to earth and

  saw what the politicians had done to their programs

  they would have burned all of them in hell.



  Here is a story I received today regarding the Social

  Security Program and I immediately thought of

  Elliott's comments.  I Hope you will read

  this and think about it.  

  _____________________________________________

  Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
  Security (FICA) Program.  He  promised:

  1.) That participation in the Program would be
  completely voluntary,

  This

makes no sense (is unworkable). Nice story about the kids though. Really
seems to bring creditability, even if irrelevant, to the statements that
follow. Got to love the progress we have made in developing persuasive
communication [sic].

  2.) That the participants would only have to pay
  1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
  incomes into the Program,

  This

actually speaks to one of the primary lingering problems of the system.
It is regressive. That is, because income beyond a certain level is not
taxed (for FICA), those with higher incomes pay a lower percentage of
their income into the system. Flattening the tax would go a long way to
making the system solvent in the long term.

  3.) That the money the participants elected to put
  into the Program would be deductible from
  their income for tax purposes each year,

  Yes,

it still is.

  4.) That the money the participants put into the
  independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
  General operating fund, and therefore, would
  only be used to fund the Social Security
  Retirement Program, and no other
  Government program, and,

        Technically this is still true. The

government has been borrowing from this fund for operating expenses, but
it is still a separate fund.

  5.) That the

annuity payments to the retirees

  would never be taxed as income

  -------------------------------------------------------------------

  If

one only receives social security (and no other income) it is unlikely
ones income would rise to a taxable level. If SS plus other income (e.g.,
other retirement accounts) ends up giving the individual a substantial
income, I applaud the taxing. My mother has several sources of income
that put her in a taxable bracket provided she does not have too many
medical expenses. That seems fair to me.

  Since many of

us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month –
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to “put
away” – you may be interested in the following:

  -------------------------------------------------------------

  Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
  independent "Trust Fund" and put it into the
  General fund so that Congress could spend it?
  A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
  controlled House and Senate.

  One

might argue that the propensity of the feds to spend money they do not
really have is the fundamental problem. Both parties do this, though
Reagan and Bush W. have been the worse by far.

  Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
  deduction for Social Security (FICA) with holding?

  A: The Democratic Party.

  FICA

contributions are not taxed.

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
  Security annuities????
  A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
  "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
  Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

  Excellent.

The rich, who do not need SS, should at least be taxed for it.

  -------------------------------------------------------------------

  Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
  annuity payments to immigrants?

  This is MY FAVORITE:

  A: That's right!  Jimmy Carter! And the Democratic Party of course!

  Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,

  began to receive Social Security payments! The
  Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
  even though they never paid a dime into it!

  -------------- --------------------------------------------------------
        I do not know the facts on this one, but the

idea that immigrants don’t pay a dime in taxes is a myth. Even illegal
immigrants pay taxes (though I am sure not all of them, just like not all
Americans). Moreover, one’s return from SS is somewhat a function
of what is put in.

  Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and violating
  of the original contract (FICA), the Democrats
  turn around and tell you that the Republicans
  want to take your Social Security away!

  If

they say this (and some do) they are blowing rhetoric. The above
statement is more of same, suggesting the author things two wrongs make a
right.

  And the worst part about it is uninformed
  citizens believe it!

  Uninformed

citizens is a problem, but it is unrealistic to believe that all citizen
could understand the details of these kinds of issues. Indeed, it is
unrealistic to think that any citizen (including the president) could
understand all the details of all the important issues. That is way we
elect representatives and those representatives specialize and have
staff.

==============================================
If enough
people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve. Maybe not!.. many Democrats are awfully
sure of what isn’t so!!

  But it's worth a try.  How many people can

  YOU send this to?

  Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.    

  Forward this E-mail to others so that they can

  be informed of the truth.

Don’t believe

everything you read or are told to pass on in email.

**    "THE ONLY THING NEEDED

FOR EVIL TO TRIUMPH IS FOR GOOD MEN TO DO NOTHING"**
EDMUND BURKE .

There
is no question that changes should be made to SS. Moreover, I am not sure the
Republicans do not have some points to make (e.g., the returns of treasuries
are limited such that some exposure to equities might be a good idea). But SS
provides a counter example to one of the Republicans primary rhetoric arguments
– that governments cannot manage anything efficiently. That is even 3%,
but I do believe it is <1%, is very efficient!

