People should be allowed to starve or otherwise die from lack of employment, sickness, etc.

Of course, the rich should be allowed to hunt and eat those on the brink of death to reduce the possibility of the foul odor of decomposition wafting over their holdings. Protection of property.

Right Jake?

>>>>Of course, this depends on your definition of success. I assert that mandatory participation in the redistribution of private property from one private party to another is unconstitutional. In this I side with Madison and Locke over Hamilton.
>>
>>My only point is that it works. In real life. If the only objection to a solution that works in real life is "the law", then I agree with Bumble's description of the law in Oliver Twist. Laws of Constitution are not laws of nature, they're man-made and they're supposed to benefit society.
>>
>>May I also remind you of what Thomas Jefferson had to say about tax?
>>
>>"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise”.
>
>>Unconstitutional? Marxist? Immoral redistribution of wealth? Jefferson didn't seem to think so, but what would he know.
>
>LOL. He was speaking about France.
>http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl41.htm
>
>Here's where he mentions the United States in the same letter to James Madison Fontainebleau, Oct. 28, 1785:
>It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment, but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
>
>Further, I'd say Jefferson was quite clear regarding property in his First Inaugural Address Wednesday, March 4, 1801:
>a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
>http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres16.html
>
>>>>If I accept the premise that mandatory confiscation and redistribution of wealth is Constitutional then I agree that the Australian, or Chilean or British or Singaporean models are superior to the United States. I would argue that their success has more do to their privitization rather than the mandatory participation. After all, even if SS monies weren't succeptible to Congressional raid, SS would still have much less return than the partially-private examples and would still be facing insolvency due to demographic realities.
>>
>>SS and Medicare are underfunded because the boomers punished anybody who proposed taxes to build the necessary base.
>
>SS and Medicare are underfunded because they are Ponzi schemes masquarading as a kind of insurance. The only difference between them and Madoff is that Madoff couldn't force participation.
>
>>I've no doubt that terms like "mandatory confiscation" and "redistribution of wealth" featured prominently as the electorate sought to avoid contribution.
>
>Damn that pesky electorate. How dare they want to keep what they earn. If only they'd succomb to the wisdom of an enlightneed elite. ;)
>
>>The result is entirely predictable: the elephant in the room grew so big that it's going to blow the room apart. As they fly through the air, some will still insist they haven't noticed anything.
>
>From their inception, the inevitable result was underfunding, the only question was when.
>
>>>>I understand that people get the government they deserve and that the US fully deserves the mess it's put itself in.
>>
>>Deserves? No, it's just a shame that boomers still pat themselves on the back for their thrift and success, apparently ignoring the huge price that they will vote for somebody else to pay.
>
>Thrift? You must be joking. Try spendthrift.
>http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/06/05/spendthrift-boomers-face-perilous-retirement-mckinsey/
>
>and that's just a reflection of their own savings, let alone what they've voted in when the other guy is paying the bill.
>
>>I'm reminded of an African experience where some tribesmen caused hundreds of thousands of dollars of damage by harvesting copper phone cables that they sold for scrap. To them it was a wonderful success.
>
>No need to look to Africa.
>http://www.kspr.com/news/local/kspr-copper-thieves-blamed-for-knocking-out-power-to-thousands-20111116,0,5956228.story