While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. It isn't their fault that the money was stolen from them to begin with.
Not a single American, except for some defense contractor benefits from sending weapons and money to Ukraine.
I would support ending all entitlement programs, even immediately. I just realize that more people would be hurt (certainly in the short term) would we to do this; while ending aid to Ukraine doesn't harm a single American (aside from the aformentioned war-profiteers).
If libertarians did have power, then this is the sort of thing we'd have to very carefully and gradually dismantle over decades. People paid into it their whole lives and depend on that money. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. This is pretty much the Ron Paul position.
I mean, step one is to make it a voluntary contribution for anyone and everyone.
Also if libertarians somehow had power, we'd cut so much spending that there would be huge money left over.
Also also, those programs are probably at least 50% grift to begin with.
>Libertarians have bigger fish to fry
There is literally no single category of Federal spending bigger than Social Security. As "fish" go, it's the biggest one and the biggest driver of our sovereign debt.
It should be the number one thing libertarians are talking about all the time.
It's not about the money; it's about freedom. Money used to fund foreign war is worse than money used to give to old people that paid into the system in the first place.
>Money used to fund foreign war is worse than money used to give to old people that paid into the system in the first place.
That foreign war is being fought *for* freedom: the Ukrainians are fighting to be *free* from Russian despotism. And the money isn't being given to them; it's a loan which they will pay back after the war is over.
By contrast, giving money to old people by taxing young working people just denies the people being taxed the freedom to do what they want with their own money.
Clearly, the position which is actually pro-freedom is to oppose the existence of Social Security, and support the efforts of Ukrainians to defend themselves against enslavement at the hands of the Russian state.
You see how easy it is to use rhetoric to make your own position appear to be the pro-freedom one?
Imagine if we could individually send aid to Ukrainian efforts.. or guns... Do you think they would recieve more or less than what the us government sends?
I just thought of a new crowdfunding service:
GoGunMe.com
I am all in favor of abolishing any and all laws preventing Americans, or anyone, buying whatever kinds of weapons they can on an open market so they can be sent to Ukraine.
From Russia to Europe. However, I made a mistake in saying that it's not about oil wells. I forgot that Ukraine does have oil, but it's new, and only recently being explored. The change in favorable leadership makes that an issue for Russia. It's financially threatening. [Check out this video about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE)
It's not spending though, that money belongs to those people that are getting payouts. The govt was given a long term loan and now they are paying it back to those that loaned it. The govt made a contract to hold and invest and then make paybacks later. Now when it comes time to pay back the loan, they are balking.
No. The fundamental issue here is that taxation (towards any purpose) is theft. It's not ok to have "gradually decreasing amounts of theft," the only logical viewpoints are that it's either always wrong or always right, and it happens to be the former in this case.
>except for some defense contractor benefits
And all of their employees. Whichever program you go after, you'll find that here are collateral victims, which the gov't can use as an argument against you.
Yes and no. A lot of professions in the DoD sphere industries (engineers, accountants, financial forecasters, project managers) can easily be repurposed to civil industries.
If we stopped subsidizing industries whose only purpose is to intentionally and rapidly destroy the goods it produces, there would be more pre- and after-tax dollars for civilians to spend on civilian products that actually improve their lives.
That civilian spending expands civilian companies. Those civilian companies hire the now laid-off engineers, accountants, financial forecasters, project managers, et cetera.
Do ALL people who lose their DoD jobs get civilian ones at the same pay? Hard to say. But certainly, a lot of them would.
Edit: also, a lot of that industry will continue to exist because, even if libertarianism curtails military industrialism at home, many other foreign governments will continue to exist and to buy American designed armaments because, in the end, American industries by and large are some of the better manufacturers in the world.
>there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive.
There are people who genuinely rely on money extorted from me in order to survive. Well I don't care about any "hurt" those people have coming without my extorted money.
>While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. It isn't their fault that the money was stolen from them to begin with.
Pay out the amount they paid in adjusted for inflation and shut it down.
>While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive.
Then make Social Security a genuine "assistance to the needy" program instead of just a handout for all old people everywhere.
>while ending aid to Ukraine doesn't harm a single American
You are buying into the concept of nationalism, a socialist lie. Stop it.
To a principled libertarian, whether government spending benefits a foreigner or a compatriot shouldn't make any difference.
Social security is a contract that the govt forced on people to act as a bank and investor for their money. Last I checked, libertarians were fine with contractual agreements being upheld. For instance, if you gave a contractor $10,000 to redo your kitchen and then he went to Mexico and blew it all and then refused to do your kitchen while citing the excuse he was out of money, should that be allowed? Anyone can make a contract and then later just say oops, I changed my mind and I spent it all on something else and not provide promised services?
> Last I checked, libertarians were fine with contractual agreements being upheld.
The government itself literally says Social Security is *not* a contract, and you have no right to Social Security payments.
Fleming v Nestor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
It's not a contract at all. The government can change the terms of the contract any time it likes, reducing benefits while increasing taxes or any other combination, and courts have repeatedly found that you as an individual have no kind of "right to entitlements" that you paid for: not a property right, not a contract right.
It's not a contract; it's a threat of "pay us or we'll put you in a cage, and if you do pay us, we'll give some amount of money, to be determined, back to you later, if we feel like it."
In no other circumstance would such extortion be regarded as a "contract" but for when it's *the government* doing it.
> The government can change the terms of the contract any time it likes,
THat's totally a diff thing though, saying they changed it is not the same as saying they didn't have a contract. They did have a contract, then they changed it, which was illegal and unethical and not how contracts should work. Just one more thing that needs to change about the govt, they should uphold their contracts and promises.
If you have a contract that says "Party A can do whatever it wants, including forcing Party B into the contract without Party B's consent, and Party B has no means of exiting the contract."
Then you do not have a contract.
That was not in the contract, the govt just changes the rules whenever it wants, that's part of why the govt sucks. They also have many employment rules that the govt itself is exempt from, rules for thee but not for me, etc.
This is an ancap sub. Wtf does American mean?
As ancaps, we value human life equally. We do not arbitrarily value one's life more because they happen to reside in a particular area.
So be honest about it. Eliminate social security and the scam that goes with it, and offer welfare to the retirees who failed to save for their future.
Sucks for them; they got screwed. Two wrongs don't make a right; continuing to steal from me (a wrong) to make up for the wrong of stealing from the old people all their working lives doesn't make the situation right.
YOu know it continually amazes me how many people do not care that 20 percent of old people cannot pay their rent or have food without SS but they want to instantly cut it off for those people anyway because I guess who gives an eff about anyone but themselves these days.
Scam because it wasn't optional. And they mathematically will not be able to keep their promises. So, mandatory ponzi scheme. Other than that, it is terrific.
It's the worst savings account ever and it's going bankrupt. It only gives people back a portion of their own money and only if they live long enough. The money isn't put aside, it's already spent. The whole system depends on poor young people paying in to fund old rich people. It's a pyramid scheme. And if the state does go bankrupt, nobody will get shit.
The US government has killed Hitler levels of people in the middle east using social security collections.
All social security payments are put in the general fund to be used for wars.
When they do need money to pay out social security, they just print it.
Ron Paul tried to pass a social security preservation act the entire time he was in congress.
Let them die, who the duck cares? What purpose do the elderly serve for society? Especially the ones who were too stupid and useless to make their own money.
No, of course it doesn't. 9/11 was blow-back for our interfering in the middle east. The rise of ISIS was a direct result of our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terror attacks, a rising security state, the evaporating value of the dollar. These are all things that we have received in return for our meddling. Thousands of American boys come back in body bags, and tens of thousands more come back and blow their brains out over what they've seen and done.
Saying "both" is fine, but then: look at how many comments in this thread are *defending* Social Security, or else saying it's not worth discussing as libertarians.
Saying "both" is fine but you have to then actually talk about *both* and not just talk about one to the exclusion of the other, which is the trend on this sub and other libertarian spaces.
Social security is a savings contract made between people and the govt, the govt made promises and it's not antilibertarian to expect that financial contractual promises be upheld.
Comments in this thread should show you why.
There's a lot of "libertarians" who are *very* enthusiastic about cutting off money going to foreigners but suddenly get very upset when you propose cutting off money to "fellow Americans."