Jeff V.

8

[From Bill Powers (2007.08.01.0730 MDT)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.01) –

Here is a fact according to
SSA. I paid $101,412 into FICA over about 40 years. Investing $2500
a year in a savings account at even 5% interest would have my balance be
$302,000. I would feel pretty secure with that in the bank.

I have yet to collect a nickel. If I start next month, I would get
$1,587 a month. That is not near enough to live on for me. It
would barely pay my health care costs. It will take me 16 years to
break even making me 78. If I croak before then, someone else will
enjoy my remaining savings. I would rather provide for my own
financial security. Why not let people be free to sign up with SSA or opt
out?

$302,000 in a savings account at my bank currently earns about 4%, or
$12,000 per year. That would get you about $1000 per month income for
however long you live. You could get more in a risker investment, of
course, but with the possibility that it might all be gone before you
die. That’s a rather frightening possibility for most old people. Maybe
you’re different.

The idea of insurance is to spread the risk, so if you happen to be one
of the unlucky ones you will still be taken care of. We give up a certain
amount of our wealth to get that peace of mind. I pay a lot for car
insurance, and I have not had any claim against me for 20 years. Should I
complain that I shouldn’t have to pay premiums when I find that others
are benefiting from mine? Of course not; I’m benefiting from theirs, too.
A liability judgment after an accident would wipe me out, and then what
would I do? That’s what I pay for.

The problem with giving people the freedom to opt out of Social Security
is that too many of them might choose to do that. Unless you can show
that this form of insurance can still cover the rest of us, or unless you
decide that those without enough to live on in their old age can simply
be left on the street to die, we would still have to come up with some
way to support those who can’t support themselves. There would still be
Social Security taxes in some form or other.

The idea of leaving all this to private charities sounds nice, but
unfortunately the very people who become the richest are the ones who are
most concerned, even obsessed, with keeping what they have, and if you
let them opt out a lot of them will do so, maybe too many. Since they got
their riches from the rest of us, they have no God-given right to a free
ride, and their cries of “I worked hard for all of it” fall on
deaf ears in the fields where the laborers stoop to make their owners
rich.

By the way, I pay about $150 per month, or $1800 per year, for my health
insurance: Medicare plus a modest HMO supplementary plan. If I moved to a
one-bedroom apartment, which I might do anyway if I had any sense, I
could actually live on my Social Security. Lots of people do, though it’s
not much of a life. But living is better than not living, I am
told.

Best.

Bill P.

9

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.01.0845)]

Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.01)

What are you _for_ Kenny. What are your references for society. If you
don't like universal (single payer) health insurance, what do you
want? Every man for himself? If you don't like social security, what
do you want? Everyone provides for themselves or dies on the street?

What is your Christ inspired vision of American society?

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

10

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]

Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--

This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.

Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
(PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.

Best regards

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

11

[Martin Taylor 2007.08.01.16.53]

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]

Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--

This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.

Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
(PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.

I don't think there's much mystery about that; the same could be said of the free market reading of Darwin. If you understand Darwin, you don't come up with "Nature red in tooth and claw", or "If I'm rich it must be because I'm better"; you realize that there are different ways communities can be organized, and one generally successful one is to be highly cooperative. Jesus had it right when he said "cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you manyfold". To me, that's the most significant single-sentence presciption in all of economics, and why I nominate Jesus as the greatest economist of the last 2000+ years.

The more interesting question is why so many Christians are free marketers!

As for PCT, not much theory has been developed about what kinds of stable structures can develop when independent PCT hierarchies interact over long periods of time. More needs to be done in that area. I argued in <http://www.mmtaylor.net/PCT/Mutuality/index.html&gt; that cooperation will tend to win out, but subsequently I realized that this isn't necessarily true, and that oscillatory and chaotic changes in social structures are also possible.

Nevertheless, it remains true that successful multicellular organisms depend on the mutual benefit of the actions of the control systems in the different kinds of cells, just as the wealth and wellbeing of communities depends on there being on average more benefit than damage to others of the actions of the average person. "Damage" means, in PCT terms, reduction in ability to control perceptions a person wishes to control. To me, this suggests that it would be hard to construct a consistent "free market" ideology on the base of PCT.

