Imagine That Every US Household Had a $400k Mortgage, and No House

[$cirisme]

According to the US Comptroller, we're screwed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64). We have promised workers benefits we can't afford, to the tune of costing every household over $400,000 dollars.

It's an interesting (albeit slightly boring) video that you really need to see. The Comptroller has been saying for a while now that we simply can't afford what we're promising and that it's going to do us in, and we need to listen.

[Gideon Brown]

According to the US Comptroller, we're screwed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64). We have promised workers benefits we can't afford, to the tune of costing every household over $400,000 dollars.

It's an interesting (albeit slightly boring) video that you really need to see. The Comptroller has been saying for a while now that we simply can't afford what we're promising and that it's going to do us in, and we need to listen.

I think I saw this one a while ago; very interesting. I worry about what's going to happen here in Canadia over the coming decades as the boomers age and healthcare costs skyrocket.

Tough to believe it could really be so bad, though, right? I mean, it's tough to believe that the smart guys at the top could really let it get so bad. Maybe we trust them too much. :nsm:

[$cirisme]

I think I saw this one a while ago; very interesting. I worry about what's going to happen here in Canadia over the coming decades as the boomers age and healthcare costs skyrocket.

Yea, I have seen some people ask why Canada and Europe can provide these services without going bankrupt, and the answer really is the US' rapidly changing demographics. If we had the same demographics as Europe right now, we'd be OK it sounds like.


Tough to believe it could really be so bad, though, right? I mean, it's tough to believe that the smart guys at the top could really let it get so bad. Maybe we trust them too much. :nsm:

I think the guy made a good point, "I don't know about you, but I'm just getting used to billions, let alone trillions." We'd need $46 trillion in the bank today to pay out all the future claims. I don't think many people can even comprehend the massive size of this problem.

[Philosophickle]

I saw this guy a few months back.
That's when I switched to Ron Paul.

[Teallaura]

Not to excuse the 'guys at the top' but voters bear some of the blame as well. We demand government fix every problem and that our representatives bring home the pork and plenty of it.

I doubt seriously that M'care or Soc Security will be significantly scaled back shy a repeat of the Great Depression - and maybe not then. The Baby Boom generation - aka the Me generation - has the political clout to make sure that doesn't happen. They haven't done it historically because they weren't as worried when it was Mom and Dad as they are now that they are staring retirement in the face.

Now, all the other programs are toast and defense will become a joke. As conservative as the Boomers are likely to become they still will opt for their own comfort over national defense. They spent their parent's money on themselves and they'll spend their kid's money on themselves.

Me? Cynical?

:hmph:

[Philosophickle]

Not to excuse the 'guys at the top' but voters bear some of the blame as well. We demand government fix every problem and that our representatives bring home the pork and plenty of it.

I doubt seriously that M'care or Soc Security will be significantly scaled back shy a repeat of the Great Depression - and maybe not then. The Baby Boom generation - aka the Me generation - has the political clout to make sure that doesn't happen. They haven't done it historically because they weren't as worried when it was Mom and Dad as they are now that they are staring retirement in the face.

Now, all the other programs are toast and defense will become a joke. As conservative as the Boomers are likely to become they still will opt for their own comfort over national defense. They spent their parent's money on themselves and they'll spend their kid's money on themselves.

Me? Cynical?

:hmph:

That's fine, my generation will just have to kill them off.

[Teallaura]

Sad thing is, they've given your generation the legal ammo to do just exactly that.

[Augustine2004]

The American Empire is going to end this decade or next, for sure. I don't quite see how, however. The Ron Paul way? Or would the Booomer desire for a comfortable life force the Federal Government to cut back on defense and the Welfare State? Or some othe way? My guess is the second way.

[nickcopernicus]

Nick:

"Empire?" :huh:

[Glenn P]

According to the US Comptroller, we're screwed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjZBOCAgR64). We have promised workers benefits we can't afford, to the tune of costing every household over $400,000 dollars.How can that possibly be the result of workers benefits? How many workers entitled to such benefits are there, on average, in a household. I'd say 2. How could each worker, on average, have been promised $200,000 in benefits? :huh:

So there must be other costs contributing to this.... I'm guessing a rather large activity, oooo, somehwere on the other side of the Pacific... maybe in the region of the Persian Gulf.