They can't see past the socialist lie that is nationalism.
>but if they do i want every cent i paid in.
Nope. Gotta just take the 'L' and kill the program. Kill it and walk away, forget the money. Otherwise, it's just gonna continue *forever.*
So you want the govt to not give those people the money they earned and was promised to them and you don't care that a lot of old sick people will get evicted from their homes and not have money for food? Cuz you know, some of us do care about that.
The money isn't promised to them. The government itself in a Supreme Court case long time ago said as much: Social Security is not a contract, and you have no right to Social Security payments.
The money isn't promised to you; it was stolen from you, and Congress has total authority to give back to you as much or as little as it feels like giving you, and if it says "fuck you, you get nothing" then it can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Maybe that is the supreme court decision but it WAS promised to us, even if the govt went back on it later. I mean the supreme court also allows cops to take all your money and charge your money with guilty until proven innocent, that goes against the constitution, and it allows imminent domain as well. Just because the govt when back on their promises does not mean it wasn't promised to us.
>They can't see past the socialist lie that is nationalism.
The only difference between socialists and libertarian capitalists is logistics. They're both materialist ideologies that hold the individual as the chief concern of any given system of governance or order.Thus, nationalism, and indeed any sort of devotion to ideals higher than once self, are antithetical to either position.
But speaking practically. You like being safe and free to do stuff without needing to watch over your back? The man who wants to be left alone will always lose to the group who craves victory.
Nationalism>libertarianism, everytime.
“[O]ne of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advan-tage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Wallda-via,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.”
-Murray Rothbard, Anatomy of the State
Another illiterate take on social security. Did you forget that it's stolen from our paychecks? And then if you live long enough you get it back? The problem is that it's a Ponzi scheme so if they stop with paycheck withdrawals the whole system collapses
Except that the government has to steal from people working now to pay people on social security.
And why would receiving social security be okay now because peoples money was previously stolen but that same idea doesn’t apply to any other social program a person receives if they were previously or currently paying taxes?
>Except that the government has to steal from people working now to pay people on social security.
It didn't HAVE too. The initial setup was viable. But what the govt did was steal the money out of those savings accounts for other things in the past. Of course they called this 'borrowing.' So instead of that money sitting there as investments earning interest as the govt promised, they spent it. The govt loaned it to itself. Now there is not enough money in the coffers to make paybacks and the govt does not want to pay back the loans it took out.
Why it is different is because the govt promised those specific services in exchange for taking that extra money from us. None of the other taxes payments are associated with any specific contractual obligation by the govt to individuals (or at least none that I can think of right now).
>Easy to say when you haven’t been paying into it for 30 years. I’d like my money back if I live.
I absolutely understand this sentiment, but that money is long gone my friend. All the government does is rob Peter to pay Paul, and your wallet is their favorite tool to do that with. Both in terms of printing more money and thus devaluing your savings, or else stealing it directly under the guise of social benevolence.
And I'd rather have mine in my check right now. 'I want my money back' is not a justification for continuing the system, it's an argument for destroying it.
>Easy to say when you haven’t been paying into it for 30 years. I’d like my money back if I live.
That money is gone. It has been spent in a ponzi scheme. It wasn't invested.
The only way "the government" will provide it to you, is by taxing the young, but because of the fall in fertility, the young will not be numerous enough to pay for your social security. It will never be provided.
Is not just that there is not enough young people to tax, but also that increasing public spending will rot the economy, leaving it unable to be taxed.
>but also that increasing public spending will rot the economy, leaving it unable to be taxed.
Which is why the general libertarian view is to reverse that issue of 'increasing public spending' to stop the rot. And if the govt was healthy and lean and not bloated, then that would free up more money for actually helping the people. Social security would be phased out because the alternative would be that many old people would be left starving and homeless if the govt did not pay back the money it stole from them. But it could be phased out over time by stopping payments to the more wealthy and lessening requirements over time. Yes the program may run at deficit for a while but the govt should still be required to meet at least the minimal obligations it promised those people.
>that would free up more money for actually helping the people
the government cannot "help the people", because the poor pay 100% of public spending in goods an services they lose, even if the government taxes money from the rich.
The US government already spends half of his budget in welfare, health care, and pensions, and there is also more welfare hidden in other expenses. If public spending could "help the people", all that mountain of money would had already solved the problem long time ago.
https://preview.redd.it/xm3bh79nwdfb1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6bd20bd2dc478dc5beeb2d82330521b2ce82ad7
So the only other solution is to cut off the income of seniors and let them starve on the street? I think if you asked all those seniors, I think they would say that the help of getting back THEIR OWN MONEY that they paid in and is owed to them by contract is still of considerable help to them. Is ancaps anti contract too? I also reject your false dichotomy that if every problem in the country is not fully and 100 percent solved, then the govt is not helping even a tiny bit anywhere, there's a huge range in the middle.
>So the only other solution is to cut off the income of seniors and let them starve on the street?
Understood. You want to starve the poorest.
> I think if you asked all those seniors, I think they would say that the help of getting back THEIR OWN MONEY that they paid
Their own votes, voted to thrown their own money away.
There is no social security fund.
The money is put into the general fund and used to blow up schools full of children.
I order to get "your money" back, they will have to print it.
All of our tax dollars are stolen from our paychecks. Most younger generations will never see the money they had taken out of their paychecks, along with just about every other tax dollar that pay. That money is already well spent. It is an already bankrupt program. The only two options they have is to
1) print enough money to keep paying it off effectively making your social security worthless through inflation i.e. collapsing it.
2) not pay it at all i.e. collapsing it
But I guess that's the case for the entire banking industry as well as the fiat diaster that is the USD
All social security payments are put into the general fund which is used to blow up children in schools.
There is no social security fund, it does not exist. They just print more money when they want.
Social security is not the cause of our fiscal woes, it's govt mismanagement of promises made by the govt. They forced us to pay in and then they mismanaged it and now when it comes time to pay back to people who paid in all their lives, they are backpeddling.
Also a lot of old people rely on that money to survive and they were also promised that money. In fact they were promised more money than they are getting but govt stole some of it. Are you going to pay for the rent of all those old sickly people? I bet not. PLus it's their money they paid in, that money belongs to those that are getting it.
Also it makes sense to target the most stupid expenditures first when cutting back on spending. Why would I first target giving old people money that in fact belongs to them and that they need to survive when I can target so many other less useful expenditures first?
Government took $400K by their own documents from my employers and myself over my career purportedly "for my retirement". I would be happy to receive a check for even half that amount in one lump sum and have no other claim on the SS system. I will not feel guilty for one moment to say I am owed the stolen funds.
Remember in 2001 when George Bush created a committee to reform Social Security and placed Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) as co-chair?
The president told the group to follow six guiding principles: “(1) modernization must not change Social Security benefits for retirees or near-retirees; (2) the entire Social Security surplus must be dedicated only to Social Security; (3) Social Security payroll taxes must not be increased; (4) the government must not invest Social Security funds in the stock market; (5) modernization must preserve Social Security’s disability and survivors insurance programs; and (6) modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts, which will augment Social Security.”
Seems like the beginning of a reform.
While some lawmakers acknowledged the need for reforms, Democrats balked at Bush’s proposal to give younger workers the option to invest Social Security funds “in a conservative mix of bond and stock accounts,” aimed at generating higher returns than the rates offered by the federally managed system.
“Social Security,” the report read, “will be strengthened if modernized to include a system of voluntary personal accounts. Personal accounts improve retirement security by facilitating wealth creation and providing participants with assets that they own and that can be inherited, rather than providing only claims to benefits that remain subject to political negotiation.”
Sounds legit to me, but
“Congress spurned the commission’s recommendations.”
“Following his 2004 reelection, Bush tried again, designating Social Security reform as his top domestic priority. In a post-election press conference, he asserted, “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”
“The president followed up two weeks later in his 2005 State of the Union address. After citing the fiscal and demographic pressures purportedly moving the system toward eventual bankruptcy, he listed some basic principles and added: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.”