However, if one looks ONLY from the viewpoint of the autonomous individual, without considering the side-effect environmental feedback paths, I think it's easy to see how naive people could take both Darwinism and PCT as arguing for the naturalness, or even the inevitability and desirability, of a dog-eat-dog existence.

Martin

12

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]

Rick,

It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.

For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the implication of
lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for CONTROL at
the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they cannot
CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of control
(somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way they would
want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when they
find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining, studying
and posting.

However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that it
provided an explanation of personal control of perception through behavior
rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and perception. One of
the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled learners,
spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to authoritarian
control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.

Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian view of
society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community rather than
individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick fights with
Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary, Clark
McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's work, but I
would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful life with
his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can finesse and
conquer his/her environment.

So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here, it is
because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support for their
opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.

I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject my
hypotheses.

--Bryan

···

[Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]

> Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--

> This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.

Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
(PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.

Best regards

Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

13

[From Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1910)]

Martin Taylor (2007.08.01.16.53)

>Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)--

>Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
>century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
>(PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
>society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.

The more interesting question is why so many Christians are free marketers!

I agree! Maybe Kenny will help if he would answer my question about
the kind of society he would like to see? Is it one where only the
rich get health care, education, etc? Where the poor deserve what they
get?

Jesus had it right when he said "cast your bread upon the
waters and it will return to you manyfold".

There were a number of things Jesus said that seem to conflict with
the policy preferences of Christian conservatives. It is beyond me how
a disciple of Jesus can be against gun control, gay marriage, for
preemptive (or any) war, or for working hard to get rich. Maybe
they're reading one of those non-canonical gospels, like the gaspel
according to Milton Friedman.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
Lecturer in Psychology
UCLA
rsmarken@gmail.com

14

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2110 CDT)]

[Kenny Kitzke (2007.08.01)]

"I got it from a forward....They appear factual."

Kenny,

Oy vey, my grandmother used to say, "I read it in the Tribune (Chicago) so it
MUST be true!!! Ahhh hmmmm... I remember what she said everytime a fan of
FoxNews/FauxNews/FixedNoise etc. claims authority on their word alone.

Trust me, trust me, you know I am right! Well, heck, that reminds me of this
poster:

No way. I scientifically and editorially reject your claims with non-existing
documentation. And I reject your post of these interesting hand-picked items. I
would rather "take easy, but take it" from Studs Terkel and his descendants such
as: Mike Moore (SiCKO), Robert Greenwald (WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low
Price), Max Blumenthal (Generation Chickenhawk), Daniel Brook (The Trap: Selling
Out to Stay Afloat in Winner-Take-All America), Thomas Ricks (Fiasco), Charles
Ferguson (No End in Sight), David Enders (Baghdad Bulletin: Dispatches on the
American Occupation)...

Neat Video from Max Blumenthal: "Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians
United for Israel Tour"

Also, another good movie coming up:
***No End in Sight***
{noendinsightmovie.com - noendinsightmovie Resources and Information.}
Review (Note, the site is Canadian):
{MoviesOnline}

No, Kenny, you DID say "facts", you "did not document", and you are IN a court
of sorts: A scientific court that functions more rigourously than any jury in a
court of law. No apologies, no excuses, you were sending something the same way
that O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage and the rest do, without
research, without respect for the reader, and with the clear intent to MUDDY the
waters of assertion, evidence, and rejecting (or not rejecting) the hypothesis.

Please stop.

But, it is truly just someones written opinion as you say. It would have
been more accurate for me to have said "purported facts" or "facts" in
quotes
as I did not check them out personally. But, I am not in a court room under
oath. Only because the SS System had been mentioned on CSGNet at the time I
received the forward did I decide to send it along as "food for thought."
You
can ignore it or condemn it or provide the factual errors in it.

Here is a fact according to SSA. I paid $101,412 into FICA over about 40
years. Investing $2500 a year in a savings account at even 5% interest would
have my balance be $302,000. I would feel pretty secure with that in the
bank.

"My money, my money, my money, my money..." --Don't drive, don't drink the
water, don't watch TV or Radio, don't use the Internet, don't breathe the air,
and certainly, don't ever expect your house not to be searched, your mail to
remain unopened until it arrives at your door, and your free speech to be
unabridged. Your CONTRIBUTION -- in part -- is made because we live in a society
where all of us have a share so that all (not just some) can live equitably, in
peace, and so we can achieve the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness."

