Why Are Libertarian Party Presidential Candidates Advocating the Continuation of Socialism?
I am a candidate for the 2024 Libertarian Party presidential nomination. My campaign website is: jacobforliberty.com.
Ever since its founding in 1971, the Libertarian Party has stood squarely against the economic philosophy known as socialism. And rightly so. Given the poverty, suffering, strife, conflict, envy, and covetousness that comes with this deadly and destructive philosophy, socialism has proven to be the bane of mankind.
Most important, socialism is the opposite of a genuinely free society, one based on the principles of private property, free markets, and voluntary charity.
Nonetheless, most, if not all, of my opponents for the 2024 L.P. presidential nomination advocate the continuation of Social Security, which is the crown jewel of American socialism, for the next several decades. (See the South Carolina Libertarian Party presidential debate.) Even though they acknowledge that Social Security is “evil,” they say that it is nonetheless necessary to continue this “evil” for least one and possibly more generations to demonstrate a sense of “compassion” and “responsibility.”
Who in the world is going to vote for that type of message? Answer: Hardly anyone. That’s reflected in two recent Wall Street Journal presidential polls that included “Libertarian Party” in them. A whopping 99 percent of the respondents said that they would not vote for the L.P. presidential candidate in 2024. That essentially matched the tsunami-sized rejection rate of 98.9 percent that the L.P. presidential candidate received in the 2020 presidential election.
My confession
I have a confession to make: I’m with the 99 percent! I vote Libertarian but I reject the welfare-warfare reform-oriented, Republican-Lite message that has come to define our party’s presidential campaigns, not only with respect to Social Security but also other aspects of the welfare-warfare state way of life that Republicans and Democrats have jointly foisted upon our nation, such as Medicare and Medicaid or America’s system of immigration controls and the deadly and destructive immigration police state that comes with it. Welfare-warfare state reform and Republican-Lite is a bad message, especially for a party that prides itself on its commitment to individual liberty, free markets, and voluntary charity. As far as I’m concerned, the message of welfare-warfare state reform and Republican-Lite deserves to be rejected by a full 100 percent of the electorate, not just 99 percent.
A socialist program
Make no mistake about it: Social Security is a socialist program. They don’t call it “Social” for nothing. The concept originated among German socialists and then was imported into the United States, where it was adopted into law by the Franklin Roosevelt regime as part of his “New Deal” program of the 1930s.
Like other welfare-state programs, Social Security is based on the Marxian concept of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The government uses the coercive apparatus of taxation to forcibly take money from people to whom it belongs in order to give it to people to whom it does not belong.
No, there is no Social Security “fund” into which people’s payroll taxes have been deposited, and there never has been one. People pay payroll taxes, but those taxes simply are part of overall general tax revenues. No one “pays into the system.” Everyone pays taxes.
A “contract”?
As you can see in the South Carolina L.P. presidential debate, my opponents say that Social Security is a “contract” with the American people that, they say, has to be honored. That would surprise the Supreme Court, which long ago held that Social Security is nothing more than a welfare-state program, one that can be repealed without anyone having the right to recover damages for breach of contract.
Ironically, however, my opponents say that this supposed “contract” should be honored for only one generation — i.e., 25 years, and that Social Security should then be immediately terminated. Really? But if it’s truly a “contract,” like my opponents maintain, then where is the moral justification for breaching the “contract” by terminating it at end of 25 years from now? Let’s assume that John is 40 years old. He continues paying payroll taxes for the next 25 years. On the day he retires at 65, my opponents’ 25-year plan calls for the immediate termination of Social Security. How do they respond when John exclaims, “But what about my ‘contract’?”
My opponents say that “compassion” and “responsibility” dictate the continuation of Social Security. But it bears emphasizing that their sense of “compassion” and “responsibility” are being demonstrated through the coercive apparatus of the IRS and its forcible collection of payroll taxes.
Opting out?
My opponents also say that they are going to let young people “opt out” of the Social Security system. What they don’t tell people, however, is that the young people who “opt out” are still going to have to pay payroll taxes to fund those who still will receive Social Security checks for the next several decades. What they also don’t tell people is that those young people who “opt out” will still be required by law to invest a certain amount of money in government-approved stock funds. That might not be a socialist scheme but it certainly is a fascist one. Why shouldn’t everyone be free to do what he wants with his own money? Isn’t that what genuine freedom is all about?
The non-aggression principle and the L.P. pledge
By advocating the continuation of Social Security, my opponents are also endorsing at least 25 more years of a direct violation of the libertarian non-aggression principle, which is the core principle of our philosophy. For that matter, they are also endorsing a direct violation of the pledge that they took when they joined the Libertarian Party, a pledge in which they voluntarily vowed to never support the initiation of force.
Who is going to vote for a presidential candidate that advocates the violation of the core principle of his own party and the pledge that he voluntarily made when he joined the Libertarian Party? We know the answer to that question from those two WSJ polls: only 1 percent of the electorate will vote for that type of message from a L.P. presidential candidate.
A faith in socialism versus a faith in freedom
My opponents say that Social Security cannot be immediately repealed because, they say, freedom wouldn’t work. That is, they say that we cannot rely on children and grandchildren, church groups, grant-making foundations, neighborhood groups, friends, relatives, physicians, healthcare providers, and hospitals to voluntarily help seniors in need. Americans need, they say, the coercive apparatus of government to save people from what they say will be certain death if freedom were to be suddenly adopted through the repeal of Social Security.
Who in the world is going to vote for that type of message? Who would want to vote for the presidential candidate of a political party who goes against the party’s own philosophy by advocating the continuation of the crown jewel of American socialism and who claims that the party’s own philosophy of liberty, free markets, and voluntary charity simply won’t work?
Answer: 1 percent of the electorate. That’s what those two recent WSJ polls are reflecting.
Leading America to freedom
The message of my opponents for the L.P. presidential nomination is: “Join us at the barricades to fight for the continuation of socialism for the next 25 years, at which point we will then achieve freedom!”
What Libertarian is going to get excited and go the barricades over that message? That message does absolutely nothing for me. I want freedom now, not 25 years from now!
Our job as Libertarians is to lead America to freedom now, which means making the case for the immediate eradication of all infringements on liberty, including Social Security and other infringements on liberty. Freedom is not only morally right, there is no doubt that it really does work. Contrary to what my opponents believe, no one would be dying in the streets with the immediate repeal of Social Security or, for that matter, Medicare and every other socialist program. Everyone would be fine, given the outpouring of help for the truly needy that would come from children, grandchildren, church groups, friends, relatives, grant-making foundations, neighborhood groups, physicians, healthcare providers, hospitals, and others. We have to recapture our faith in freedom and reject the faith that people have come to have in the coercive apparatus of socialism. That’s how we Libertarians lead America (and the world) to freedom.