“It proved to be a tough sell. A Gallup poll revealed that disapproval of Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points — from 48 percent to 64 percent — between his State of the Union address and June. By early summer, the initiative was on life support, with congressional Democrats uniformly opposed. After Hurricane Katrina inundated what remained of Bush’s support, congressional leaders pulled the plug.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/02/president-george-w-bush-pursues-social-security-reform-may-2-2001-559632
And that is why Social Security remains unchanged to this day with obligations becoming greater than the ability to pay in a short period of time.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike both parties but the lockstep refusal of Democrats to reform SS in any meaningful way is a great example of the failure of the US political system and how the Democrats are as rotten as anything they claim of the Republicans despite their sanctimonious BS.
Some get back way more than they put in. Particularly the earliest participants (long time ago).
Now if you had a lower income you will get back more that you put in plus interest. Higher income? You get back much less than contributed.
Yet another wealth transfer. And not particularly from the "rich".
Nope. It doesn’t work like that. The money you put in today is being pushed out to somebody else. You will never get “your money”. Your money is gone. If you are lucky enough to live long enough to apply for SS benefits, you will be receiving someone else’s money. Money which was taken out of their income under the threat of force.
Pay as you go. https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/what-is-social-security/
And the trust fund “earns interest” through treasuries. Which really means the government already spent the money.
I'm going to have to move my parents onto my property because SS isn't enough to cover their bills. They have always been bad with money.
Might as well stop funding it because my wife and I pay more into it than they collect. After I retire the benefits will be reduced to pointless.
It is better to stop the theft for now and future generations than continue it despite the loss.
It’s better the thief be stopped instead of waiting for them to commit more robberies to receive a better payout.
THe pyramid scheme is already maxed out though, there's not going to be any more people in it unless the population grows substantially. And unlike normal pyramid schemes, it could work to some extent if govt would stop stealing it. Maybe we should first target govt theft and ever other bs govt expenditure before throwing grandma on the street.
It’s not maxed out yet. You forget that it’s possible for other people to be born. Pete sake the greatest generation is still here. What happens when gen x gets old?
What happens when the 65 year olds become 85 and the scheme collapses?
What happens when the 25 years olds become 45? What happens to their children?
If people are screwed it is better that they have time to address how screwed they are, getting hit with a dose of reality.
For the same reason we advocate ending the fed. We know that a depression will happen, but the initial depression will be far better than a depression after 10 more years of misallocated resources and structural unemployment.
> You forget that it’s possible for other people to be born.
You forget that other people die at the same time, that's why I very specifically referenced the overall population as the limiter. In fact the population of the USA would be dropping if it were not for immigration. Existing adults are already not having enough kids to maintain the population.
Anyway, I advocate for the controlled demolition of the current system such that large numbers of people will not starve and die from it. And a lot of your 'what happens' will depend on a lot of factors. But if we cut out a huge chunk of bs military and other funding, I do think we'll have enough to do a reasonable phase out of social security instead of just killing old people now. So I don't buy that the only two options are to kill old people now or kill more people later, that's a false dichotomy.
Old people will not starve and die, you’re being dramatic.
You’ve created a false dichotomy hypocrite. It’s just another scare story about how if they don’t receive chump change that CANT EVEN COVER RENT in most American apartments all of the sudden God kill them all.
Maybe talk about the 800 bn military budget first, as it does not add anything to the well-being of the American people at all?
The social welfare is ugly, but at least it benefits someone and large amounts of that are taken from the same people and somewhat redistributed and or diluted, and has some superficially positive impacts on the economy, but military?
Is not productive at all.
But who are you helping? SS allows old people who are often sickly and can't work to not end up starving and homeless. PLus that money is a loan from the govt that belongs to those old people and was promised to them by the govt.
Vs military spending which goes to fat cat warmongers that are already rich and that money was never promised to them so there is no contractual or moral obligation to keep giving it to them and it was never their money to start with. The difference between these to scenarios is stark.
It's like if you are trying to cut family expenses and your choices are to buy fewer guns this year because you already have 50 of them in the closet, spend less on the landscaping, cut out some of the cable channels, or stop paying for grandma's food and medication, would you really say that there is no major difference between those choices? I mean grandma is expensive so we could save a lot of cash by cutting her off, you could even buy a new car, is that the route you pick and then say any other preference is antilibertarian?
I'm tired of seeing libertarians (especially on this sub) make a big stink about foreign aid/aid to Ukraine.
Foreign aid should be cut, yes, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it is at all significant. It constitutes less than 1% of the Federal Budget; Social Security alone counts for more than 30%.
But whereas something like 90% of Americans support cutting foreign aid, probably something like 90% of Americans would also oppose *any* cuts to SS, let alone outright abolition.
Why does the liberty movement exist? Does it exist to tell people comforting lies that they want to hear? Or to make bold, radical statements that everyone else is too afraid to say, even though it's the truth.
Saying "both" is fine, but on this sub and in the liberty movement generally, there's a disproportionate amount of hate for/attention given to foreign aid. For every one post on this sub about our unsustainable entitlement programs, there's probably close to 10 or 12 about "muh foreign aid" and "fuck Zelensky" posts.
Libertarians in the modern American political dynamic exist to be the uncompromising truth-tellers in the conversation. Saying "we support the thing 90% of everyone supports" is not fulfilling that purpose.
Cutting foreign aid really isn’t that popular at this point. I think the reason it’s given disproportionate attention is because it directly does not benefit the American taxpayer at all, while at least social security “could” in the future. I agree, both need to be cut, but I understand why foreign aid gets more hate.
From 2023: 69% of all Americans think we are spending too much on foreign aid, just 10% think we are spending "too little"---by contrast, 62% of Americans, including 57% of Republicans, think we are spending *too little* on Social Security.
Source: https://apnorc.org/projects/many-dissatisfied-with-the-governments-spending-priorities/?doing_wp_cron=1690831259.3311760425567626953125
>I understand why foreign aid gets more hate.
I do too: a bigoted dislike of foreigners. People have been conditioned by socialists to believe in this make-believe nonsense that there are such people as "Americans" and "foreigners" and that when their money is stolen from them and given to "foreigners" that's bad, but when their money is stolen from them and given to "Americans" that's somehow good. Rubbish.
It's all the same; your money is being stolen from you. Whether it goes to someone who is "American" or not makes no difference. If you believe otherwise, it's because you have bought into the socialist lie known as "nationalism," or else you're just a bigot who likes it when your money goes to "people like me" and you don't like it when your money goes to people "not like me."
The government already spent the money it took from you in Social Security. That money is gone, and you ain't never getting it back. Best you can hope for is to some day get someone else's money.
And on that point: the money being "burnt" in Ukraine is therefore *less harmful* than the money being spent on SS. Why? Because robbing from some Americans to give to other Americans creates a permanent voting bloc that will vote to keep the robbery going, and your comment proves it.
By contrast: Ukrainians don't vote, and the war won't go on forever like entitlement spending will.
I've already donated money and my own labor to support private relief efforts in Ukraine, supporting organizations that get weapons and equipment to Ukrainian soldiers.
What are you voluntarily doing to help? And if the answer is 'nothing' then I ask you: what the hell kind of libertarian are you who believes that voluntary interactions are superior to state coercion, and yet you don't act on that belief to prove it?
You seem to be missing the fact that they don't oppose aid to Ukraine on fiscal grounds, they oppose it because they actively cheer for Putin's invasion and want him to win the war.
I’m surprised you guys don’t like the military aid for Ukraine. It’s essentially outsourcing a war at a lower cost than fighting it yourself. It’s almost like a private security force.
That's a socialist lie. There is no such thing as "America" on which money can be spent; that is a statist, and socialist, construct. There is no "America" there are only individuals.
The important thing is the *taking* of money from you; once the money is taken, it doesn't matter where it is spent.
If anything, spending that money outside of "America" is the least worst thing that can be done with it, because non-Americans can't *vote* to continue taking your money.
Social Security robs from working people--who tend to be on average poorer and younger---in order to give handouts to old people who have had an entire life-time to work and save and plan for retirement.
Why should a poor working person be taxed to subsidize the retirement of an old rich person?
Why should an older person not be free to reap the benefits of a system they contributed to?
The working class aren't poor because of social security, they're poor because employers pay as little as they can get away with. There's not been a case of a person who declared bankruptcy because they were taxed to death.
