Thought of The Day–Part 1
By
There’s a moral dimension to Social Security that few have the guts to address. What moral principle, consistent with liberty, justifies forcing a person to set aside a certain portion of his weekly earnings for retirement and jailing him if he fails to comply? Retirement isn’t the only important item for which we should budget. How about a congressional mandate that we set aside a certain portion of our weekly earnings for housing, food, entertainment or our children’s education? Were Congress to propose a measure that would require each American to set aside a portion of his weekly earnings for these items, most of us would see it as tyranny. Pray tell, what’s the difference in principle for a congressional mandate that requires setting aside earnings for retirement versus a mandate setting aside earnings for housing or our children’s education? —Walt Williams
This is an excerpt from a commentary that Dr. Walter Williams had on Social Security that can be found on www.townhall.com. Though the topic was Social Security, I believe his question, “What moral principle, consistent with liberty justifies ……” is at the heart of many of our passionate debates. For many of us we adhere to the same philosophy as Jefferson, Adams, Paine, Henry and many others that liberty and all the underlying institutions ultimately trumps any other philosophy of government. Here are some additional thoughts on “What moral principle, consistent with liberty requires an individual to give up by government force the fruits of their labor….
so that another individual can attain retirement at a specific age which is not attainable in most cases for the individual having to forfeit their wealth.
So that another individual can attain a health insurance plan which is not attainable in most cases for the individual having to forfeit their wealth.
So that a government body can usurp the political process by retaining the wealth of the individual in excess of its needs.
So that another can receive a guaranteed price for their product.
So that another can have a building or stadium built which will enhance the potential profitability for their business venture.
So that one is denied economic choice.
So in the end the government chooses who will win and who will lose.
Though it wears many faces the debate is over redistribution of income. The taking the fruits of one’s labor by force to give to another. A hundred and fifty years ago this same debate would have been called slavery. Today’s euphemisms refer to it as compassion, benevolence, or the “goals of society”. Again what moral principle consistent with liberty requires compassion or the “goals of society” to be accomplished at the point of a gun?
No related posts.
spiritofpublicus, you struck a cord. whether it be by the point of a gun, or a felony, that too, removes the very purpose of a gun. A redistribution scheme that creates felons who don’t abide removes their very rifght to own the gun which they could use to protect one’s property.
The founding father’s found it in all their wisdom to know that the citizens have protection of their rights and property if they can be well armed. In one socialistic breath, a government can both repeal the right of protection for forcing the earnings to be confiscated by the very gun right which a felony removes.
Ironic, isn’t it?
spirit, very well said and thank you for once again highlighing one of our favorite “doctors.” I would like to refer back to a post I made not so long ago on this very subject, but via a very compelling commentary by one who is critical of Mr. Bush. http://www.ontheborderline.net/index.php?p=725 Part of the article to which I linked is as follows and illustrates the common thread of thought…. There are some very bright people out there who understand the folly of what is charitably referred to as the “paternalistic state.” Also, for something of a wake-up call I would refer readers back also to a posting by donttreadonme – http://www.ontheborderline.net/index.php?p=503
“Perhaps the most disappointing part of President Bush’s speech was the section on Social Security. President Bush proposes that about 1/3 of mandatory payroll deductions be devoted to real investments to be strictly regulated by the Federal Government. You will not be able to empty “your account” all at once. You will be limited to investing in “a conservative mix of bond and stock funds” in “your account”. You will also be protected from market swings and hidden Wall Street fees.
How could President Bush have shown more contempt for the workings of the market process and the capabilities of ordinary people, or more faith in paternalistic government? While there are surely some instances where individuals make mistakes with their own money, or are defrauded by private money managers, the idea that the Federal bureaucrats are more capable or more trustworthy is absurd.
Aside from the fact of past failures of the Federal Government to provide a sound system of financing retirement, there are inherent defects of government that make the likelihood of future success miniscule. Special interests have an inherent advantage in lobbying the government over broader interests (Olson 1965).
The Bush plan for Social Security will result in Wall Street working with the Washington Bureaucracy, rather than with the people whose retirement incomes are at stake. These Wall Street firms, as a special interest group, will have far more influence over the structure of this program than the general public. Also, bureaucrats have their own agendas, and informational problems prevent the public from abating bureaucratic abuses.
The Republican party has hijacked the word “privatization” to help sell President Bush’s plan for Social Security. What President Bush has proposed is not privatization at all, but the partial substitution of paternalistic interventionism for the current system of outright government control. President Bush appears to suffer from two general misconceptions. First, he accepts the view that the problem with Social Security is that it will become insolvent in several decades. He declared that Social Security was “a great moral success”, but that it was “created for a different era” and changes that “the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen” have put it into crisis.
[...] Thought of The DayPart 1 | On the BorderLine [...]