[Pilgrim]

Sad thing is, they've given your generation the legal ammo to do just exactly that.

The boomers are like a virus consuming every resource around them, not worrying about the affects it has on any other generation, and somehow have the gonads to act as if they're some how more righteous than the rest of us as they do it.

Please. The 60's weren't that awesome. If they were you'd still be out in the mud of Woodstock telling off "the man" instead you've become the man, meet the new boss same as the old boss." Get over yourselves and start working with the rest of the world.

[Teallaura]

How can that possibly be the result of workers benefits? How many workers entitled to such benefits are there, on average, in a household. I'd say 2. How could each worker, on average, have been promised $200,000 in benefits? :huh:

So there must be other costs contributing to this.... I'm guessing a rather large activity, oooo, somehwere on the other side of the Pacific... maybe in the region of the Persian Gulf.
No, actually, $200,000 sounds a little low once you consider M'care and SS together for 10 -20 years at a minimum - longer for those who obstinately refuse to just die already.

[Teallaura]

The boomers are like a virus consuming every resource around them, not worrying about the affects it has on any other generation, and somehow have the gonads to act as if they're some how more righteous than the rest of us as they do it.

Please. The 60's weren't that awesome. If they were you'd still be out in the mud of Woodstock telling off "the man" instead you've become the man, meet the new boss same as the old boss." Get over yourselves and start working with the rest of the world.You're expecting a lot from the Hypocrite Generation that spent the 60's telling everyone to do their own thing all the while telling everyone what that 'own thing' should be.

[historic salve]

Yea, I have seen some people ask why Canada and Europe can provide these services without going bankrupt, and the answer really is the US' rapidly changing demographics. If we had the same demographics as Europe right now, we'd be OK it sounds like.
Keep in mind that Europe has a negative population growth... An interesting fact is that it's the only continent in the world that does.

Watching the video now.

[historic salve]

How can that possibly be the result of workers benefits? How many workers entitled to such benefits are there, on average, in a household. I'd say 2. How could each worker, on average, have been promised $200,000 in benefits? :huh:

So there must be other costs contributing to this.... I'm guessing a rather large activity, oooo, somehwere on the other side of the Pacific... maybe in the region of the Persian Gulf.
Not according to the Comptroller. From the video: "What's shocking is that while some would have you believe that the reason we're running these deficits is because of the war on terrorism, and incremental homeland security costs, that's just not factually accurate. In fact, whether you pick the $318 billion number or the $760 billion number, only about $100 billion of those amounts had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and incremental homeland security costs."

[Pilgrim]

Not according to the Comptroller. From the video: "What's shocking is that while some would have you believe that the reason we're running these deficits is because of the war on terrorism, and incremental homeland security costs, that's just not factually accurate. In fact, whether you pick the $318 billion number or the $760 billion number, only about $100 billion of those amounts had anything to do with Iraq, Afghanistan, and incremental homeland security costs."

That can't be right. The war alone is approaching a cost of $500 billion dollars.

[Philosophickle]

That can't be right. The war alone is approaching a cost of $500 billion dollars.

It is an old talk.

[$cirisme]

That can't be right. The war alone is approaching a cost of $500 billion dollars.

$500 billion is less than 2% of $40 trillion.

The war is paid out today, medicare and social security will be paid out in years to come. This is why he calls them "unfunded commitments". We've made a commitment to workers across the country that we can only pay if we had $40+ trillion on hand today. Tomorrow, it will be more. By the time 2040 rolls around, it will be astronomically higher. (inflation and all that jazz)

In other words, there are government bonds out there now that we're using to borrow money for the war and all our other governmental expenses, but not ss/medicare. That's why they're "unfunded". We're making a promise of so much to all our workers that will cost us $40 trillion today to fully fund (IOW, we're $40 trillion short in today's dollars). But because it's a pay as you go system, we don't have to physically borrow it until they actually do collect. But because of interest charges and inflation, when they do collect, it will cost way more than that.


How can that possibly be the result of workers benefits? How many workers entitled to such benefits are there, on average, in a household. I'd say 2. How could each worker, on average, have been promised $200,000 in benefits? :huh:

In 2040, $200,000 won't be nearly as much as it is today. Especially when you spread it out over 5, 10, or 15 years.