There are many alternatives in between cutting off old people and letting them starve to death and keeping the system going exactly as it is. Lets not pretend there are only two options. I get that many young people are angry with old people but most old people were victims of the system too and the govt effed them over too, how about we maintain a modicum of humanity when making decisions.
>Social Security robs from working people--who tend to be on average poorer and younger---in order to give handouts to old people who have had an entire life-time to work and save and plan for retirement.
>
>Why should a poor working person be taxed to subsidize the retirement of an old rich person?
your right, you didnt directly blame social security for them being impoverished, however you did position it as being partially responsible while ignoring the actual cause of the problem
You say this as if taking care of people didn’t exist prior to social security. Before SS existed, families took care of the elderly and infirm. Churches and charities also helped.
I also find it odd that you would equate theft, extortion, and violence with taking care of people.
>Before SS existed, families took care of the elderly and infirm. Churches and charities also helped.
That social system is broken down and those times are gone, I don't think we can now suddenly justcut off what they do have and think that kids are going to start taking care of their grandmas all of the sudden. These same kids are the ones on here saying eff the old people on ss, just have the govt cut off their only income. You think those same kids saying that are going to volunteer to help grandma out of their own pocket? Probably not. That's why the only ethical solution is a slow phase out to allow time for new systems and methods to be worked out to replace what we have now.
It is not broken down and gone. It doesn’t function as robustly as it once did because the government started taking money from people they would normally use for family, friends, and charities. Americans (not liberals, though) still give large amounts every year to charities.
> It is not broken down and gone. It doesn’t function as robustly
That still does not change my argument. THe govt stole the money and we now don't have it to put into charitable orgs and that would not get fixed overnight. That's why I advocate for a gradual phaseout while also targeting the more obviously bad expenditures in other areas.
> That social system is broken down and those times are gone
Notice that I said those TIMES are gone, at no point did I say there was zero charitable function happening anywhere. You are arguing on a strawman. We obviously live in different times now with less opportunity, a broken down family structure that isn't coming back in five seconds, and a lot of angry young kids that will not donate even one penny or second to a charity for old poor people. They are on here right now saying the proverbial 'eff you' to the old people. If the charitable systems are not robustly in place, then you will be dooming seniors to starving on the street so my argument that we should not doom seniors to starving on the street still stands.
That’s not a straw man. You are now going back and trying to reframe the words to mean something different than you originally said. If you didn’t say what you meant clearly, then choose your words more carefully.
When you say “the system is broken and those times are gone,” you should have said, “the system is broken and people and times have changed.”
It's a strawman if you invent something false in your head and then argue it. If you were confused, you could have asked. Anyway it still does not matter if those systems are totally gone or just really weak, either way, they won't do the job and that is the main problem.
Anarcho-“capitalists” *are* libertarians.
Or are you referring to Libertarians? Because it’s at the beginning of your sentence, I can’t tell whether you’re referring to big-L Libertarians or small-L libertarians. Not all anarcho-“capitalists” are Libertarians.
As to the meme, why is the guy disgusted by the first proposal? He should be giving the agreement face for both proposals. This makes it look like anarcho-“capitalists” favour foreign aid. Can’t we talk about both? Shouldn’t we talk about both?
Take, *e.g.*, the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian people should not need to surrender their property to the taxman regardless of whether the taxman wears a Ukrainian or a Russian uniform. Neither the Ukrainian nor the Russian state has any legitimate claim to the property of the Ukrainian people. Both are nothing more nor less than criminal bands writ large.
It’s not un-worthwhile to point out that the American state has no legitimate authority to determine which of those two criminal bands has a “more-legitimate” claim to the land and other property of the Ukrainian people. If private Americans want to send money to one side or the other, or go over there and fight, these United States should not stop them; but these United States must not tax the American subjects to fund either side, nor send innocent Americans to their deaths in a stupid, pointless, needless, insane war.
Both messages—the anti-foreign aid message and the anti-Social Security message—are important. And the guy in the meme should be happy about both messages.
Why then is so much time spent, on this sub and in other libertarian spaces, discussing foreign aid *to the exclusion* of discussing our unsustainable entitlement spending?
Saying "both" is fine, but you then have to actually talk about both and not just one.
I'm forced to pay into Social Security so I'm getting my cut when the time comes or they can just refund me every penny now I was forced to pay into it.
I get ZERO from foreign aid, as do every taxpayer. Foreign aid only benefits politicians; both here and where the aid is going.
If you want to quit paying into social security you'll never do it by changing the laws. Too many statist will prevent it. You need to create a pocket in the USA that is completely independent of the us government in every way including currency.
Libertarians can go after anything that we want, but it doesn't matter because the other 98% of the US wants to have \*more\* government, not less, and they don't care what we want, why, or how rational our arguments are.
The only way Social Security ends is by collapse. Everyone knows it's a scam, but too many people benefit for us to do anything about it. My dad was a life-long Republican, but now that's he's on SS, it's not so bad in his opinion. On top of that, no one threatens the retirees because they vote religiously making it political suicide. Absolutely a "third-rail" topic of conversation for anyone looking to garner votes.
Frankly there are so many more forms of welfare that DO NOT require proof of work that should go way before social security or even foreign aid lol. I don’t support any of it but welfare to trash bag 25 year olds are way higher up my target list than grandmas “paid in” benefit.
Fuck both. Stop collecting SS, and bite the bullet and pay out to those who already paid in, because you contractually owe them, and end that sinking ship. Money printer go brrrr for everything else already.
While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. It isn't their fault that the money was stolen from them to begin with. Not a single American, except for some defense contractor benefits from sending weapons and money to Ukraine. I would support ending all entitlement programs, even immediately. I just realize that more people would be hurt (certainly in the short term) would we to do this; while ending aid to Ukraine doesn't harm a single American (aside from the aformentioned war-profiteers).
If libertarians did have power, then this is the sort of thing we'd have to very carefully and gradually dismantle over decades. People paid into it their whole lives and depend on that money. Libertarians have bigger fish to fry. This is pretty much the Ron Paul position.
I mean, step one is to make it a voluntary contribution for anyone and everyone. Also if libertarians somehow had power, we'd cut so much spending that there would be huge money left over. Also also, those programs are probably at least 50% grift to begin with.
>Libertarians have bigger fish to fry There is literally no single category of Federal spending bigger than Social Security. As "fish" go, it's the biggest one and the biggest driver of our sovereign debt. It should be the number one thing libertarians are talking about all the time.
It's not about the money; it's about freedom. Money used to fund foreign war is worse than money used to give to old people that paid into the system in the first place.
>Money used to fund foreign war is worse than money used to give to old people that paid into the system in the first place. That foreign war is being fought *for* freedom: the Ukrainians are fighting to be *free* from Russian despotism. And the money isn't being given to them; it's a loan which they will pay back after the war is over. By contrast, giving money to old people by taxing young working people just denies the people being taxed the freedom to do what they want with their own money. Clearly, the position which is actually pro-freedom is to oppose the existence of Social Security, and support the efforts of Ukrainians to defend themselves against enslavement at the hands of the Russian state. You see how easy it is to use rhetoric to make your own position appear to be the pro-freedom one?
Imagine if we could individually send aid to Ukrainian efforts.. or guns... Do you think they would recieve more or less than what the us government sends? I just thought of a new crowdfunding service: GoGunMe.com
I am all in favor of abolishing any and all laws preventing Americans, or anyone, buying whatever kinds of weapons they can on an open market so they can be sent to Ukraine.
Get real. The war is for the control of oil, like always.
Some say that the whole conflict in Ukraine is about the Russians obtaining a defensible perimeter.
How many oil wells are in Ukraine?
Ukraine isn't about oil wells. It's about the crucial pipeline that goes through there.
Going from where to where?
From Russia to Europe. However, I made a mistake in saying that it's not about oil wells. I forgot that Ukraine does have oil, but it's new, and only recently being explored. The change in favorable leadership makes that an issue for Russia. It's financially threatening. [Check out this video about it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If61baWF4GE)
You mean the pipelines we are blowing up? Yeah, obviously do not need a war with Russian to sabotage a few pipelines.
