<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Will Wilkinson - Latest Comments in Financial Paternalism as Self-Defense</title><link>http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/</link><description>The Sweet Release of Reason</description><atom:link href="https://willwilkinson.disqus.com/financial_paternalism_as_self_defense/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:52:11 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Financial Paternalism as Self-Defense</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/10/19/financial-paternalism-as-self-defense/#comment-3707218</link><description>&lt;p&gt;It strikes me that the left ought to prefer forced savings over outright wealth transfer in at least many cases. I can't see how a welfare liberal can account for the justice of transfers in cases where people become deprived in old age due to their own failure to plan and save&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Isn't there a rather charitable assumption here of intellectual consistency in the left? Surely, after the recent "desert" discussion you initiated, you should realise that those on the left strongly resist any distinction between "deserving" and "undeserving" poor?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Frank McGahon</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:52:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Financial Paternalism as Self-Defense</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2004/10/19/financial-paternalism-as-self-defense/#comment-3707217</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well, as a social democrat, I was raised with a belief in universal social insurance, not redistribution. Those of us with Sweden as our ideological motherland were always opposed to means testing.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, in our self-conception, we aren't redistributing money from the rich to the poor. We are forcing everyone to put money away for their own sickness, old age, etc. The state does it because it's the best at doing it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Of course, we are happy to force the rich to contribute, but they should get their benefits when and if the time comes. Social insurance isn't about redistribution any more than the interstate highway system.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Gareth</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:52:18 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>