But anyway, the $40 trillion figure, I do believe, factors in inflation and interest charges. Which is why as time goes on, the more we delay, the more it will take to dig us out.

[Augustine2004]

In 2040, $200,000 won't be nearly as much as it is today. Especially when you spread it out over 5, 10, or 15 years.Not sure what you mean. Are you talking constant dollars? Adjusted for inflation? We're using pay as you go for SS and Medicare (forget the trust funds, it's pure accounting fiction, just something that one part of the government 'owes' to another part of the government, like a husband owing his wife a trillion dollars).

[$cirisme]

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking constant dollars? Adjusted for inflation? We're using pay as you go for SS and Medicare (forget the trust funds, it's pure accounting fiction, just something that one part of the government 'owes' to another part of the government, like a husband owing his wife a trillion dollars).
I was just using Jack's number. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.

[Glenn P]

I was just using Jack's number. I have no idea if it's accurate or not.
My number was 2. Your number was 400,000. So i was dividing your number by 2.

[$cirisme]

My number was 2. Your number was 400,000. So i was dividing your number by 2.
Um, you really should watch the video. He breaks it down on a per-person, per-fulltime worker, and per-household basis. And he it explains how it all works.

On a per-fulltime worker basis, it's $375,000.

This is how much money it will take to fund the promised benefits, not the amount of benefits themselves. (because a huge amount of it will simply go to interest payments)

Again, you really should watch the video before making any further comments.

[Glenn P]

OK, so there aren't, on average, 2 workers per household.

[Ryokan]

That can't be right. The war alone is approaching a cost of $500 billion dollars.

The thing, Pilgrim, is in the long run the war doesn't matter. It is a fixed cost with a fixed end date. Even if, well when, the bill reaches a trillion dollars we can easily afford to fund it on deficit spending alone. It is the long run fixed costs, Medicare specifically, that are the rpoblem.

[Philosophickle]

The thing, Pilgrim, is in the long run the war doesn't matter. It is a fixed cost with a fixed end date. Even if, well when, the bill reaches a trillion dollars we can easily afford to fund it on deficit spending alone. It is the long run fixed costs, Medicare specifically, that are the rpoblem.

Why is mcare any more fixed than our foreign policy expenditures?
If McCain wins, he is willing to spend the next 100 years in Iraq.

[Ryokan]

Why is mcare any more fixed than our foreign policy expenditures?
If McCain wins, he is willing to spend the next 100 years in Iraq.

Yes, but is he willing to serve 100 years as president?
The truth is sooner or later the US will ahve to draw down in Iraq. McCain's statement was a rhetorical gesture. Even if a major occupation lasted 30 years and cost 5 trillion dollars the US could afford it with deficit spending alone. 46 trillion it cannot.

[Philosophickle]

Yes, but is he willing to serve 100 years as president?
The truth is sooner or later the US will ahve to draw down in Iraq. McCain's statement was a rhetorical gesture. Even if a major occupation lasted 30 years and cost 5 trillion dollars the US could afford it with deficit spending alone. 46 trillion it cannot.

We are both libertarians it looks like, so we will agree that that mcare and related crap needs to end, or least be overhauled. And while obviously McCain won't be president for the next hundred years, we will be stuck with a crappy clone for the next X amount of terms that will cost us trillions.

[Ryokan]

We are both libertarians it looks like, so we will agree that that mcare and related crap needs to end, or least be overhauled. And while obviously McCain won't be president for the next hundred years, we will be stuck with a crappy clone for the next X amount of terms that will cost us trillions.
I support McCain, honestly. I don't always agree with him, but he keeps turning out to be right.

[Teallaura]

Question - does anyone know if M'care is capitated? I'm thinking it is (M'caid definitely is). If not, perhaps it needs to be? It's the biggest boy on the block so while you might see some provider loss it would seem to me that you could cut costs that way without such a severe blow to the recipient (not saying none).

Frankly, M'care is responsible for a lot of the cost bloating in medicine - you can raise prices when you know someone will be able to pay whereas prices tend to be surpressed if providers know the market cannot bear the cost. Cash infusions, it seems to me, can not only help but also hurt.

[Philosophickle]

Question - does anyone know if M'care is capitated? I'm thinking it is (M'caid definitely is). If not, perhaps it needs to be? It's the biggest boy on the block so while you might see some provider loss it would seem to me that you could cut costs that way without such a severe blow to the recipient (not saying none).