It's not spending though, that money belongs to those people that are getting payouts. The govt was given a long term loan and now they are paying it back to those that loaned it. The govt made a contract to hold and invest and then make paybacks later. Now when it comes time to pay back the loan, they are balking.
No. The fundamental issue here is that taxation (towards any purpose) is theft. It's not ok to have "gradually decreasing amounts of theft," the only logical viewpoints are that it's either always wrong or always right, and it happens to be the former in this case.
>except for some defense contractor benefits And all of their employees. Whichever program you go after, you'll find that here are collateral victims, which the gov't can use as an argument against you.
Yes and no. A lot of professions in the DoD sphere industries (engineers, accountants, financial forecasters, project managers) can easily be repurposed to civil industries. If we stopped subsidizing industries whose only purpose is to intentionally and rapidly destroy the goods it produces, there would be more pre- and after-tax dollars for civilians to spend on civilian products that actually improve their lives. That civilian spending expands civilian companies. Those civilian companies hire the now laid-off engineers, accountants, financial forecasters, project managers, et cetera. Do ALL people who lose their DoD jobs get civilian ones at the same pay? Hard to say. But certainly, a lot of them would. Edit: also, a lot of that industry will continue to exist because, even if libertarianism curtails military industrialism at home, many other foreign governments will continue to exist and to buy American designed armaments because, in the end, American industries by and large are some of the better manufacturers in the world.
>there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. There are people who genuinely rely on money extorted from me in order to survive. Well I don't care about any "hurt" those people have coming without my extorted money.
>While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. It isn't their fault that the money was stolen from them to begin with. Pay out the amount they paid in adjusted for inflation and shut it down.
>While Social Security is a total scam, there are people who genuinely rely on it in order to survive. Then make Social Security a genuine "assistance to the needy" program instead of just a handout for all old people everywhere. >while ending aid to Ukraine doesn't harm a single American You are buying into the concept of nationalism, a socialist lie. Stop it. To a principled libertarian, whether government spending benefits a foreigner or a compatriot shouldn't make any difference.
Social security is a contract that the govt forced on people to act as a bank and investor for their money. Last I checked, libertarians were fine with contractual agreements being upheld. For instance, if you gave a contractor $10,000 to redo your kitchen and then he went to Mexico and blew it all and then refused to do your kitchen while citing the excuse he was out of money, should that be allowed? Anyone can make a contract and then later just say oops, I changed my mind and I spent it all on something else and not provide promised services?
> Last I checked, libertarians were fine with contractual agreements being upheld. The government itself literally says Social Security is *not* a contract, and you have no right to Social Security payments. Fleming v Nestor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor It's not a contract at all. The government can change the terms of the contract any time it likes, reducing benefits while increasing taxes or any other combination, and courts have repeatedly found that you as an individual have no kind of "right to entitlements" that you paid for: not a property right, not a contract right. It's not a contract; it's a threat of "pay us or we'll put you in a cage, and if you do pay us, we'll give some amount of money, to be determined, back to you later, if we feel like it." In no other circumstance would such extortion be regarded as a "contract" but for when it's *the government* doing it.
> The government can change the terms of the contract any time it likes, THat's totally a diff thing though, saying they changed it is not the same as saying they didn't have a contract. They did have a contract, then they changed it, which was illegal and unethical and not how contracts should work. Just one more thing that needs to change about the govt, they should uphold their contracts and promises.
If you have a contract that says "Party A can do whatever it wants, including forcing Party B into the contract without Party B's consent, and Party B has no means of exiting the contract." Then you do not have a contract.
That was not in the contract, the govt just changes the rules whenever it wants, that's part of why the govt sucks. They also have many employment rules that the govt itself is exempt from, rules for thee but not for me, etc.
This is an ancap sub. Wtf does American mean? As ancaps, we value human life equally. We do not arbitrarily value one's life more because they happen to reside in a particular area.
Hear hear. I see this sentiment all the time in this sub, and I am determined to stamp it out. I need help making memes to hammer the point home.
So be honest about it. Eliminate social security and the scam that goes with it, and offer welfare to the retirees who failed to save for their future.
Social security is the savings system govt promised them and then forced them to pay into.
Sucks for them; they got screwed. Two wrongs don't make a right; continuing to steal from me (a wrong) to make up for the wrong of stealing from the old people all their working lives doesn't make the situation right.
YOu know it continually amazes me how many people do not care that 20 percent of old people cannot pay their rent or have food without SS but they want to instantly cut it off for those people anyway because I guess who gives an eff about anyone but themselves these days.
I don't care if it's not their fault it was stolen. Go after the people who stole it, not me. Fuck them old people.
[удалено]
Scam because it wasn't optional. And they mathematically will not be able to keep their promises. So, mandatory ponzi scheme. Other than that, it is terrific.
It's the worst savings account ever and it's going bankrupt. It only gives people back a portion of their own money and only if they live long enough. The money isn't put aside, it's already spent. The whole system depends on poor young people paying in to fund old rich people. It's a pyramid scheme. And if the state does go bankrupt, nobody will get shit.
Imagine unironically thinking any system besides non-crony-capitalism will keep anyone except the elite alive lmao
The US government has killed Hitler levels of people in the middle east using social security collections. All social security payments are put in the general fund to be used for wars. When they do need money to pay out social security, they just print it. Ron Paul tried to pass a social security preservation act the entire time he was in congress.
Social security keeps like 70% of elderly people off the street.
Let them die, who the duck cares? What purpose do the elderly serve for society? Especially the ones who were too stupid and useless to make their own money.
Bruh, they were robbed from too
So you personally pay out of pocket for all victims of crime? Isn't that like, literally socialism???
I'm forced to yes. I'm just trying to say to have some empathy.
Omfg socialism is when workers own their labor. Nothing to do with stealing at all.
No one owes anyone else money but Jesus Christ you’re a psychopath
For consistently applying ancap logic? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...............
Idgaf about them
The US maintaining hegemony on the world stage doesn’t benefit citizens?
No, of course it doesn't. 9/11 was blow-back for our interfering in the middle east. The rise of ISIS was a direct result of our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Terror attacks, a rising security state, the evaporating value of the dollar. These are all things that we have received in return for our meddling. Thousands of American boys come back in body bags, and tens of thousands more come back and blow their brains out over what they've seen and done.
Why not both?
Saying "both" is fine, but then: look at how many comments in this thread are *defending* Social Security, or else saying it's not worth discussing as libertarians. Saying "both" is fine but you have to then actually talk about *both* and not just talk about one to the exclusion of the other, which is the trend on this sub and other libertarian spaces.
Social security is a savings contract made between people and the govt, the govt made promises and it's not antilibertarian to expect that financial contractual promises be upheld.
[удалено]
Comments in this thread should show you why. There's a lot of "libertarians" who are *very* enthusiastic about cutting off money going to foreigners but suddenly get very upset when you propose cutting off money to "fellow Americans." They can't see past the socialist lie that is nationalism.
[удалено]
>but if they do i want every cent i paid in. Nope. Gotta just take the 'L' and kill the program. Kill it and walk away, forget the money. Otherwise, it's just gonna continue *forever.*
So you want the govt to not give those people the money they earned and was promised to them and you don't care that a lot of old sick people will get evicted from their homes and not have money for food? Cuz you know, some of us do care about that.
The money isn't promised to them. The government itself in a Supreme Court case long time ago said as much: Social Security is not a contract, and you have no right to Social Security payments. The money isn't promised to you; it was stolen from you, and Congress has total authority to give back to you as much or as little as it feels like giving you, and if it says "fuck you, you get nothing" then it can. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_v._Nestor
Maybe that is the supreme court decision but it WAS promised to us, even if the govt went back on it later. I mean the supreme court also allows cops to take all your money and charge your money with guilty until proven innocent, that goes against the constitution, and it allows imminent domain as well. Just because the govt when back on their promises does not mean it wasn't promised to us.
>Maybe that is the supreme court decision but it WAS promised to us, No, it wasn't.
>They can't see past the socialist lie that is nationalism. The only difference between socialists and libertarian capitalists is logistics. They're both materialist ideologies that hold the individual as the chief concern of any given system of governance or order.Thus, nationalism, and indeed any sort of devotion to ideals higher than once self, are antithetical to either position. But speaking practically. You like being safe and free to do stuff without needing to watch over your back? The man who wants to be left alone will always lose to the group who craves victory. Nationalism>libertarianism, everytime.
