On Tuesday 03 July 2007, Enrico Weigelt wrote:

> The major problem is the inherent conflict
> between marked-based economoy (which IMHO grants the most personal
> freedom) and the concept of social wellfare. Both concepts cannot
> be merged within one system, since they conflict each other.
> But IMHO both concepts are necessary.
> So my idea is to do both things separately. The component of social
> wellfare is to give everyone enough money so he can afford evthing
> that's needed for life, including a home, food, clothes, communication,
> education, healtcare, etc. It's not very hard to calculate an value
> for some (well-defined) group of people within some region on the
> current marked prices. Simply give the people that value as an
> unconditional income, just because they're living Human. The really
> most of all "social systems" are immediately unnecessar at that point.
> The risk of poverty is immediately eliminated (of course people who
> are too sick to care for themselves are an very special and rare case,
> they'll need further assistance nevertheless). Additionally we need
> a few marked regulations for transparencey and reliability of some
> fundamental economic good, ie. insurance contracts w/o pitfalls, etc.
> Once we have ensured the constraint that evryone can afford all things
> important for living, we can give almost evrything to the marked.
> (leaves only a few implementation details to discuss). Most aspects
> of what's currently called basic social care (ie. playschool) can
> be done by private institutions. Non-profit ones could play a big
> role here.

And I thought /I/ was the only one. Have we really gotten to the point in
political science where sane ideas can be uttered safely in public?

Jonathan Cast