>Not much point discussing further if you only ever respond to the straw man of abolition of personal property.

I've noticed that your particular style involves conviently snipping what I write and then deliberetly missteating it. Claiming "abolition of personal property" as a straw man is rich, especially considering your previous use and reuse (see below) of what I already pointed out as the ultimate straw man the "wild west".

>Stopping at traffic lights may be a reduction of liberty/property rights,

No it isn't, that's why this argument is irrelevant to the discussion.

>but it is not a call for abolition of personal property or to bring back Lenin.

It wasn't Lenin. ;)

>It's the opposite: by willingly stopping at traffic lights (and sailing through on the green when it is my turn) I contribute to order and property value in the community,

Confiscation of my personal property is a direct violation of my right to private property by the government, whereas your traffic light argument is not relevant as one individual not stopping infringes on another's rights, namely their "right of way".

>compared to the absolute "Wild West" liberty you seem to advocate which sounds great in a sound bite but devalues property and liberty for everybody except bandits in real life. Seems to me that extreme positions are equally useless whether they be far left or far right.

I'll say it again : The wild west strawman holds no place in this discussion as we are not discussing the absence of laws protecting people and property but rather the opposite, laws mandating confiscation of property.

>Paying enough into a compulsory scheme to make it self-sustaining and reduce cost for future citizens, does not alter your "affluence" compared to others in your community, since you're all doing it.

Sounds great. Why stop at retirement and health care? What about homes, doesn't everyone need a home? How about cars? and Tvs and cell phones are becomming pretty necessary in the modern world. I say we create compulsory schemes for all that way everyone will get everything and future generations will love us.

>It does increase personal security and also creates cash surpluses for a vigorous main board but also for hot new companies who may be starved of cash. Contributors to such schemes also can hold their heads high in front of youngsters because they've left the nation with something much better than when they arrived, as previous generations did for you.

If you think that generations prior to mine left the world better then you either have no idea how young I am or have a rose covered view of the world. The boomers inherited a booming post-war nation and have so thouroughly screwed it up that it'll take decades to unwind the debt, regulatory hell and complete lack of responsibility they instilled in their zombie children. That's only if they are defeated. Since they're retiring and no one votes like a senior getting a government check I hold little hope for the future of this nation. That the rest of the west (and soon the east) is collapsing into a gluttonous spending induced sinkhole seems to have our attention for now, but given the rise of ADHD I'm guessing we'll ignore the obvious and happily follow Ireland, Greece, Portugal and soon to be Italy, Spain, etc right off the cliff.