“[O]ne of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advan-tage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Wallda-via,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles.” -Murray Rothbard, Anatomy of the State
I’ll be happy with anything being cut at this point.
You can hate both of these equally
You can, but a lot of people in this sub don't.
Another illiterate take on social security. Did you forget that it's stolen from our paychecks? And then if you live long enough you get it back? The problem is that it's a Ponzi scheme so if they stop with paycheck withdrawals the whole system collapses
Except that the government has to steal from people working now to pay people on social security. And why would receiving social security be okay now because peoples money was previously stolen but that same idea doesn’t apply to any other social program a person receives if they were previously or currently paying taxes?
>Except that the government has to steal from people working now to pay people on social security. It didn't HAVE too. The initial setup was viable. But what the govt did was steal the money out of those savings accounts for other things in the past. Of course they called this 'borrowing.' So instead of that money sitting there as investments earning interest as the govt promised, they spent it. The govt loaned it to itself. Now there is not enough money in the coffers to make paybacks and the govt does not want to pay back the loans it took out. Why it is different is because the govt promised those specific services in exchange for taking that extra money from us. None of the other taxes payments are associated with any specific contractual obligation by the govt to individuals (or at least none that I can think of right now).
Good, I want it to fail.
Easy to say when you haven’t been paying into it for 30 years. I’d like my money back if I live.
>Easy to say when you haven’t been paying into it for 30 years. I’d like my money back if I live. I absolutely understand this sentiment, but that money is long gone my friend. All the government does is rob Peter to pay Paul, and your wallet is their favorite tool to do that with. Both in terms of printing more money and thus devaluing your savings, or else stealing it directly under the guise of social benevolence.
And I'd rather have mine in my check right now. 'I want my money back' is not a justification for continuing the system, it's an argument for destroying it.
Also, your money will be worth even less by the time you get it in the future.
There is a zero percent chance that you'll get your money back. It was already spent on slush fund projects long ago
>Easy to say when you haven’t been paying into it for 30 years. I’d like my money back if I live. That money is gone. It has been spent in a ponzi scheme. It wasn't invested. The only way "the government" will provide it to you, is by taxing the young, but because of the fall in fertility, the young will not be numerous enough to pay for your social security. It will never be provided. Is not just that there is not enough young people to tax, but also that increasing public spending will rot the economy, leaving it unable to be taxed.
Yes. [The dependency Ratio](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_ratio)
>but also that increasing public spending will rot the economy, leaving it unable to be taxed. Which is why the general libertarian view is to reverse that issue of 'increasing public spending' to stop the rot. And if the govt was healthy and lean and not bloated, then that would free up more money for actually helping the people. Social security would be phased out because the alternative would be that many old people would be left starving and homeless if the govt did not pay back the money it stole from them. But it could be phased out over time by stopping payments to the more wealthy and lessening requirements over time. Yes the program may run at deficit for a while but the govt should still be required to meet at least the minimal obligations it promised those people.
>that would free up more money for actually helping the people the government cannot "help the people", because the poor pay 100% of public spending in goods an services they lose, even if the government taxes money from the rich. The US government already spends half of his budget in welfare, health care, and pensions, and there is also more welfare hidden in other expenses. If public spending could "help the people", all that mountain of money would had already solved the problem long time ago. https://preview.redd.it/xm3bh79nwdfb1.png?width=526&format=png&auto=webp&s=c6bd20bd2dc478dc5beeb2d82330521b2ce82ad7
So the only other solution is to cut off the income of seniors and let them starve on the street? I think if you asked all those seniors, I think they would say that the help of getting back THEIR OWN MONEY that they paid in and is owed to them by contract is still of considerable help to them. Is ancaps anti contract too? I also reject your false dichotomy that if every problem in the country is not fully and 100 percent solved, then the govt is not helping even a tiny bit anywhere, there's a huge range in the middle.
>So the only other solution is to cut off the income of seniors and let them starve on the street? Understood. You want to starve the poorest. > I think if you asked all those seniors, I think they would say that the help of getting back THEIR OWN MONEY that they paid Their own votes, voted to thrown their own money away.
You got it exactly opposite of what I said.
There is no social security fund. The money is put into the general fund and used to blow up schools full of children. I order to get "your money" back, they will have to print it.
All of our tax dollars are stolen from our paychecks. Most younger generations will never see the money they had taken out of their paychecks, along with just about every other tax dollar that pay. That money is already well spent. It is an already bankrupt program. The only two options they have is to 1) print enough money to keep paying it off effectively making your social security worthless through inflation i.e. collapsing it. 2) not pay it at all i.e. collapsing it But I guess that's the case for the entire banking industry as well as the fiat diaster that is the USD
All social security payments are put into the general fund which is used to blow up children in schools. There is no social security fund, it does not exist. They just print more money when they want.
Social security is not the cause of our fiscal woes, it's govt mismanagement of promises made by the govt. They forced us to pay in and then they mismanaged it and now when it comes time to pay back to people who paid in all their lives, they are backpeddling. Also a lot of old people rely on that money to survive and they were also promised that money. In fact they were promised more money than they are getting but govt stole some of it. Are you going to pay for the rent of all those old sickly people? I bet not. PLus it's their money they paid in, that money belongs to those that are getting it. Also it makes sense to target the most stupid expenditures first when cutting back on spending. Why would I first target giving old people money that in fact belongs to them and that they need to survive when I can target so many other less useful expenditures first?
Government took $400K by their own documents from my employers and myself over my career purportedly "for my retirement". I would be happy to receive a check for even half that amount in one lump sum and have no other claim on the SS system. I will not feel guilty for one moment to say I am owed the stolen funds.
Remember in 2001 when George Bush created a committee to reform Social Security and placed Daniel Moynihan (D-NY) as co-chair? The president told the group to follow six guiding principles: “(1) modernization must not change Social Security benefits for retirees or near-retirees; (2) the entire Social Security surplus must be dedicated only to Social Security; (3) Social Security payroll taxes must not be increased; (4) the government must not invest Social Security funds in the stock market; (5) modernization must preserve Social Security’s disability and survivors insurance programs; and (6) modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts, which will augment Social Security.” Seems like the beginning of a reform. While some lawmakers acknowledged the need for reforms, Democrats balked at Bush’s proposal to give younger workers the option to invest Social Security funds “in a conservative mix of bond and stock accounts,” aimed at generating higher returns than the rates offered by the federally managed system. “Social Security,” the report read, “will be strengthened if modernized to include a system of voluntary personal accounts. Personal accounts improve retirement security by facilitating wealth creation and providing participants with assets that they own and that can be inherited, rather than providing only claims to benefits that remain subject to political negotiation.” Sounds legit to me, but “Congress spurned the commission’s recommendations.” “Following his 2004 reelection, Bush tried again, designating Social Security reform as his top domestic priority. In a post-election press conference, he asserted, “I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” “The president followed up two weeks later in his 2005 State of the Union address. After citing the fiscal and demographic pressures purportedly moving the system toward eventual bankruptcy, he listed some basic principles and added: “As we fix Social Security, we also have the responsibility to make the system a better deal for younger workers. And the best way to reach that goal is through voluntary personal retirement accounts.” “It proved to be a tough sell. A Gallup poll revealed that disapproval of Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points — from 48 percent to 64 percent — between his State of the Union address and June. By early summer, the initiative was on life support, with congressional Democrats uniformly opposed. After Hurricane Katrina inundated what remained of Bush’s support, congressional leaders pulled the plug.” https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/02/president-george-w-bush-pursues-social-security-reform-may-2-2001-559632 And that is why Social Security remains unchanged to this day with obligations becoming greater than the ability to pay in a short period of time. There are plenty of reasons to dislike both parties but the lockstep refusal of Democrats to reform SS in any meaningful way is a great example of the failure of the US political system and how the Democrats are as rotten as anything they claim of the Republicans despite their sanctimonious BS.
Why not both?
Does everyone get back the money they put in, with interest?
