Whenever citizens are prevented from doing something (like keeping the money they earn), the government is exerting its control. In the case of prohibiting murder or injury to another, it’s a good thing. Removing criminals from society and protecting citizens is how the state’s power is most effectively flexed. This is for the benefit not just of the state but citizens as well.
Where the state’s power is most effective for itself but least effective for us is in exerting control over our ownership rights in the form of excessive regulation (land use, for example), burdensome taxes and gun control.
An argument can be made that the social security system is burdensome and broken and infringes on our freedom and ownership rights. Slavery was burdensome (to the slave) and broken and infringed on people’s freedom and “self-ownership” rights. Just as slavery was abolished, social security should be abolished. Is that line of reasoning a stretch?
Abolishing social security would be radical, wouldn’t it? The idea of outlawing slavery was once radical, too. Imagine that. Free Negroes walking around. There are so many ways we can go with this, but I’ll let you do that in the comments. Read Star Parker’s take on the issue:
Am I pushing the envelope too far to suggest that there is common ground between the politics of slavery and the politics of Social Security?When moral problems are transformed into politics, we can find surprising similarities in issues that otherwise might seem worlds apart….
Listening to the case for transforming Social Security to a regime of personal ownership is simple and compelling. The numbers no longer add up in our current system. Personal accounts would allow ownership and wealth creation. If we had to start from scratch, no one would want the system we now have. If the case is so clear, why isn’t it simple to change?
Good question. Anybody know the answer?
Star’s book, Uncle Sam’s Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America’s Poor and What We Can Do About It, is a good read. I’ve blogged it (and Star) several times here and here.
Update (1:52 p.m.): I just got off the phone with Kevin McCullough, and we talked about this post (That’s what I like about radio interviews. The discussion at hand always leads to other topics. We talked briefly about Easongate and mostly about social security.) I was writing this post while I was on hold.
As we talked about social security, I realized that many people don’t want the system overhauled because it’s scary. With private accounts, we’ll assume control over our own retirement. I’m sure President Bush’s plan includes an option to keep the money safe in government bonds and such, as well as an option to invest in risky ventures, like the stock market.
If you have a 401(k) account, you already have an idea of what it takes to keep your nest egg relatively safe, so reforming social security shouldn’t be viewed as radical.
Unrelated Update II (3:23 p.m.): Visit the new CPAC Bloggers site.
Update III (5:25 p.m.): Kevin McCullough is interviewed on a show called ReachOUT.org. He talks about his faith, his radio show, blog, etc. It’s very good.
Professor Bainbridge on social security.
