The Republican-Lite Positions of the Libertarian Party: Social Security
The message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaigns, including the 2024 presidential campaign of Chase Oliver, encompasses the support of Social Security, the crown jewel of the welfare-state way of life that Republicans and Democrats have foisted upon our land. Like Republicans and Democrats, the right-wing element that currently controls and dominates the L.P., along with many regular members of the party, are loathe to call for the immediate repeal of this socialist program. The defining message of the L.P. and its standard presidential campaigns comes in the form of some sort of Social Security reform plan or a “gradual” plan to continue Social Security for some 30-40 years.
Social Security is a socialist program. After all, they don’t call it “Social” Security for nothing. For more than 100 years, the American people lived without this socialist program. The concept originated within German socialists and then imported into the United States. The program became law in the U.S. during the 1930s as part of President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” program, which converted America’s economic system into a welfare state.
The nature of a welfare state
What is a welfare state? It is a political and economic system that is a variation of socialism. In a welfare state, the government is charged with the responsibility of taking care of people, mainly by taking money through taxation from people to whom it belongs and giving it to people to whom it does not belong. With Social Security, the government takes money from the young and productive and distributes it to seniors. Contrary to popular opinion, there is no “trust fund’ into which people “put” their money. Social Security monies come from taxed that are taken from the income of younger people.
When it comes to the welfare state, most everyone in society is considered to be good, caring, and compassionate. This certainly is the mindset of standard L.P. presidential candidates and, for that matter, many, if not most, L.P. members, especially the right-wingers. They buy into the popular notion that anyone who would call for the immediate repeal of this socialist program has to be cruel, heartless, and uncaring toward seniors.
Thus, the IRS, which collects the taxes to fund the program, is considered to be a good, caring, and compassionate agency. So is Congress, which enacted the program in the first place and keeps it intact. The president also falls into the caring and compassionate category because he makes certain that seniors receive their Social Security checks every month. The Supreme Court is also good and caring because it upholds the constitutionality of this socialist program.
But it doesn’t stop there. American voters are also considered good and caring. In fact, some people would say that every citizen falls into the good and caring category — well, except for those who oppose this socialist program and favor its immediate repeal. This last group of people are considered to be selfish, cruel, and uncaring.
The truth, however, is that when it comes to Social Security, no one is good, caring, and compassionate. That’s because this program is founded on the initiation of force — the force of taxation. Try not paying your taxes and you’ll see what I mean — governmental harassment, audits, garnishments, attachments, arrests, indictments, prosecution, incarceration, and fines. A notable example is Irwin Schiff, who the feds forced to die in prison for not paying his taxes.
When “charity” is based on the initiation of force, it is not real charity. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. Forcing anyone to be good and caring is necessarily evil in that it violates the principles of free will and freedom of choice.
Just another welfare program
Many people, including many L.P. members, claim that with Social Security people are simply getting their money back that they “put into” the system. Nothing could be further from the truth. People pay taxes. That’s what the IRS and criminal prosecutions for tax evasion are for — to make certain people do pay their taxes. Those taxes are spent on governmental programs, such as welfare, Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, the drug war, the military, the CIA, invasions, occupations, assassinations, and border enforcement. The taxes people pay, including FICA taxes, are not put into a “trust fund,” a retirement account, or a safety deposit box. They are simply spent, along with all other tax revenues.
The fact is that Social Security is nothing more than a welfare program, no different from food stamps, public housing, education grants, farm subsidies, corporate bailouts, or any other welfare program. All welfare programs, including Social Security, are funded by the monies raised through taxation. No one, for example, can leave the money he supposedly “put into” the system to his heirs in his last will and testament.
An “off ramp” for Social Security
Some L.P. members condemn Social Security but feel that it would be cruel and uncaring to suddenly repeal it. They say that if this socialist program were suddenly ended, there would be seniors “dying in the streets.” Therefore, the message that has come to define the Libertarian Party and its presidential campaigns, including the message of the 2024 L.P. presidential nominee, Chase Oliver, is one that L.P. members commonly call an “off ramp.” This off-ramp plan calls for the continuation of Social Security for everyone who is, say, 60 years or older, which, of course, means the continuation of Social Security for the next 30-40 years. It terminates Social Security for people who are younger than 60, notwithstanding the fact that they will have paid FICA taxes their entire work lives. Ironically, L.P. members and the standard L.P. presidential candidates don’t think that that cut-off is cruel, heartless, and uncaring.