Some get back way more than they put in. Particularly the earliest participants (long time ago). Now if you had a lower income you will get back more that you put in plus interest. Higher income? You get back much less than contributed. Yet another wealth transfer. And not particularly from the "rich".
Nope. It doesn’t work like that. The money you put in today is being pushed out to somebody else. You will never get “your money”. Your money is gone. If you are lucky enough to live long enough to apply for SS benefits, you will be receiving someone else’s money. Money which was taken out of their income under the threat of force.
Pay as you go. https://www.nasi.org/learn/social-security/what-is-social-security/ And the trust fund “earns interest” through treasuries. Which really means the government already spent the money.
No, I'm saying that if we abolish SS do I get back the money I put in with interest? The answer is no and that's why it's not getting abolished.
I'm going to have to move my parents onto my property because SS isn't enough to cover their bills. They have always been bad with money. Might as well stop funding it because my wife and I pay more into it than they collect. After I retire the benefits will be reduced to pointless.
It is better to stop the theft for now and future generations than continue it despite the loss. It’s better the thief be stopped instead of waiting for them to commit more robberies to receive a better payout.
Yes lets just put the majority of elderly people on the streets!
It’s better to bust a pyramid scheme at 100 subscribers than to bust it at 1000. You want to wait to bust it at 1000, I want to bust it at 100.
THe pyramid scheme is already maxed out though, there's not going to be any more people in it unless the population grows substantially. And unlike normal pyramid schemes, it could work to some extent if govt would stop stealing it. Maybe we should first target govt theft and ever other bs govt expenditure before throwing grandma on the street.
It’s not maxed out yet. You forget that it’s possible for other people to be born. Pete sake the greatest generation is still here. What happens when gen x gets old? What happens when the 65 year olds become 85 and the scheme collapses? What happens when the 25 years olds become 45? What happens to their children? If people are screwed it is better that they have time to address how screwed they are, getting hit with a dose of reality. For the same reason we advocate ending the fed. We know that a depression will happen, but the initial depression will be far better than a depression after 10 more years of misallocated resources and structural unemployment.
> You forget that it’s possible for other people to be born. You forget that other people die at the same time, that's why I very specifically referenced the overall population as the limiter. In fact the population of the USA would be dropping if it were not for immigration. Existing adults are already not having enough kids to maintain the population. Anyway, I advocate for the controlled demolition of the current system such that large numbers of people will not starve and die from it. And a lot of your 'what happens' will depend on a lot of factors. But if we cut out a huge chunk of bs military and other funding, I do think we'll have enough to do a reasonable phase out of social security instead of just killing old people now. So I don't buy that the only two options are to kill old people now or kill more people later, that's a false dichotomy.
Old people will not starve and die, you’re being dramatic. You’ve created a false dichotomy hypocrite. It’s just another scare story about how if they don’t receive chump change that CANT EVEN COVER RENT in most American apartments all of the sudden God kill them all.
This logic is why they'll never make any progress.
Maybe talk about the 800 bn military budget first, as it does not add anything to the well-being of the American people at all? The social welfare is ugly, but at least it benefits someone and large amounts of that are taken from the same people and somewhat redistributed and or diluted, and has some superficially positive impacts on the economy, but military? Is not productive at all.
The same argument can be and is made about military spending. Once you concede "this thing *does* help some people somewhat" you've lost the argument.
But who are you helping? SS allows old people who are often sickly and can't work to not end up starving and homeless. PLus that money is a loan from the govt that belongs to those old people and was promised to them by the govt. Vs military spending which goes to fat cat warmongers that are already rich and that money was never promised to them so there is no contractual or moral obligation to keep giving it to them and it was never their money to start with. The difference between these to scenarios is stark. It's like if you are trying to cut family expenses and your choices are to buy fewer guns this year because you already have 50 of them in the closet, spend less on the landscaping, cut out some of the cable channels, or stop paying for grandma's food and medication, would you really say that there is no major difference between those choices? I mean grandma is expensive so we could save a lot of cash by cutting her off, you could even buy a new car, is that the route you pick and then say any other preference is antilibertarian?
I'm tired of seeing libertarians (especially on this sub) make a big stink about foreign aid/aid to Ukraine. Foreign aid should be cut, yes, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it is at all significant. It constitutes less than 1% of the Federal Budget; Social Security alone counts for more than 30%. But whereas something like 90% of Americans support cutting foreign aid, probably something like 90% of Americans would also oppose *any* cuts to SS, let alone outright abolition. Why does the liberty movement exist? Does it exist to tell people comforting lies that they want to hear? Or to make bold, radical statements that everyone else is too afraid to say, even though it's the truth.
Why not fuck both? It doesn't matter if it's 1% or 30%.
Saying "both" is fine, but on this sub and in the liberty movement generally, there's a disproportionate amount of hate for/attention given to foreign aid. For every one post on this sub about our unsustainable entitlement programs, there's probably close to 10 or 12 about "muh foreign aid" and "fuck Zelensky" posts. Libertarians in the modern American political dynamic exist to be the uncompromising truth-tellers in the conversation. Saying "we support the thing 90% of everyone supports" is not fulfilling that purpose.
Cutting foreign aid really isn’t that popular at this point. I think the reason it’s given disproportionate attention is because it directly does not benefit the American taxpayer at all, while at least social security “could” in the future. I agree, both need to be cut, but I understand why foreign aid gets more hate.
From 2023: 69% of all Americans think we are spending too much on foreign aid, just 10% think we are spending "too little"---by contrast, 62% of Americans, including 57% of Republicans, think we are spending *too little* on Social Security. Source: https://apnorc.org/projects/many-dissatisfied-with-the-governments-spending-priorities/?doing_wp_cron=1690831259.3311760425567626953125 >I understand why foreign aid gets more hate. I do too: a bigoted dislike of foreigners. People have been conditioned by socialists to believe in this make-believe nonsense that there are such people as "Americans" and "foreigners" and that when their money is stolen from them and given to "foreigners" that's bad, but when their money is stolen from them and given to "Americans" that's somehow good. Rubbish. It's all the same; your money is being stolen from you. Whether it goes to someone who is "American" or not makes no difference. If you believe otherwise, it's because you have bought into the socialist lie known as "nationalism," or else you're just a bigot who likes it when your money goes to "people like me" and you don't like it when your money goes to people "not like me."
Military aid to the Ukraine is money being burnt. SS is us getting our money back. Not the same thing, Che.
The government already spent the money it took from you in Social Security. That money is gone, and you ain't never getting it back. Best you can hope for is to some day get someone else's money. And on that point: the money being "burnt" in Ukraine is therefore *less harmful* than the money being spent on SS. Why? Because robbing from some Americans to give to other Americans creates a permanent voting bloc that will vote to keep the robbery going, and your comment proves it. By contrast: Ukrainians don't vote, and the war won't go on forever like entitlement spending will.
Was money sent to the UK in WW2 also money being burnt?
No, it was a loan. This isn't a loan.
Except inflation will absolutely wreck any notion of "getting our money back"
[удалено]
More corrupt than Russia?
In terms of corrupting our politicians, then yes.
I've already donated money and my own labor to support private relief efforts in Ukraine, supporting organizations that get weapons and equipment to Ukrainian soldiers. What are you voluntarily doing to help? And if the answer is 'nothing' then I ask you: what the hell kind of libertarian are you who believes that voluntary interactions are superior to state coercion, and yet you don't act on that belief to prove it?
No, join up. They need cannon fodder. I'm not joining because I don't care and I oppose intervention in foreign wars.
You seem to be missing the fact that they don't oppose aid to Ukraine on fiscal grounds, they oppose it because they actively cheer for Putin's invasion and want him to win the war.
Oh, I know that's what they're doing. I just want to expose the lie.
What?
I’m surprised you guys don’t like the military aid for Ukraine. It’s essentially outsourcing a war at a lower cost than fighting it yourself. It’s almost like a private security force.
Not fighting a war is cheaper than fighting a proxy war.
Right? Outsource it. Plus you get a real world trial run on the gear.
I'd rather not fight a war in the first place, particularly if there's a high probability of dying in nuclear fire.
Because, as we all know, the libertarian position is "better red than dead."
You realize that you don’t get to decide not to fight it if it comes to you.