Frankly, M'care is responsible for a lot of the cost bloating in medicine - you can raise prices when you know someone will be able to pay whereas prices tend to be surpressed if providers know the market cannot bear the cost. Cash infusions, it seems to me, can not only help but also hurt.

It seems like privatizing these kinds of things would fix a lot of problems.

[Teallaura]

Depends on how it was done - you could just as easily make an even bigger mess and end up with hospitals closing left and right.

[Philosophickle]

Depends on how it was done - you could just as easily make an even bigger mess and end up with hospitals closing left and right.

I actually don't have much of a problem with the way healthcare is done right now. Obviously, a lot of things could use fixing. But I am poor, of only average health, and I am able to pay the bills. Could be worse. Could be Clintonized.

[Augustine2004]

can easily afford to fund it on deficit spending alone. :no: That guy needs to take Economics 101. And I can't believe he calls himself libertarian.

[$cirisme]

:no: That guy needs to take Economics 101. And I can't believe he calls himself libertarian.
Ryo is one of our economics experts. If you disagree with him, you're going to need to be more complete than saying that he should take econ101.

PS: I guess that means that you've never heard of Ricardian equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence).

[Teallaura]

He's an Econ major and darned good at this stuff - ya might wanna rethink this...

:uhoh:

[Augustine2004]

Phooey!

Most Econ majors are statists.

If Ryokan wants, we can have a Gym Debate. He's a total putz.

[Augustine2004]

Ryo is one of our economics experts. If you disagree with him, you're going to need to be more complete than saying that he should take econ101.

PS: I guess that means that you've never heard of Ricardian equivalence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence).You guessed right. However, that makes no difference. Read what he wrote: 'easily'. Phooey.

[$cirisme]

Phooey!

Most Econ majors are statists.

If Ryokan wants, we can have a Gym Debate. He's a total putz.
If you're going to be that way, I ask that you not participate in my thread. Thanks.

[Augustine2004]

If you're going to be that way, I ask that you not participate in my thread. Thanks.Why? My use of a certain derogatory term? Or something else? I will leave if you ask again, but I'd like to know why specifically.

[$cirisme]

Why? My use of a certain derogatory term? Or something else? I will leave if you ask again, but I'd like to know why specifically.
Because this thread is about a discussion, not calling people names. kthx.

[Augustine2004]

I would like Ryokan to support his use of the term 'easily.' I'm quite sure I can show that he probably can't even show that our government will do more good than bad, unless it becomes what I call 'small' government (punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen, as promulgated in the Bible).

[Ryokan]

:no: That guy needs to take Economics 101. And I can't believe he calls himself libertarian.

I got the highest grade in my econ101 class. That's why I majored in it! :tongue:

The truth is the US can handle alot of debt. We have a gdp of 12-14 trillion and a debt of 9, if i rember right. Not good but better than alot of countries, or citizens (think about your home mortgage vs. your income). At its core the US has good fundamentals vs. most other large economies and the huge military provides additional security. So it is not usually hard to find creditors. Just not for someting as large as medicare. And whats worse all our creditors pension and healthcare crisis will hit at about the same time, so we will have no one to turn to. A gym debate could be fun. What about?

[Ryokan]

You guessed right. However, that makes no difference. Read what he wrote: 'easily'. Phooey.

Easily is 5 trillion overe thirty years, not even real dollars, it just ain't that much. And I sincerely doubt the war gets anywhere near that expensive. I would rather we didn't debt finance it, but if we fix SS and Mcare we won't notice the war expenditure.

[Conductor42]

:no: That guy needs to take Economics 101. And I can't believe he calls himself libertarian.

Not every libertarian is a misean.

[Ryokan]

Not every libertarian is a porcupine.

When I say libertarian I mean I generally support less government, not in every instance, in people economic and personal lives. I am not hard core about it. I am a Christian and a neo-classical guy, so not athiest and austrian school.

[Conductor42]

When I say libertarian I mean I generally support less government, not in every instance, in people economic and personal lives. I am not hard core about it. I am a Christian and a neo-classical guy, so not athiest and austrian school.
yeah. i think i've started to think like you since you've left.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing yet. :hehe:

[Augustine2004]

What I would like to debate is whether we can expect big government (any government other than small government [punish the bad guy & praise the good guy]) to do more good than bad. Of course that's an ethical question, not an economics question, but you do support big government because you believe it does more good than bad.