{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness\}

I have yet to collect a nickel. If I start next month, I would get $1,587 a
month. That is not near enough to live on for me. It would barely pay my
health care costs. It will take me 16 years to break even making me 78. If
I
croak before then, someone else will enjoy my remaining savings. I would
rather provide for my own financial security. Why not let people be free to
sign up with SSA or opt out?

You can't and live in the United States. Retire in Russia, the Old Wild West, or
some Libertarian dream world where the rule of man still exists.

What kind of society do you want? Tell us what you want for America and it's 350
odd million residents, citizens and visitors. As Rick asks: "What is your Christ
inspired vision of American society?"

Would it be the Lord's Prayer, the Beatitudes, the Parables? Which? Or is it The
Apocalypse, Daniel or the 140,000?

Cheers,

--Bryan

15

[from Gary Cziko 2007/08/01 21:30 CDT]

[Martin Taylor 2007.08.01.16.53]

Martin wrote:

If you understand Darwin, you

don’t come up with “Nature red in tooth and claw”, or “If I’m rich it
must be because I’m better”; you realize that there are different
ways communities can be organized, and one generally successful one

is to be highly cooperative.

In today’s New York Times at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/science/31prof.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Dr. Nowak and his colleagues found that when they put players into a
network, the Prisoner’s Dilemma played out differently. Tight clusters
of cooperators emerge, and defectors elsewhere in the network are not
able to undermine their altruism. “Even if outside our network there
are cheaters, we still help each other a lot,” Dr. Nowak said. That is
not to say that cooperation always emerges. Dr. Nowak identified the
conditions when it can arise with a simple equation: B/C>K. That is,
cooperation will emerge if the benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio of
cooperation is greater than the average number of neighbors (K).

“It’s the simplest possible thing you could have expected, and it’s completely amazing,” he said.

–Gary

16

[From Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]

Rick,

It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.

For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the implication of
lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for CONTROL at
the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they cannot
CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of control
(somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way they would
want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when they
find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining, studying
and posting.

However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that it
provided an explanation of personal control of perception through behavior
rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and perception. One of
the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled learners,
spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to authoritarian
control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.

Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian view of
society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community rather than
individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick fights with
Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary, Clark
McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's work, but I
would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful life with
his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can finesse and
conquer his/her environment.

What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is nothing incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as the communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_ incompatible with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not to participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to that approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune and living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree to those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by force, then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't fair too well.

from a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a gun in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.

···

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:32PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:

So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here, it is
because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support for their
opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.

I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject my
hypotheses.

--Bryan

> [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
>
> > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
>
> > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
>
> Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
>
> Best regards
>
> Rick
> --
> Richard S. Marken PhD
> Lecturer in Psychology
> UCLA
> rsmarken@gmail.com

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates

17

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2300 CDT)]

Samuel,

Well, it's interesting how you put it. That communitarianism can be incompatible
with libertarianism. I don't think that this is the balance.

Most primitive groups HAVE to cooperate, and the young males often act as
loners, taking chances to copulate and thereby spread their DNA or nip in to
grab some food, and then go back to their fringe groups. In that way,
libertarianism is compatible with communitarianism. Okay? But when the loners
turn into Mad Maxish marauding bands, or when loners seek to maintain their
independent lives within the walls of a community, upsetting agreements and
causing imbalances, then libertarianism is incompatible with communitarianism so
much so that they are removed from society, and put into isolation or killed
off.

Yes, I think that cooperation is more likely than individuals duking it out for
scarce resources.

I would not force loners with communitarianism, hahaha, but then I would not
expect that the libertarians would ever be allowed back into town, on our
streets, using our space, and breathing our air. Okay?

--Bryan

···

[Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:32PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]
>
> Rick,
>
> It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.
>
> For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the
implication of
> lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for CONTROL
at
> the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
> surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they cannot
> CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of
control
> (somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way they
would
> want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when
they
> find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining,
studying
> and posting.
>
> However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that it
> provided an explanation of personal control of perception through behavior
> rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and perception.
One of
> the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled
learners,
> spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to
authoritarian
> control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.
>
> Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian
view of
> society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community rather
than
> individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick fights
with
> Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary, Clark
> McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's work,
but I
> would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful life
with
> his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can finesse
and
> conquer his/her environment.
>

What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is nothing
incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as the
communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_ incompatible
with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not to
participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to
their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be
arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to that
approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune and
living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree to
those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by force,
then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't fair
too well.