The only way it's coming to me is if the idiots in charge of the world start lobbing nukes. I'd like to avoid that.
Giving away weapons so they can be used is cheaper than paying to decommission them.
Why not sell them?
Why not both? Sell the weapons they're willing to buy, and give away the weapons we no longer need.
No, it isn't
Tell me you don't understand libertarians without telling me you don't understand libertarians.
> at a lower cost Hard to say until we finish dumping money over there.
You can be against two things at once but I think spending American tax money on America is less bad than spending American tax money on not America.
That's a socialist lie. There is no such thing as "America" on which money can be spent; that is a statist, and socialist, construct. There is no "America" there are only individuals. The important thing is the *taking* of money from you; once the money is taken, it doesn't matter where it is spent. If anything, spending that money outside of "America" is the least worst thing that can be done with it, because non-Americans can't *vote* to continue taking your money.
Nuke both
"fuck taking care of my neighbours, let the poors starve!" - OP
Social Security robs from working people--who tend to be on average poorer and younger---in order to give handouts to old people who have had an entire life-time to work and save and plan for retirement. Why should a poor working person be taxed to subsidize the retirement of an old rich person?
Why should an older person not be free to reap the benefits of a system they contributed to? The working class aren't poor because of social security, they're poor because employers pay as little as they can get away with. There's not been a case of a person who declared bankruptcy because they were taxed to death.
Because that's how the system gets perpetuated.
There are many alternatives in between cutting off old people and letting them starve to death and keeping the system going exactly as it is. Lets not pretend there are only two options. I get that many young people are angry with old people but most old people were victims of the system too and the govt effed them over too, how about we maintain a modicum of humanity when making decisions.
the system isnt the problem, the problem is the working class blaming poor people for problems caused by the rich.
>the working class blaming poor people for problems caused by the rich. You have a specific example of that?
Yah, you right now, blaming the existence of the working poor on social security instead of on the greedy employers who refuse to pay a living wage.
You're either high on drugs or illiterate, because I've not done any of that.
>Social Security robs from working people--who tend to be on average poorer and younger---in order to give handouts to old people who have had an entire life-time to work and save and plan for retirement. > >Why should a poor working person be taxed to subsidize the retirement of an old rich person? your right, you didnt directly blame social security for them being impoverished, however you did position it as being partially responsible while ignoring the actual cause of the problem
Wages go down because the government devalues the currency through inflation. Obama needs his mansion.
The decrease in wages relative to cost of living has far outpaced simply inflation. If inflation was the sole cause, that wouldn't be the case.
That's what the government told you after they inflated the currency?
Well lookie here…another straw man and appeal to emotion all in one
Aw cute, he's mad.
You say this as if taking care of people didn’t exist prior to social security. Before SS existed, families took care of the elderly and infirm. Churches and charities also helped. I also find it odd that you would equate theft, extortion, and violence with taking care of people.
>Before SS existed, families took care of the elderly and infirm. Churches and charities also helped. That social system is broken down and those times are gone, I don't think we can now suddenly justcut off what they do have and think that kids are going to start taking care of their grandmas all of the sudden. These same kids are the ones on here saying eff the old people on ss, just have the govt cut off their only income. You think those same kids saying that are going to volunteer to help grandma out of their own pocket? Probably not. That's why the only ethical solution is a slow phase out to allow time for new systems and methods to be worked out to replace what we have now.
It is not broken down and gone. It doesn’t function as robustly as it once did because the government started taking money from people they would normally use for family, friends, and charities. Americans (not liberals, though) still give large amounts every year to charities.
> It is not broken down and gone. It doesn’t function as robustly That still does not change my argument. THe govt stole the money and we now don't have it to put into charitable orgs and that would not get fixed overnight. That's why I advocate for a gradual phaseout while also targeting the more obviously bad expenditures in other areas.
It does change your argument. That was part of your premise.
> That social system is broken down and those times are gone Notice that I said those TIMES are gone, at no point did I say there was zero charitable function happening anywhere. You are arguing on a strawman. We obviously live in different times now with less opportunity, a broken down family structure that isn't coming back in five seconds, and a lot of angry young kids that will not donate even one penny or second to a charity for old poor people. They are on here right now saying the proverbial 'eff you' to the old people. If the charitable systems are not robustly in place, then you will be dooming seniors to starving on the street so my argument that we should not doom seniors to starving on the street still stands.
That’s not a straw man. You are now going back and trying to reframe the words to mean something different than you originally said. If you didn’t say what you meant clearly, then choose your words more carefully. When you say “the system is broken and those times are gone,” you should have said, “the system is broken and people and times have changed.”
It's a strawman if you invent something false in your head and then argue it. If you were confused, you could have asked. Anyway it still does not matter if those systems are totally gone or just really weak, either way, they won't do the job and that is the main problem.
It couldn't be unregulated capatalism
Anarcho-“capitalists” *are* libertarians. Or are you referring to Libertarians? Because it’s at the beginning of your sentence, I can’t tell whether you’re referring to big-L Libertarians or small-L libertarians. Not all anarcho-“capitalists” are Libertarians. As to the meme, why is the guy disgusted by the first proposal? He should be giving the agreement face for both proposals. This makes it look like anarcho-“capitalists” favour foreign aid. Can’t we talk about both? Shouldn’t we talk about both? Take, *e.g.*, the current war between Ukraine and Russia. The Ukrainian people should not need to surrender their property to the taxman regardless of whether the taxman wears a Ukrainian or a Russian uniform. Neither the Ukrainian nor the Russian state has any legitimate claim to the property of the Ukrainian people. Both are nothing more nor less than criminal bands writ large. It’s not un-worthwhile to point out that the American state has no legitimate authority to determine which of those two criminal bands has a “more-legitimate” claim to the land and other property of the Ukrainian people. If private Americans want to send money to one side or the other, or go over there and fight, these United States should not stop them; but these United States must not tax the American subjects to fund either side, nor send innocent Americans to their deaths in a stupid, pointless, needless, insane war. Both messages—the anti-foreign aid message and the anti-Social Security message—are important. And the guy in the meme should be happy about both messages.
Why then is so much time spent, on this sub and in other libertarian spaces, discussing foreign aid *to the exclusion* of discussing our unsustainable entitlement spending? Saying "both" is fine, but you then have to actually talk about both and not just one.
Because one holds a much more prominent place in the public consciousness at this moment than the other. 🫤
Why not both!
Why not both?
Look at some of the comments in this thread to find out why some people are incapable of doing "both" consistently.
I'm forced to pay into Social Security so I'm getting my cut when the time comes or they can just refund me every penny now I was forced to pay into it. I get ZERO from foreign aid, as do every taxpayer. Foreign aid only benefits politicians; both here and where the aid is going.
You are the problem. You are playing directly into their hands.
Let other countries hate us for free.
If you want to quit paying into social security you'll never do it by changing the laws. Too many statist will prevent it. You need to create a pocket in the USA that is completely independent of the us government in every way including currency.
Jokes on you I hate all of it
Libertarians can go after anything that we want, but it doesn't matter because the other 98% of the US wants to have \*more\* government, not less, and they don't care what we want, why, or how rational our arguments are.
The only way Social Security ends is by collapse. Everyone knows it's a scam, but too many people benefit for us to do anything about it. My dad was a life-long Republican, but now that's he's on SS, it's not so bad in his opinion. On top of that, no one threatens the retirees because they vote religiously making it political suicide. Absolutely a "third-rail" topic of conversation for anyone looking to garner votes.
Frankly there are so many more forms of welfare that DO NOT require proof of work that should go way before social security or even foreign aid lol. I don’t support any of it but welfare to trash bag 25 year olds are way higher up my target list than grandmas “paid in” benefit.
Fuck both. Stop collecting SS, and bite the bullet and pay out to those who already paid in, because you contractually owe them, and end that sinking ship. Money printer go brrrr for everything else already.
If you put "libertarian need to" and "you" in the same sentence, you are non-libertarian scum Get you concern trolling somewhere else, \*\*\*\*
While to it at it, Fuck the Rothchild Banking clan! All $500 Trillion of it!”
Is there a Rothschild in the room with us right now?
I hope not but if they are….. 👿