[Conductor42]

'punish the bad guy & praise the good guy' is what every government says the are doing. You've got to get more specific than that. Good and bad are subjective terms. What is good to a commie might be evil to a capitalist, what's good to a pagan might be evil to a christian, etc.

[Ryokan]

What I would like to debate is whether we can expect big government (any government other than small government [punish the bad guy & praise the good guy]) to do more good than bad. Of course that's an ethical question, not an economics question, but you do support big government because you believe it does more good than bad.

What do you mean by punish the bad and praise the good?
I think good government provides a minimum, minor safety net for those in dire straights, manages externalities, enforces contracts, and protects basic rights. I don't know if this is good or bad, large or small to you.

[Augustine2004]

Ryokan, why do you even ask? I thought the meaning was clear and simple. Of course the government must necessarily investigate instances of evildoing, lest it accidentally and unjustifiably punish the innocent. Then hold hearings or courts to make sure it does not do so. Such a government had existed - see the Book of Judges in the Bible.

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, why do you even ask? I thought the meaning was clear and simple. Of course the government must necessarily investigate instances of evildoing, lest it accidentally and unjustifiably punish the innocent. Then hold hearings or courts to make sure it does not do so.

How does it define evil?

[Augustine2004]

How does it define evil?Would the Bible be OK?

[Philosophickle]

Would the Bible be OK?

The Bible is evil?

[Ryokan]

Would the Bible be OK?

Not if you want to be libertarian.

In all seriousness, no, I don't think alone the Bible is a good source of morality (divorced from the Church, Church Fathers, and Holy Spirit) and certainly not a means of governing. I think morality based governing in general is a err.

[Augustine2004]

Not if you want to be libertarian.

In all seriousness, no, I don't think alone the Bible is a good source of morality (divorced from the Church, Church Fathers, and Holy Spirit) and certainly not a means of governing. I think morality based governing in general is a err.Huh! What do you think government is, if it's not supposed to enforce some sort of morality!?

[Glenn P]

Huh! What do you think government is, if it's not supposed to enforce some sort of morality!?
If the response you're about to get is the very long, many-headed, heated and somewhat frustrating debate that I suspect may ensue very soon (based on experience), it would be very wise for this discussion to be taken to its own thread, as it's not related to the OP.

[Augustine2004]

If the response you're about to get is the very long, many-headed, heated and somewhat frustrating debate I suspect may ensure very soon (based on experience), it would be very wise for this discussion to be taken to its own thread, as it's not related to the OP.Edited: I guess you're right. Tomorrow I will start a thread . . .

No - I beg you, don't. It is related in that I offer an alternative, for one thing.

[Glenn P]

Edited: I guess you're right. Tomorrow I will start a thread . . .Thanks :thumb:

[Ryokan]

Huh! What do you think government is, if it's not supposed to enforce some sort of morality!?

Jack Bauer and I have refused to agree to basic terms, much less discuss, this issue over and over and over. Its a slow torture. But if start a new thread I will say a brief piece. I am still not sure what this has to do with government size though.

[Augustine2004]

Jack Bauer and I have refused to agree to basic terms, much less discuss, this issue over and over and over. Its a slow torture. But if start a new thread I will say a brief piece. I am still not sure what this has to do with government size though.I just can't believe you are a libertarian if you think the government is amoral (in the sense of neither doing good nor evil) or supposed to be amoral.

[Ryokan]

I just can't believe you are a libertarian if you think the government is amoral (in the sense of neither doing good nor evil) or supposed to be amoral.

I can't believe you think the government should be so expansive as to determine morality for its citizens and still bear the name libertarian!

[Augustine2004]

I can't believe you think the government should be so expansive as to determine morality for its citizens and still bear the name libertarian!Ok, here's the new thread that I promised:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=107328

[themuzicman]

The long and short of it is that baby boomers (84 million of them) only gave birth to 60 million genXers, and there are only about 72 million GenYers. SS assumed that one generation would be larger than the previous, and that the expected lifespan would hold around 65.

Babyboomers are breaking both, breaking the bank.

(They've also sent politicians to spend the extra they weren't spending on their parents...)