From a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a gun
in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.

> So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here, it
is
> because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support for
their
> opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.
>
> I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject my
> hypotheses.
>
> --Bryan
>
> > [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
> >
> > > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
> >
> > > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
> >
> > Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> > century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> > (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> > society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rick
> > --
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > Lecturer in Psychology
> > UCLA
> > rsmarken@gmail.com

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates

18

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2327 CDT)]

Samuel,

I had a re-read of your post, and I really object to a few things. I do not have
trouble understanding, as you mention. I do not support a society that would
turn into a Soviet, Nazi or Bushco style rule of man. Libertarians by definition
will be against communitarian tooth and nail, as you finally wind up, making
accusations of Soviet blah blah... How could they stand to be in a society where
citizens carefully balance contributions, sharing, parasitism, and criminal
activities. It is NOT a black and white alternative, as you suggest with your
strawman.

Now you KNOW that the way things are right now, there are sectors where
resources are shared (must be shared and not despoiled according to Hardin's
Tragedy of the Commons) and there are sectors where competition and individual
endeavor can exist without interfering with common interests. We are talking
about health, security, safety, transportation, communication, and things that
we do in common. Now, I am not such an expert and I don't have time to work out
all these details.

I do direct you to Thom Hartmann's work, where he goes into some great detail
and has worked for years on developing a Communitarian point of view of how we
share this planet with each other.

But the bottom line is, I take it you were born here. You were born into a
society that shares a great proportion of common health, security, safety and
other things that cannot be held by the few against the many. If you purport to
argue from the libertarian point of view, you will have to tell me how a nation
can exist with two diametrically-opposed points of view. If the greater
proportion choose and prefer to throw their lot together and share, then what
should the dissenters do? Should they move out of the cities, away from rural
electrification, away from roads, phone lines, internet trunk lines, and water
tables? Should they live in places where they cannot take from the commons,
since they do not wish to contribute? Should these dissenting libertarians stay
out of our business since they are so selfish that they won't share?

Samuel, what is YOUR vision for America? I ask the same question that Rick and I
asked Kenny? "What is your Libertarian inspired vision of American society?"

--Bryan

···

[Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]

What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is nothing
incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as the
communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_ incompatible
with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not to
participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to
their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be
arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to that
approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune and
living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree to
those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by force,
then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't fair
too well.

From a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a gun
in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.

> So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here, it
is
> because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support for
their
> opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.
>
> I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject my
> hypotheses.
>
> --Bryan
>
> > [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
> >
> > > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
> >
> > > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
> >
> > Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> > century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> > (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> > society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Rick
> > --
> > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > Lecturer in Psychology
> > UCLA
> > rsmarken@gmail.com

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates

19

[From Samuel Saunders (2007.08.02.0019 MDT)]

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2300 CDT)]

Samuel,

Well, it's interesting how you put it. That communitarianism can be incompatible
with libertarianism. I don't think that this is the balance.

Most primitive groups HAVE to cooperate, and the young males often act as
loners, taking chances to copulate and thereby spread their DNA or nip in to
grab some food, and then go back to their fringe groups. In that way,
libertarianism is compatible with communitarianism. Okay? But when the loners
turn into Mad Maxish marauding bands, or when loners seek to maintain their
independent lives within the walls of a community, upsetting agreements and
causing imbalances, then libertarianism is incompatible with communitarianism so
much so that they are removed from society, and put into isolation or killed
off.

Yes, I think that cooperation is more likely than individuals duking it out for
scarce resources.

I would not force loners with communitarianism, hahaha, but then I would not
expect that the libertarians would ever be allowed back into town, on our
streets, using our space, and breathing our air. Okay?

--Bryan

Bryan

I can't tell if you are just being contrarian, or if you have no idea whatsoever of what libertarian means. I have no problem at all with cooperation- I think it is the best way of doing things, and I frequently give of my time and resources to help others. What I (and other libertarians) won't do is use force to get you to cooperate or help others. If you want to horde your resources, then so be it; I will continue to share mine and to encourage (but not force) others to do so as well. I will continue to argue that sharing and cooperation is the best course, but I will continue to respect the right of others to choose not to do so. I consider it a virtue to give my money to help those in need, but a crime for me to give your money to help those in need.

···

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:14:16PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:

> [Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:32PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> > [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.
> >
> > For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the
> implication of
> > lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for CONTROL
> at
> > the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
> > surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they cannot
> > CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of
> control
> > (somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way they
> would
> > want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when
> they
> > find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining,
> studying
> > and posting.
> >
> > However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that it
> > provided an explanation of personal control of perception through behavior
> > rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and perception.
> One of
> > the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled
> learners,
> > spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to
> authoritarian
> > control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.
> >
> > Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian
> view of
> > society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community rather
> than
> > individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick fights
> with
> > Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary, Clark
> > McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's work,
> but I
> > would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful life
> with
> > his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can finesse
> and
> > conquer his/her environment.
> >
>
> What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is nothing
> incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as the
> communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_ incompatible
> with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not to
> participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to
> their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be
> arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to that
> approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune and
> living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree to
> those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by force,
> then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't fair
> too well.
>
> From a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a gun
> in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.
>
> > So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here, it
> is
> > because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support for
> their
> > opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.
> >
> > I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject my
> > hypotheses.
> >
> > --Bryan
> >
> > > [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
> > >
> > > > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
> > >
> > > > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > > > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > > > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
> > >
> > > Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> > > century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> > > (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> > > society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
> > >
> > > Best regards
> > >
> > > Rick
> > > --
> > > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > > Lecturer in Psychology
> > > UCLA
> > > rsmarken@gmail.com
>
> --
> Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
> saunders@westriverresearch.com
> Partner, West River Research Associates

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates

20

[From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.02.0845 CDT)]

Samuel,

No, I am not being a contrarian. I just want to know what you mean by forced,
and what you mean by cooperation. That is, we have a system already in place
for cooperation, social security etc. However, for it not to be forced, must
you supercede the lawmakers (ie rule of man, not rule of law) to give your
personal approval to share? I think that is what is being a libertarian, that
you have to unilaterally decide for YOUR money. Therefore, it is the isolate
rule of man, not rule of law, and if you were a company owner, you would set up
your own kingdom to decide if you should contribute this month, this year, or
to this need. You are the contrarian, therefore, wanting to supercede the US
Constitution. Move elsewhere, I would say.

--Bryan

···

[Samuel Saunders (2007.08.02.0019 MDT)]

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:14:16PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2300 CDT)]
>
> Samuel,
>
> Well, it's interesting how you put it. That communitarianism can be
incompatible
> with libertarianism. I don't think that this is the balance.
>
> Most primitive groups HAVE to cooperate, and the young males often act as
> loners, taking chances to copulate and thereby spread their DNA or nip in
to
> grab some food, and then go back to their fringe groups. In that way,
> libertarianism is compatible with communitarianism. Okay? But when the
loners
> turn into Mad Maxish marauding bands, or when loners seek to maintain their
> independent lives within the walls of a community, upsetting agreements and
> causing imbalances, then libertarianism is incompatible with
communitarianism so
> much so that they are removed from society, and put into isolation or
killed
> off.
>
> Yes, I think that cooperation is more likely than individuals duking it out
for
> scarce resources.
>
> I would not force loners with communitarianism, hahaha, but then I would
not
> expect that the libertarians would ever be allowed back into town, on our
> streets, using our space, and breathing our air. Okay?
>
> --Bryan
>
>

Bryan

I can't tell if you are just being contrarian, or if you have no idea
whatsoever of what libertarian means. I have no problem at all with
cooperation- I think it is the best way of doing things, and I frequently
give of my time and resources to help others. What I (and other
libertarians) won't do is use force to get you to cooperate or help others.
If you want to horde your resources, then so be it; I will continue to share
mine and to encourage (but not force) others to do so as well. I will
continue to argue that sharing and cooperation is the best course, but I will
continue to respect the right of others to choose not to do so. I consider
it a virtue to give my money to help those in need, but a crime for me to
give your money to help those in need.