Favoring its continuation of Social Security indefinitely or for “only” the next 3 or 4 decades, the Libertarian Party has come to stand with Republicans and Democrats in support of socialism and the welfare state. That, of course, is problematic for a political party that ostensibly stands in opposition to socialism and welfare-statism.
It also presents problems for any standard L.P. presidential candidate — that is, one who hews to the standard Republican-lite message that has come to define the L.P.. For example, in his presidential campaign, Oliver could not make the principled moral argument against socialism and the welfare state that FDR foisted upon our land in the 1930s. After all, how does one make the principled moral argument against socialism and the welfare state while supporting what is the crown jewel of the welfare state itself?
Socialism and economic fascism
Like many L.P. members (and like many members of the libertarian movement), Oliver also supports a Social Security reform plan that combines elements of socialism and economic fascism. Oliver said that he would let young people “opt out” of Social Security if they so chose to do so. The operative word, of course, is “let.” When people are talking about “let,” they are not talking about freedom. In a genuinely free society, people have the right to keep everything they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their own money. As part of his “opt-out” plan, Oliver favored what he called the “Cato plan,” one by which the federal government forces young people to invest some of their income into government-approved retirement accounts. That’s classic economic fascism, a system where the government issues commands and orders as to what people must do with their privately owned property. It is not surprising that this was the Social Security plan of the fascist dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet.
Moreover, there is a fundamental problem with Oliver’s reform plan: It is still necessary for the government to pay Social Security recipients for the next 30-40 years as part of the “off-ramp” “gradual” reduction of Social Security. That means that younger people will still have to be taxed to continue making those payments. So, while younger people would be permitted to “opt out” of Social Security, they would still have to pay the taxes that fund Social Security for the next 30-40 years. Given such, many of them might not want to “opt out” so that they will be able to “get back” the money that they supposedly “paid into” the system.
Only one genuine libertarian position
Most important, Social Security clearly violates libertarianism. How do we know that? Easy. All we have to do is compare it to the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is the core principle of the libertarian philosophy. If it does violate the non-aggression principle, it cannot be a genuine libertarian position, even if every libertarian and every L.P. member redefines it to be “libertarian.”
It is easy to see that since Social Security is based on taxation and the coercive redistribution of wealth, it does, in fact, violate the libertarian non-aggression principle. Therefore, the support of this program, or any reform of the program, or the continuation of the program for 30-40 years (or for any period of time) cannot possibly be libertarian. That is, it’s not “less libertarian” or “libertarian-oriented” or “libertarian-leaning” or “libertarianish” or “a bit libertarian.” It is not libertarian at all because of that pesky libertarian non-aggression principle.
Thus there is one — and only one — genuine libertarian position when it comes to Social Security or any other socialist or welfare-state program — immediate repeal.
No, no one would be dying in the streets. Everyone would be fine. But that mindset requires a deep and abiding faith in freedom and in the willingness of people to help out others on a purely voluntary basis. If Social Security were abolished today, children would come forth and help parents who need help, especially if Social Security taxes were terminated as well. Alternatively, the churches of America are filled with people who are willing to help out people in need. There are also charitable foundations, neighborhoods groups, extended families, and the like. Moreover, let’s not forget that there are plenty of rich people who receive Social Security and who don’t need it. There are also lots of seniors who are capable of working, either full-time or part-time, into their senior years.
The problem is that Social Security has severely damaged people’s faith in freedom and free markets. Those people, unfortunately, include many L.P. members and the standard L.P. presidential candidate. If we are to achieve a free society in our lifetime, libertarians need to lead the way toward the restoration of faith in freedom, free markets, and voluntary charity.
Advancing freedom
The Libertarian Party, like many members of the libertarian movement, continues to “advance freedom” while, at the same time, embracing a message of socialism and welfare statism through its support of Social Security — a message that unfortunately has come to define the L.P. and its presidential campaigns. How can the Libertarian Party expect to play an important role in the achievement of a a genuinely free society with that type of contradictory message?