The Future Part 3

So if the basic issue is the individual versus the collective what does that mean?

Human civilization is in effect a development towards cooperation.

In pre-historic times people banded together for protection, to help each other on the hunt, to gather effectively.

As civilization developed we needed to work together to develop irrigation systems, provide water and sanitation services and a marketplace where what we produced could be exchanged for what we needed using a common means of exchange.

Of course in each stage individuals were able to do better than others but they couldn't normally succeed in isolation.

This has continued until the modern times with the common good helping all including the "individuals" who certainly benefit from defense, laws, infrastructure and education.

So what does it mean to want little to no government so the individual rights can be protected?

Generally it simply means that they want as much Government as the need to succeed but not a bit more.

Of course if you are creating costs to the rest of us by polluting our air and water or leaving your workers dependent on the Government in their old age, that isn't their problem, they aren't responsible.

These posts are about the future and not just the short term future.   As a society we have to decide what we want the future to look like, not just for us but for our descendents.

I talked about some basic goals in the first post that I think are generally things most people agree on.  However, we also need to consider the impacts we are having on our future generations.

This includes things like the national debt as well as the environment.

These are things that could have dramatic impacts on future generations.

Of the two I think the bigger issue is the environment since that has the potential to disrupt or kill billions of people so lets talk about economic issues first.

Money is a medium of exchange.  We use it to measure the value of various items so we can exchange them more or less fairly.  Before money we simply bartared but that is problematic in that you have to find someone who has what you need and wants what you have.  With money you can sell what you have to anyone and use that money to buy what you need from someone else.

Money is also an easier way to accumulate wealth.  If you have a tremendous amount of say wheat, storing it for a long period can be problematic considering spoilage, theft, infestation, etc.  It is easier to sell it and keep its equivalent value in money.

Money in general has no independant value.  Now at one time gold was widely used for money and some think that gold has some intrinsic value, which to the extent it can be used in jewelry it does, but as money it is no different really, except the underlying gold might go up or down.

Money alows us to exchange future promised to pay against current needs.  If I want to buy a house I might take a mortgage where the bank puts up the money in exchange for my promise to pay over time with interest.  In that case the house serves as collateral.  Eventually the mortgage is paid off and the house in mine.

However it is generally a bad idea to go into debt to pay routine expenses since there is no reason to believe the situation will change.  For example, if you simply spend more than you make every month and use credit cards, each month you situation will get worse until you can no longe pay and survive.

Many people view our national debt exactly like that.  Each month that we spend more than we take in, it increases and the cost of the money adds to the burden.

So similar to the individual they argue we need to spend less or take in more.  Since increased taxes are pretty much a sure way to lose an election, the emphasis is on spending less.

Of course thats problematic.  What can we cut?

There is one other option.  Much of our current issue is driven by demographics and some unwise tax cuts made in the past.  Ignoring the tax cuts, we have the baby boomer generation moving from being productive members of the workforce to beneficiaries.  The number of people who can contribute is way less than it needs to be.

Now the demographics will eventually improve but not for quite a while and in the mean time the debt will increase and the ability to pay benefits will be jeopardised.

(to be continued)