> > [Samuel Saunders (2007.08.01.2037 MDT)]
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:18:32PM -0500, Bryan Thalhammer wrote:
> > > [From Bryan Thalhammer (2007.08.01.2015 CDT)]
> > >
> > > Rick,
> > >
> > > It is ultimately, I think, a misconception.
> > >
> > > For Social Dominators or SD Wannabees, the word CONTROL (with the
> > implication of
> > > lack of CONTROL) must be a disturbance that requires high gain for
CONTROL
> > at
> > > the System Image level. Many Liberarians, Entrepreneurs who unwillingly
> > > surrender all of "their money" have a big chronic error when they
cannot
> > > CONTROL what they touch, and whatever reasons they give for the lack of
> > control
> > > (somebody else USING their money, the money not being spent the way
they
> > would
> > > want it, or the money being spent outside of their CONTROL...), so when
> > they
> > > find a theory of control, they naturally want to CONTROL it by joining,
> > studying
> > > and posting.
> > >
> > > However, one of the reasons, I think, that Bill envisioned PCT was that
it
> > > provided an explanation of personal control of perception through
behavior
> > > rather than Behaviorist external control of both behavior and
perception.
> > One of
> > > the benefits of a PCT view of the world is that formerly controlled
> > learners,
> > > spouses, kids, and just about everyone doesn't have to submit to
> > authoritarian
> > > control by Social Dominators, clearly a liberal view.
> > >
> > > Once libertarians realized that many of us here favored a communitarian
> > view of
> > > society populated by individuals who chose to be part of a community
rather
> > than
> > > individuals duking it out for scarce resources, they began to pick
fights
> > with
> > > Rick, Bill, myself, Dick and (if they read the books properly) Gary,
Clark
> > > McPhail and Kent McClelland. I cannot say anything about Tim Carey's
work,
> > but I
> > > would say that it emphasizes how an individual can resume a peaceful
life
> > with
> > > his/her community rather than emphasizing how that individual can
finesse
> > and
> > > conquer his/her environment.
> > >
> >
> > What you seem to have trouble understanding, Bryan, is that there is
nothing
> > incompatible between libertarian and communitarian approaches, as long as
the
> > communitarian approach is based on mutual agreement. What _is_
incompatible
> > with libertarianism is forcing communitarianism on people who choose not
to
> > participate. If everyone in a country agrees to contribute according to
> > their ability, and receive according to their needs, then this can be
> > arranged with _no conflict_ for libertarians. If some people agree to
that
> > approach, there is no libertarian objection to their forming a commune
and
> > living there according to those principles. If some people _don't_ agree
to
> > those principles, but an attempt is made to make them live by them by
force,
> > then you re-create the former Soviet Union- an experiment that didn't
fair
> > too well.
> >
> > From a libertarian perspective, discussion may be less effective than a
gun
> > in the short term, but is likely to have a more lasting impact.
> >
> > > So, Rick, if there is any reason "free market types" have glommed here,
it
> > is
> > > because, like many sources, they have unscientifically found support
for
> > their
> > > opinions rather than scientifically done research on a problem.
> > >
> > > I hope that I have this right, but anyone is free to concur or reject
my
> > > hypotheses.
> > >
> > > --Bryan
> > >
> > > > [Rick Marken (2007.08.01.1012)]
> > > >
> > > > > Jeff Vancouver (2007.08.01.0920 EST)]--
> > > >
> > > > > This is too hard to resist. Although, like Bryan, I might question
> > > > > the validity of the statements, I am more likely to applaud the
> > > > > changes listed if they are true. Let's go through them.
> > > >
> > > > Great post Jeff. I think one of the great questions of the 21st
> > > > century will be why a wonderfully humanistic model of human nature
> > > > (PCT) has been so attractive to free market types whose approach to
> > > > society seems so inhumane, to me anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Best regards
> > > >
> > > > Rick
> > > > --
> > > > Richard S. Marken PhD
> > > > Lecturer in Psychology
> > > > UCLA
> > > > rsmarken@gmail.com
> >
> > --
> > Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
> > saunders@westriverresearch.com
> > Partner, West River Research Associates

--
Samuel Spence Saunders, Ph.D.
saunders@westriverresearch.com
Partner, West River Research Associates