Michael

[Teallaura]

Would you guys like the pertanent discussion in this thread moved to that one?

Oh, and can anybody play or do you just want to go one-on-one?

[Teallaura]

The long and short of it is that baby boomers (84 million of them) only gave birth to 60 million genXers, and there are only about 72 million GenYers. SS assumed that one generation would be larger than the previous, and that the expected lifespan would hold around 65.

Babyboomers are breaking both, breaking the bank.

(They've also sent politicians to spend the extra they weren't spending on their parents...)

Michael
To be fair, that's kinda par for the course - the Boomers have broken everything else that got in there way... :sigh:


If Mom could have held out three more weeks I'd have been Gen X... :sad:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wouldn't this problem disappear if we legalized the illegal aliens and got them on the tax rolls? :teeth:

[Teallaura]

:rasberry: Only if we refuse to extend them SS and M'care benefits. Otherwise it would just put off the crisis for a while.

Maybe.

[Ryokan]

Wouldn't this problem disappear if we legalized the illegal aliens and got them on the tax rolls? :teeth:

It depends on how many kids they have. Honestly, it would help a little but even if we would open the door to everyone who wanted in it would not be enough. And I am very pro "amnesty".

[themuzicman]

Wouldn't this problem disappear if we legalized the illegal aliens and got them on the tax rolls? :teeth:

Only if they actually begin to move up the wage scales.

Michael

[themuzicman]

BTW, the boomers had almost enough pregnancies (about 80 million), but had 20 million abortions

[Ryokan]

BTW, the boomers had almost enough pregnancies (about 80 million), but had 20 million abortions

Even if they hadn't it wouldnt work, as they are simply living to long and with too better medical care. Also, if the world worked out more fairly and Roe v Wade had not passed I bet at least half those aborted pregnancies would never have happened.

[Jimmy Higgins]

BTW, the boomers had almost enough pregnancies (about 80 million), but had 20 million abortions
That's a derail for ya.

[themuzicman]

Even if they hadn't it wouldnt work, as they are simply living to long and with too better medical care. Also, if the world worked out more fairly and Roe v Wade had not passed I bet at least half those aborted pregnancies would never have happened.

True, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

Michael

[Ryokan]

True, but it wouldn't be nearly as bad.

Michael

I don't think so. Its just an extra ten million people to spread the massive medicare debt around. Medicare is not a population based problem.

[themuzicman]

That 20 million people would be paying into medicare and SS, not taking money out. That would be a 33% increase in revenue.

Remember that the idea of SS and medicare is taht those working pay for those who are retired.

Michael

[Ryokan]

That 20 million people would be paying into medicare and SS, not taking money out. That would be a 33% increase in revenue.

Remember that the idea of SS and medicare is taht those working pay for those who are retired.

Michael

But as I pointed out incentive changes would reduce the number of kids concieved, and the fact that msot of the overage in Medicare comes from how much longer Baby Boomers live and how much more relatively expensive their medical care is vs. when it was created.

[themuzicman]

No doubt that life expectancy has a big impact.

[Gideon Brown]

The long and short of it is that baby boomers (84 million of them) only gave birth to 60 million genXers, and there are only about 72 million GenYers. SS assumed that one generation would be larger than the previous, and that the expected lifespan would hold around 65.

Babyboomers are breaking both, breaking the bank.

Yeah, that's why I didn't understand what $cir meant when he said:


Yea, I have seen some people ask why Canada and Europe can provide these services without going bankrupt, and the answer really is the US' rapidly changing demographics. If we had the same demographics as Europe right now, we'd be OK it sounds like.

But the USA is producing more children than those other places. :nsm:

[Conductor42]

I just can't believe you are a libertarian if you think the government is amoral (in the sense of neither doing good nor evil) or supposed to be amoral.

1) Do you think that people should get drunk off their rockers?
1a) If not, do you think the government should prohibit being drunk off your rocker (as a libertarian)?
1c) If you think the government should prohibit being drunk, how do you reconcile that with your libertarianism?

I, for example, wouldn't prohibit it (so long as they do not endanger others) - but I am morally opposed to it.

[Conductor42]

Only if they actually begin to move up the wage scales.

Michael

You'd at least have some sort of effect thanks to minimum wage laws

[$cirisme]

Let's not let this devolve into a debate on libertarianism. Thanks.