Recently, The United States celebrated the 75th anniversary of Social Security and the president Barack Obama promised to protect it against “privatization.” In a radio address, he said to the public: “Seventy-five years ago today, in the midst of the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law, laying a cornerstone in the foundation of America’s middle class, and assuring generations of America’s seniors that after a lifetime of hard work, they’d have a chance to retire with dignity. We have an obligation to keep that promise; to safeguard Social Security for our seniors, people with disabilities, and all Americans–today, tomorrow, and forever.”
Social security, needless to mention, is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on mankind. Such schemes are introduced in the midst of crises such as economic depressions, as it is easier to sell it to desperate people. It is forgotten that the depression itself was caused by the Central Bank, a government institution which inflates the currency and throws people into a life of poverty and misery. When Ayn Rand was asked (In the Mike Wallace Interview) whether there should be unemployment insurance when the economy breaks down, she replied: “Study economics. A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference. And the cure that is always offered is to take more of the poison that caused the disease. Depressions are not the result of a free economy.”
It is absurd to compare social security to voluntary insurance plans, as social security rests on coercion and coercion alone. Such a comparison will inevitably founder upon this simple but devastating question: If it is voluntary, why should the Government be involved? Such questions do not occur to proponents of the welfare state.
Alex Epstein writes in the Ayn Rand Institute website:
“This is a fraud. Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income--approximately 12 percent--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.”
Social security, needless to mention, is one of the greatest frauds perpetrated on mankind. Such schemes are introduced in the midst of crises such as economic depressions, as it is easier to sell it to desperate people. It is forgotten that the depression itself was caused by the Central Bank, a government institution which inflates the currency and throws people into a life of poverty and misery. When Ayn Rand was asked (In the Mike Wallace Interview) whether there should be unemployment insurance when the economy breaks down, she replied: “Study economics. A free economy will not break down. All depressions are caused by government interference. And the cure that is always offered is to take more of the poison that caused the disease. Depressions are not the result of a free economy.”
It is absurd to compare social security to voluntary insurance plans, as social security rests on coercion and coercion alone. Such a comparison will inevitably founder upon this simple but devastating question: If it is voluntary, why should the Government be involved? Such questions do not occur to proponents of the welfare state.
Alex Epstein writes in the Ayn Rand Institute website:
“This is a fraud. Under Social Security, lower- and middle-class individuals are forced to pay a significant portion of their gross income--approximately 12 percent--for the alleged purpose of securing their retirement. That money is not saved or invested, but transferred directly to the program's current beneficiaries--with the "promise" that when current taxpayers get old, the income of future taxpayers will be transferred to them. Since this scheme creates no wealth, any benefits one person receives in excess of his payments necessarily come at the expense of others.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment